Why YOU Should NOT Be a Member of an ACOG
Lonnie Hendrix
This blog is devoted to exposing everything that is wrong with the Armstrong Churches of God (United, Living, Worldwide, Restored, Philadelphia, International, Eternal, Continuing, etc.). In other words, all of the groups which emerged from the disintegration of the old Worldwide Church of God. And, although all of these groups claim to represent the “truth” promulgated by Herbert Armstrong in the Twentieth Century, they are simultaneously known for their differences on various doctrinal issues (both in content and emphasis), and their intense competition with each other for the aging and dwindling group of folks who were part of (or exposed to) the mother church.
Over the years, many of the folks who have perused our critiques of what we refer to as “Armstrongism” have asked: “Why are you obsessed with attacking our/their beliefs?” The answer, of course, is that most of the folks who have contributed to this blog are motivated by a desire to help others who have been ensnared by the same heretical beliefs which once ensnared us! In short, once upon a time, we too “drank the Kool-Aid” that Herbert Armstrong was serving.
We understand the appeal to ego/vanity and the reasoning behind the teachings. We have experienced the feeling of having special insight – of being superior to all of the “so-called” Christians of the world – of being one of the chosen and privileged few! But, more importantly, we have also experienced the abuse and cognitive dissonance inherent to this experience, and the realization that we were wrong about so many of the things which we had accepted because of our failure to fully explore the evidence available to us.
Let’s be clear, there are many sincere and good people who are (or have been) a part of Armstrongism. Indeed, more than a few of them have participated in this forum over the years! Most of the folks who are/were a part of Armstrongism are/were motivated by a desire to be within God’s will – to serve and obey him. Many of them have also exhibited the fruits of God’s Holy Spirit and have professed their faith in Jesus Christ, and what he has done for all of us. Likewise, some of them have even acknowledged that their own works will never earn them salvation or a place in God’s Kingdom.
Unfortunately, like many of the contributors to this blog, however, too many of them are afraid to reevaluate and/or abandon beliefs which they’ve “proven” to be true. They are fearful about losing the “truth,” their salvation, protection during the Great Tribulation, or their place in God’s Kingdom! As many of us here have experienced, the prospect of abandoning something to which you have devoted so much of your time, energy and affection is frightening!
Even so, we must also acknowledge that there are a great many individuals within the ACOGs who are motivated by self-interest, vanity, greed, and blind hatred. These folks seek to promote themselves, their own agenda, aggrandizement, or source of income. Indeed, many of the leaders of these various organizations use some of the same “hooks” and marketing techniques employed by the founder of the movement. Unfortunately, some of these leaders privately acknowledge that many of the beliefs which are widely accepted within their culture are wrong, but they continue to preach or tolerate them for fear of losing members and/or income! And there have always been folks who have been willing to use the threat of severing familial and friendly relationships as a cudgel to keep potentially problem members in check.
Which, incidentally, gets us to the point of this present post: Why would anyone want to be a part of something which has generated so much hurt and divisiveness? Is it really enough to acknowledge that mistakes were made in the past administration of the system? Do you really want to be a part of something which has divided families, alienated friends, and provoked vicious personal attacks on other people? Do you really want to be a part of something that controls and/or absorbs so much of your time and resources? Do you want to be a part of something that you KNOW promotes values and beliefs that are hateful and heretical? Do you really want to be a part of an organization which claims to be Christian and isn’t focused on Jesus of Nazareth and salvation through him?
Even so, some of my ACOG friends will say: “BUT we are commanded to fellowship with other believers, Lonnie!” “I am convinced that Christians should observe the Sabbath and eschew PAGAN holidays!” “I reject the Trinity and believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, water baptism, and the Christian Passover.” My suggestion: Try a Church of God Seventh Day congregation near you! (By the way, I am NOT a member of that organization – I am NOT affiliated with them in ANY way.) There are Seventh-Day Baptists, Seventh-Day Adventists, and a number of other Christian groups who observe the Sabbath. The bottom line: You have options! Can’t find a group who believes everything that you do? Welcome to the worldwide community of Christians! There are many Lutherans, Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, etc. who do NOT accept ALL of their church’s doctrines/teachings (and we’ve already established that there isn’t any uniformity of belief within the ACOGs either)!
If you are truly motivated by a desire to serve and obey God, then you will NOT settle for something which clearly does NOT represent him. God is not the author of confusion – Satan (and the people who have been deceived by him) is/are the author(s) of confusion! By any objective standard, the ACOGs are awash in confusion, division, and failure! I believe that this reality provides the most compelling reason why you should NOT be a member of an ACOG!
66 comments:
After jumping around from organization to organization for several years, many of us have given up becoming "members" of any group. The larger ones are the worst! And if they are small and begin to grow...they usually get more militant.
God knows who we are and all that we have gone through for the past few decades. In good conscientiousness it's difficult to walk through the doors and meet with a group that I don't really want to be with, knowing they probably don't want me there.
Christianity itself is divided into 41,000 denominations so there is plenty of confusion to go around.
I'm not a big fan of Armstrongism either and I have no problem pointing out their stupidity. But often, it's not that which is under fire here, but the belief system itself, the law, sabbath, holydays, etc. and then false connotations placed on them that everyone believing in those institutions are doing so to earn salvation.
We all have our biases. Switching churches will not change that!
The only thing more spiritually dangerous than being a member of a COG is to listen to the tools of Satan who want you to keep Sunday and to ditch the Sabbath that Jesus and Paul kept.
It's kinda funny how we have a couple of preacher's kids here now, rebelling against their fathers faith.
One pushing Catholicism and the other just plain confusion.
Perhaps expanding the concept to "Why You Should Not Be a Member of Any Organized Religion"?
"Stay home from Church. Save 10, 20, 30% and more!" :)
"Most of our world’s major religions each assume that it is their faith alone that is the “absolute truth” and refuse to concede that those traditions may be mistaken. Instead, they discover ways to force conflicting information to adapt to their own doctrine; no matter how effective the evidence is at actually disproving the rationality of that particular religion.
Many religious adherents have no problem understanding the irrationality of others beliefs, but are unable to apply the same logic when observing their own doctrine. Instead, every effort is made to justify why it is their – and only their – religion that is void of any fault.
If they were to observe their own faith with the same set of scrutinizing eyes that they see through when evaluating other’s faiths, they would understand what many of us have already concluded – all of our religious texts were written by people, not gods. They are the stories and traditions that we created in order to explain our world in the past."
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2015/10/the-problem-with-faith-11-ways-religion-is-destroying-humanity/
Believer: How can you be a non-believer?!
Non-believer: Do you believe in Zeus or Mithras?
Believer: No! Of course not.
Non-believer: It's like that....
PS Why have returned to contributing to Banned?
Mostly because contributing on the AC Alumni Site was beyond useless as it is mainly made up with uber Christian patriots, Creationists and like most splits and splinters, who have a new Lord and Savior in Donald Trump. Others, former pastors, have now become medical experts in disease transmission and the concept of immunizations. Conspiracy runs deep and hot.
I like contributing openly about my own path out and wish more of you would no matter where it has taken you. I won't be calling you names or cosigning you to eternal darkness and oblivion in the Lake of Fire for your own experiences. We're all just people doing the best we can, is my view.
All I could come up with was "These are not my people" :)
Dennis,
As always, I appreciate your perspective (that's why I brought my post to your attention). You and I know that some will excoriate you for arriving at (and advocating for) an atheist viewpoint. Although my journey produced different conclusions from the ones you reached, you represent another legitimate consequence of having been affiliated with Armstrongism - the rejection of all faith. By the way, just for the record, my faith doesn't consign you to Hell/Lake of Fire either!
While I have been exposed to the same evidence that you have examined, I emerged from my reexamination of it with my faith in God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible intact. As you know, I believe that Scripture is/was a joint project between God and humankind. I do NOT subscribe to the doctrine of inerrancy (I believe that the evidence does NOT support that notion). Even so, just as I see much evidence of the human part of the equation in those writings, I also see much evidence of the Divine breath. I understand your point about organized religion, and I share your aversion to many of its features (it has produced a significant amount of bad/evil down through the centuries). However, humans also need the help and support of folks who share their faith/outlook (we are social creatures). Finally, for me, the triumph of a faith based on a person who was crucified by the Romans and the sacred book of an insignificant nomadic people (Hebrews) who were conquered and persecuted by larger, more powerful, and very significant nations/empires is simply too much to dismiss as happenstance.
And, I'm very glad that you are part of our people here on Banned by HWA.
HWA was a subtle and calculated seductionist. And, he was one of the more effective ones for his day because he brought a certain savoir faire to the process from his preferred career, which was sales and advertising. It really helps the sales process when what appears to be in the line is one's protection from the most devastating disasterin the entire history of mankind, one's eternal salvation. Certain personality types were very susceptible to the idea of voluntarily allowing HWA to insert an entire additional layer of draconian authority over their existence, while being deflected into worrying not about it being unnecessary and ruining their lives, but instead about shaking in their boots over a wrong attitude towards it creeping into their minds and losing the promised protection or their eternal lives.
The cretins who have acquired an Armstrong franchise today lack the finesse which Heriberto seemed to have as an innate gift. They also fail to realize that Armstrongism was created to function in the existing social conditions of the 1940s through early 1960s. They ignore the fact that HWA burned the entire scam by being dead wrong in 1972-75. That is readily ascertainable and is a continuing black mark on the record of that movement. They reject the science which proves that the basis for their prophecies is simply impossible. After all, there is an existing base for Armstrong nostalgia. If you click your heels and wear your blinders securely so that the virtual hurricane of facts does not dislodge them, just maybe it will all work out as the old man they must still rely upon said it would. There is no shortage of excuses and explanations, and if you try hard enough, you can even learn to live with the horrible rotten fruits of practicing Armstrongism in your daily life.
Thanks for sharing your own path Lonnie. Well understood. I prefer " non believer" to atheist. I guess I could go with agnostic but that's just atheist light. 😉👍
I would agree that you do not have to belong to an ACOG to be a Christian. I think that is determined by whether Christ is working inside you or not. I do not believe you must be in a church that is linked to the Armstrong version of COG7.
I also believe having a biblical worldview is pretty essential. I would definitely disagree with Dennis on that.
For if the Bible were not true it would be impossible to prove anything. Only the Bible can make sense of the things necessary for knowledge. Secular worldviews blow themselves up on its on terms. They will not make knowledge possible because there is no basis for it. They have to stand on Christian pre-suppositions to support their own worldview.
What I dont understand Dennis, is that if you believe there is no God, why do you care if others do? You seem to have an almost "evangelistic" need to convince us to join you in your atheism.
If everything is nihilism, and a result of determinism started in process at the Big Bang, then why do you care about this topic? If religionist get some sort of comfort, or pleasure from being a believer in some kind of religion, then why try to wreck their illusion?
I really dont understand atheism evangelism motivation.
That was me Lonnie. At work on phone app.
Original reply was anonymous and yet to be posted
An agnostic is not the same thing as an athiest. Sheesh. This site is hopeless.
The COGs never taught earning salvation. Those who don't get the distinction between obedience and earning are either dumb or lying.
You don't have to understand it. As I have said many times, I don't care what you or anyone else believes. But WHY one believes fascinates me as it does millions of others who are not hemed in by the need to believe without the critical examination. Of course everyone claims they do that but notice how often I might get attacked for broaching uncomfortable topics and biblical realities verses how often the actual post gets addressed. Name calling and labeling is much easier and requires no understanding of the issue presented. IMHO
Anonymous September 13 at 9:16 said...
"An agnostic is not the same thing as an athiest. Sheesh. This site is hopeless."
You're right, of course, as long as we're talking about philosophical orientation, or belief system. However, we need to consider life practices as well, and individuals may adopt practices aligned with the believers around them even if they doubt the basis for those practices. As an extreme example, I know a Jew who observes the rituals of the Orthodox Lubavitchers but admits he does not believe the g-d of the Torah actually exists. It's just that the rituals themselves satisfy some deep need in him. Who can disapprove of his choice? Not I.
Or take me. I have no need for formal rituals, and I practice only such secular rituals as standing for the national anthem, paying my taxes, registering my automobile with the DMV, stopping at red lights, and so forth. I lost all belief in a supernatural god many years ago, so prayer has long seemed pointless. Unlike for my Jewish acquaintance, it leaves me empty. However, the moral practices I grew up with in conservative Christian communities are certainly worthwhile. I mean the ones that cluster around the principle "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Now back to the question of atheism and agnosticism. I do not know whether any god exists or not. About that deep uncertainty I am absolutely certain. That makes me an agnostic, philosophically. I also do not bother with praying, or observing ritual taboos such as avoiding pork or shellfish, or sending money to people who claim to be collecting it on behalf of their god. My wife and I did not subject our infant children to ritual genital mutilation. I cannot be absolutely certain that no wrathful supernatural agent will send me to hell for such neglect. That is not a matter of faith. It is merely my default assumption.
In short, though I am philosophically an agnostic, I am an atheist in practice.
Consider one difference between earning salvation and following God's commandments (orders).
Say you are ten years old. You dad says, stop throwing rocks at the house. So you stop. Then you say, Dad you owe me money. I EARNED it! I did what I was ORDERED to do.
Ps. I've be a good 10 plus years here on banned explaining myself and how the transition goes and why. If you don't understand me by now you never will
Such a great article Lonnie, with the same pertinent questions I ask myself and God every single day. Well meaning people who want to do right by God but have been completely snowed by mostly con men. I pray they will have the courage to look at the criticisms of Acog doctrines and decide that eternity with God is worth whatever pain they may experience when they realize this blog doesn't seek their damnation, but their salvation, if that is what they are seeking. Yes, there are some atheists and agnostics, but that is no threat to a believer. We disagree with them...respectfully. I just want the cog member to understand that whatever criticism there is of the doctrines and methods in these groups, it is not being stated in order to lead them further astray. No one would put the time and effort in to what Banned does daily unless they cared that folks are being deceived and hurt. If practicing Christianity is what someone wants, how could you not tell them these teachings are wrong and here's why.
I have never met a born again Christian that wanted anything other than the peace that surpasses all understanding that we have in Jesus for others. But if you are being taught another Jesus and another Gospel, we would be just as guilty as the false leaders of these groups if we did not speak up. Accept it or not, but the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe and rest in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Anything other than that is simply not going to bring anybody into a right relationship with God despite what Armstrongism teaches.
Psalm 37:21-22 "The wicked borrows and does not repay..." That is, all evil people have certain traits, just like animal species have specific traits. Dennis denies this. When people discern that he is no different than those who constantly persecute them, and call him out on this, he plays stupid and complains of being attacked, name called and being unjustly labelled.
DW at 12:36,
Is there Salvation (eternal life) for me if I reject Armstrongism or Christianity and become like Dennis? I am in a dilemma. Or, to play safe, follow the adage: when in doubt, don't. And I am back in Armstrongism in no time. It is not easy for Banned to convince me though I tried and tried and still trying. Too many non-atarters (Trinity, Plan of Salvation, Sabbath,Holy Days, Unclean Meat, etc).
90% of those men you're taking a pop at are dead.
At one time, I would have been the first in line to suggest that Armstrongists have been forcibly indoctrinated. But that does not fly. What Armstrongists believe is so radically different from what I believe as a Christian that I would regard their beliefs as blatantly heretical. Armstrongist theology seems to be based on many interconnected misinterpretations of scripture – a network of ideas discordant with Christian theology. But it has a kind of faux logic behind it. But wait. An atheist would look at me as a Christian and believe the very same thing about me that I believe about Armstrongists. And Muslims would have the same view of Armstrongists, Christians and Atheists.
If someone wants to believe that the moon is made out of green cheese, what do you do about it? There are motivations that lead to belief. These motivations can override any counterpoint. It’s like I discovered years ago, if your wife wants to be angry at you, it doesn’t require a reason. Belief is a human strength but also a human vulnerability. Belief can create and destroy. It can reflect reality or it can deny reality. Recognizing what is true is not a default human condition but a constant struggle.
Scout
9:19 wrote, "The COGs never taught earning salvation. Those who don't get the distinction between obedience and earning are either dumb or lying."
The WCG taught salvation by works. And unless a COG abandons Armstrongism in a radical way, the COG will also teach salvation by works. They will claim that they do not but they have hidden the concept of earned salvation inside another doctrine called Qualification. They can talk faith, grace and salvation all day long and you will never nail them down unless you focus on their doctrine of Qualification.
See the following:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/01/bootstrapping-salvation-disturbing.html
Scout
9:26
I agree with DW's statement at 12:36. It is well stated. I don't want to elbow in but a great place to start is to put everything you now believe on hold, consider nothing a non-starter, and read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.
Scout
There are more bible interpretations than a person could shake a stick at. Most people just go with the commonest ones or whatever they hear first or whatever seems to make sense before they have even tried to find out what other interpretations are out there and what might be plausible.
It is a lie to say the WCG taught salvation by works. Totally absured.
Jesus was sinless. He taught obedience to the law. Did he say he was earning his salvation?
It is impossible to educated those bullheaded souls who have a deep-seated psychological need to reject the law, which they find too burdensome. It gets down to emotional maturity, not "scholarship".
8:42
I think you are probably a troll. But in case you are not, look at the link I posted at 7:55.
Then come back with a well-ordered rebuttal rather than an Armstrongist sound bite.
Scout
Scout wrote:
"The WCG taught salvation by works. And unless a COG abandons Armstrongism in a radical way, the COG will also teach salvation by works. They will claim that they do not but they have hidden the concept of earned salvation inside another doctrine called Qualification. They can talk faith, grace and salvation all day long and you will never nail them down unless you focus on their doctrine of Qualification. "
I cannot speak for other COGs but in CGI we believe that the blood of Jesus is our qualification for Salvation.
From our booklet "The Assurance of Salvation" https://www.cgi.org/the-assurance-of-salvation/
“When a person is saved—when his sins are blotted off the record and he receives the Holy Spirit—he can be absolutely certain that the “captain of [his] salvation” (Hebrews 2:10, KJV) will take him safely to the desired destination, provided the rescued person doesn’t take foolish risks or decide to abandon the ship. As long as he remains in the faith, though he may encounter the stormy seas of trial and temptation along the way, he can rest assured that he is “sealed for the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30). Having been saved through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, he does not then have to “qualify” before he is fit for the Kingdom of God. He has been declared fit, not through personal achievement or an impressive record of good deeds, but by the grace of God, which he receives through faith.”
“Abraham did not “qualify” for the Kingdom of God through a lifetime of building character. God declared him “qualified” on the basis of faith. As Paul wrote, “For if Abraham was justified [declared righteous] by works [by his deeds, his actions], he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’” (Romans 4:2–3).”
We do believe that as result of our faith we are obedient to Christ.
Hi Lonnie,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings on this topic. This is a great blog post. I could relate to what you wrote, as it reminded me of my own past situation. You expressed yourself very well, and I liked how you said, "Can’t find a group who believes everything that you do? Welcome to the worldwide community of Christians!"
I've tried the Seventh-Day Baptists, Seventh-Day Adventists, and a number of other Christian and Messianic Jewish groups who observe the Sabbath (and Holy Days), and you are correct, we do have options.
I appreciate your honesty and courage in writing this post, and I’m glad you shared it.
Take Care and God Bless
..."we are inching closer to the period of time called the “great tribulation” (Matthew 24:21)..........This coming weekly Sabbath is also a Holy Day. We will gather to observe the Feast of Trumpets, the prophesied Day of the Lord, picturing the second coming of Jesus Christ".......Len Martin, UCG, 9-13-23 REALLY??
The "great tribulation" appears to have already occurred, Av 10 70 AD to Nisan 15 74 AD, 1335 days. The FOTR is not a feast but a sabbath. There are only 3 feasts; compare Ex 23:14-16 with Lev 23:2 and the Hebrew for the word "feast(s)". Lev 23:24 does not mention trumpets. No verse states the "Feast of Trumpets" (FOTR) is the Day of the Lord. The FOTR is a memorial. Who is to remember what? Certainly not a future event. (!?)
The FOTR appears to be a time for Israel to make noise so that God will remember them! And the FOTR may be an added law because of transgressions - Gal 3:17-25, now removed! The FOTR is not in Exodus 20-23 but the 3 feasts are.
We are NOT rejecting the Law or obedience to God! We are upholding it by internalizing the principles of love for God and each other and attempting to follow the guidance of God's Holy Spirit. True obedience is NOT found in any list of dos and don'ts!
11:48 wrote, "Jesus was sinless. He taught obedience to the law. Did he say he was earning his salvatiochn?"
Obedience to a moral code and earning salvation by works are two different categories. Christianity is about the former and Armstrongism is about the latter. Jesus and Paul were not anti-nomian. Jesus left us many rules of behavior and Paul attacked immorality in the first few chapters of Romans. Throughout the New Testament there are rules for a good Christian life. (In contravention to the assertion of some Armstrongists that there are no laws in the NT and we have to get our laws from the Torah).
The Armstrongist misunderstanding is that Christianity advocates nothing but "cheap grace". In the MOA p. 52, Herbert traced the Christian concept of grace to Simon Magus and claimed that Simon transformed grace into a license to disobey and he implies that Simon then identified this heresy as Christianity. Although he waffles a bit, Herbert subtley tries to say that modern Christianity is a religion that originated with Simon Magus and his "cheap grace." This is because Herbert and his followers do not know what grace is. Nor do they understand Christianity. What Armstrongist maintain is a double whammy of self-condemnation. First, they speak a calumny against true Christianity. Second, they speak this calumny from the perspective of heretical earned salvation.
You will find that Armstrongists write ardent denials of earned salvation in their literature. But then they wrap the heretical Doctrine of Qualification around their soteriology. When they state you must qualify for the Kingdom it is the same as saying you must earn your salvation. The semantics is different but the principle is the same. See the link on my comment at 7:55.
Herbert likely knew he was wrong on this point. He may have read Methodist theology. A book by one of the Wesley's was found in his desk drawer after his death as I understand. I doubt that Herbert found a section in Wesley's book that advocates the concept of "cheap grace". Nor would he find it in any Christian Systematic Theology. If you can find it, let us know.
Scout
Believe that was Finney, not Wesley...
Did Jesus obey? Yes. Did he teach salvation by works? No. Obedience to the law is not salvation by works.
There are a lot of trolls on here calling anyone who proves them wrong a troll.
"Did He say He was earning His salvation?"
No! He was earning ours! That was the entire reason for His physical existence! To pay humanity's sin debt.
I appreciate the appreciation DW and Mario! If the post helps one person, it will be worth the effort I put into it.
This site and it’s Bloggers have been a source of strength and support in leaving a ACOG cult. I wish there was a like button for comments. Just wanted to say thank you. Your work has not been in vain.
Problem is they've never left any Church.
I think one of the worst mistakes in the faith and works issue is that the COGs have tried to equate works with a few elements of the Sinai Law (primarily the sabbath and holydays and unclean foods).
Here's what it does:
1) It allows those in the COGs to think they have works and others do not. In the COG mindset it matters not that you feed the hungry and help the widows and orphans, because without sabbath keeping you are not a real Christian.
Further, it covers up the distinct possibility that the COG member really does not have works. And, without real works, your faith is dead. Faith is what is to drive our actual works (works for others generally). The COG member that holds to Sinai Law should recognize that observing commands does not equate to works.
2) It cheapens the value of actual Christian works. How easily ministers in the COGs diminish the generosity and sacrifice that non-COG Christians daily perform. Often dismissed as a sort of human sentimentality. I remember hearing that a non-Cog church gave COGWA the church building that they had allowed to be rented by COGWA on Saturdays. Much was made of the care in which the COG members took of the building and of the blessing God gave in providing a church building, but little about the sheer generosity of the non-COG church.
3)Equating works with law-keeping moves the COGs from expressions of love and outgoing concern for others. Without that outgoing concern it is highly likely they will move from a COG.
4) Though these points bleed into one another, this satisfaction in observing these Sinai Laws as works creates a kind of COG smugness. It keeps them from interactions with non-COG Christians and frankly non-COG Christians recognize the smugness.
5) There is no light that the COGs show. There is no candle, and a basket is not necessary in hiding COG works.
Armstrong developed his brand. His brand was to be different from mainstream CHristians in any way possible. That was his niche. He drew distinctions to separate the WCG from other churches and sadly other family members. Law keeping as works played into that.
Jeff Reed
What you have stated in your comment is compatible with what Christians have believed since the First Century and is clearly at odds with Classical Armstrongism. I scanned the first part of the CGI article you cite and was encouraged by this statement:
“The idea that a person who has the Holy Spirit must then “qualify” for entry into the kingdom by reaching a certain standard of spiritual perfection was completely foreign to Paul’s thinking.”
This amounts to a renunciation of Armstrongist soteriology and that is a big step away from heresy. I have some concerns about whether this principle thoroughly permeates your praxis. The case I would cite is the Sabbath (and by extension, the holy days). Does you fellowship believe the Sabbath is a requirement for salvation or is it only of cultural and pedagogical interest? If the former, you still have one foot in Armstrongism.
There is a legal argument as to why the Sabbath is not a requirement for salvation that has to do with the abrogation of the Law of Moses and the institution of the Law of Christ but I will put that aside for the moment. There is also a soteriological argument, which is of interest here, against the requirement of the Sabbath. NT soteriology does not include law-keeping of any sort as a pre-condition to salvation. Law-keeping or ethical behavior or Christian love, however denominated, is instead an output of salvation that has already been granted. The requirements for salvation are faith, grace and repentance. And this results in Christ living his life, a life of good works, in the Christian through the Holy Spirit. It is not all of this plus observing the Sabbath as additional condition.
Armstrongist soteriology hangs up on repentance. I feel I need to add this because when Armstrongists read the reference to repentance in the previous paragraph, they will misunderstand it and become confused. Repentance is a change of heart and mind. It is not a new set of behaviors. This is really, really hard for Armstrongists to understand because of the way they have been indoctrinated. It is the difference between process and product. Repentance is the process (as a state of changed heart) and good behavior is the product. There is a category difference, that Armstrongism loses, between repentance and the “fruit of repentance”. By analogy, fishing is the process and a caught fish is the product. When you ask a fisherman what “fishing” is, he will describe fishing poles, bait and casting. He will not hold up a fish and say “this is fishing”. The Thief on the Cross had a changed heart of repentance. My belief is that this qualitatively changed his heart towards his condition of hanging on the cross. It ceased to be forensic and became spiritual. But this is subtle and the Thief did not have the fruit of repentance in his walk in life because his life was ended. Yet he was accepted into salvation by Jesus because I believe he repented.
In summation, if you retain the Sabbath or any law as a pre-condition for salvation (think of the circumcision issue), you have departed from grace in Christ. (This is where Armstrongists will accuse me of law-breaking because what I have written will go over their heads completely.) And any other sop thrown to grace, faith and repentance is of no value.
Scout
Regarding my point 3 above, I meant to say:
3)Equating works with law-keeping moves the COGs from expressions of love and outgoing concern for others. Without that outgoing concern it is highly UNLIKELY they will move from a COG.
To add to this, groups like the COGs cultivate the idea that people need to be in their group. Emphasizing the importance of being a part of the group much more frequently than silly subjective things like "good works" directed toward others is a fruit of the belief that works are equivalent to law-keeping.
Scout asked:
"Does you fellowship believe the Sabbath is a requirement for salvation or is it only of cultural and pedagogical interest?"
The Sabbath is not a requirement of Salvation. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). Salvation is only through God's grace. But the Sabbath, to a Christian, is more than just cultural or pedagogical.
The question that should be asked is, "Is breaking the Sabbath a sin?"
Yes, because it is one of God's laws and ten commandments. A repentant Christian will overcome sin through the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:16).
If you now conclude that because we teach that Sabbath-breaking is a sin, that is the equivalent of making it a requirement for Salvation, you would be creating a strawman argument.
"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction." Wikipedia
I think we can all agree that murder is a sin. So, would you say that "not murdering" is a requirement of Salvation? No, that is a silly argument. "Not murdering" is not a requirement of Salvation because it is only received by God's grace. "Not murdering" doesn't earn us anything. But a faithful Christian does not murder.
Keeping the Sabbath for a Christian is an act of faith and obedience to their Savior. A Christian's motivation to keep the Sabbath is love for Jesus.
The real discussion should be, "Does the New Testament teach Sabbath observance?" You and other traditional Christians believe it doesn't. And it is interesting that the belief the early church observed Sunday is very vague and sketchy (Acts 20:7, Revelation 1:10, 1 Corinthians 16:2). But the Sabbath was clearly taught and kept (Mark 2:27, Hebrews 4, Acts 17:2, Colossians 2:16-17, Matthew 12:10-12, Revelation 14:12, Luke 23:46, etc).
Being a recipient of God's grace is a wonderful thing and one of His best gifts for us is His Sabbath Day.
Mr. Armstrong taught generations of people to be accusers of the brethren and to deny the Holy Spirit. He was a false prophet and unfortunately continues to be a false teacher through many people who are ignorant of who they are really following. If you are not led by the Holy Spirit, you will not understand this.
Sin for the Christian is not defined by the 613 commandments of Torah. Once again, Christians are required to observe Christ's commandments which summarize/comprehend the Torah and God's will for all people for all times. Christians rest in Christ and his work. Hence, the observance of a physical Sabbath is NOT required for God's saints (those who have faith in Jesus and have received the Holy Spirit), but there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Christian observing the Sabbath (I still do). In short, a true Christian's life will reflect love and appreciation for God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I am glad to see Jeff acknowledge that we are saved by our faith and God's GRACE! Amen!
And yet murderers will not inherit the kingdom of God.
“Outside the city are the dogs—the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.”
Revelation 22:15 NLT
And as our Lord and Savior and only true God said, hatred is murder.
Notice sabbath breaking isn’t included in this list. False prophets teach lies. When you follow them, you follow lies.
Not accepting the grace of God and extending the grace of God to others is the way in which all people break the sabbath. Isaiah 58 talks about the sabbath the Lord desires as does Isaiah 1. And many other places where the gospel is preached.
Found this on the web. Interesting analysis on Leviticus 11 for the church. Abridged to less than 4,096 characters
The Apostles Peter and Paul have been given an untrue and bad reputation as having contradicted the dietary instructions of Leviticus 11.
The primary reason God gave this distinction is for His people to be holy – that means set apart for God’s purposes. Understanding the difference between clean and unclean and abstaining from unclean animals is one aspect of living a holy life – and being more like God.
Romans 6:19-22
In these verses, Paul discussed our old life before Christ and then compared it to our new life in Christ. Speaking of our old life, he said that we used to be slaves to impurity and ever-increasing wickedness. The Greek word translated as impurity is akatharsia, and it refers to actions of uncleanness, including eating unclean animal meat. The Greek words translated as ‘ever increasing wickedness’ is actually the Greek word anomia written twice. It means lawlessness or transgression of God’s law. Our new life is supposed to result in holiness, which includes abstaining from unclean animal meat.
Another place Paul mentions this issue is 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1.
“14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness (or lawlessness) have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 “Therefore come out from them and be separate,” says the Lord. “Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” 18 “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” 7:1 Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.”
In this passage, we are again directly commanded to abstain from unclean animals. This is another obvious instruction from the Apostle Paul to continue to follow Leviticus 11 and 20:25-26. He concluded this section of scripture by emphasizing holiness.
Lastly, Paul wrote in I Thessalonians 4:7, “For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness” (KJV). Our calling is to live a life free from uncleanness.
Another writer in the Bible that strongly defends the dietary laws is Peter. In Acts chapters 10 and 11, he affirmed that he never ate anything unclean.
In his first letter, he quoted Leviticus 11 and 20. In I Peter 1:13-16, he wrote, “13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. 14 As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. 15 But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16 for it is written: “Be Holy, because I am holy.”
This quote is found three places in the Old Testament. Two of them are in Leviticus 11 and 20 (quoted above in bold). The third is Leviticus 19:1-3: “The Lord said to Moses, 2 ‘Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy. 3 Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths. I am the Lord your God.”
Peter refers us to three passages in Leviticus. Two of them have to do with how we eat. The other focuses on the Sabbath and how we treat our parents. After instructing believers to be holy in everything, Peter points us to a passage giving us specific instructions on holy living. Eating is a common action.
Full text - https://defendmyfaith.org/2020/05/17/peter-and-paul-defenders-of-clean-and-unclean/
This sabbath vs sabbath not required controversy primarily continues because there is no direct commandment to observe the 7th day sabbath in the NT.
The sabbath is a given, established at creation. Nothing in the NT mentions the sabbath as removed, disannulled, done away, ceased. As Jeff pointed out there are NT verses referring to the sabbath as existing, after Christ's death and resurrection.
It is a study to determine which laws existed and were obeyed by Abraham-Gen 26:5, and which laws were given "430 years later" and now removed-Gal 3:17-25 because of transgressions of laws already established such as the weekly sabbath.
Jeff Reed 12:40
I understand the difference between a law and the requirements for salvation. From what you have written, I am satisfied that you do not class the keeping of the Sabbath with the bestowed gifts of grace, faith and repentance that lead to salvation. I did not ask if you thought that breaking the Sabbath was a sin because that was not relevant to the issue of requiring the Sabbath for salvation. But now it is time to turn to that question.
I stated the following in what I wrote to you:
"There is a legal argument as to why the Sabbath is not a requirement for salvation that has to do with the abrogation of the Law of Moses and the institution of the Law of Christ but I will put that aside for the moment. "
In the statement above, I am referring to the Sabbath being included in a body of abrogated law, that is, the Law of Moses or the Torah. Because of this, the Sabbath cannot be a requirement for salvation in the New Testament because it is no longer in force. Your assertion is that the Sabbath is not a requirement for salvation but it is in force like such laws as "Thou shalt not kill."
I will not debate with you the persistence of the seventh day observance related to the letter of the Sabbath law, although I could. The termination of the Torah has been addressed exhaustively in Christian writing. But some Torahic laws are carried forward into the New Covenant. In the New Covenant, the Sabbath does not persist in the letter but persists in the spirit in the same way that circumcision persists. Jesus is our Rest from sin. Lonnie references this. And the observance of the seventh day has only optional instructive value or cultural value under the New Covenant.
So, for the New Christian (faithful, repentant and saved), I would point them towards the Mount of Olives for their walk in Christ and you would point them toward Mount Sinai. Your view is an intermediate position between Armstrongism and Christianity. It preserves one of the fundamental errors or Armstrongism: The belief that the Law of Moses is the eternal moral law of God and in a more stringent form must be written on the hearts and minds of Christians. In that sense, it is a form of Neo-Armstrongism.
Scout
Any time I see the terms "Christ's commandments" or the "Law of Christ", it is looks to me that these people bristle at the idea of keeping the laws of the Old Testament, even though Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of those laws will disappear until heaven and earth pass and everything has come to pass (Matt 5:18 Greek genetai - happens, occurs).
He came to fulfill the law? Yes. The Greek word (Matt 5:17 plerosai) means to fill it up to the full. His examples follow: it is not only wrong to murder, it is wrong to hate. It is not only wrong to commit adultery, it is wrong to lust.
The fact that so many people are opposed to keeping God's laws are amazing. Here is the Great Creator of man -- who loves man, and wants man to be healthy and happy and prosperous -- that Great Creator provided laws that, if followed, would bring just that, and people twist and turn to extremes to avoid doing them. Amazing.
"Christians rest in Christ and his work"
I have never understood that idea. It seems like a flimsy excuse to not keep the Sabbath. Can someone please explain that term?
Anonymous wrote:
"Christians rest in Christ and his work"
"I have never understood that idea. It seems like a flimsy excuse to not keep the Sabbath. Can someone please explain that term?"
Yes, I am also curious as to when this interpretation of doing away with the Sabbath Commandment became popular in the United States. The majority of Christianity believe in a Sabbath command; they just believe it was transferred to Sunday. I thought that growing up in Alabama. Resting and not working was so common that we had Sunday blue laws. People would have the ten commandments posted in their house and none of them were crossed out.
So does anyone know who, when, how, that idea was introduced?
Scout,
I agree with your commentary at 3:02, but that last paragraph of your comment is brilliant - loved it!
Anonymous questioning the meaning of "Christians rest in Christ and his work,"
In the fourth chapter of the book of Hebrews, we read: "God’s promise of entering his rest still stands, so we ought to tremble with fear that some of you might fail to experience it. For this good news—that God has prepared this rest—has been announced to us just as it was to them. But it did them no good because they didn’t share the faith of those who listened to God. For only we who believe can enter his rest... We know it is ready because of the place in the Scriptures where it mentions the seventh day: 'On the seventh day God rested from all his work.' But in the other passage God said, 'They will never enter my place of rest.' So God’s rest is there for people to enter, but those who first heard this good news failed to enter because they disobeyed God. So God set another time for entering his rest, and that time is today. God announced this through David much later in the words already quoted:
'Today when you hear his voice, don’t harden your hearts.'
Now if Joshua had succeeded in giving them this rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest still to come. So there is a special rest still waiting for the people of God. For all who have entered into God’s rest have rested from their labors, just as God did after creating the world. So let us do our best to enter that rest. But if we disobey God, as the people of Israel did, we will fall."
In the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, we read: "Then Jesus said, 'Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light.'
In the third chapter of Paul's epistle to the saints at Rome, we read: "Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses, and to show that the entire world is guilty before God. For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are. But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are."
In the second chapter of his epistle to the Galatians, we read: "we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.' But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not! Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down. For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law—I stopped trying to meet all its requirements—so that I might live for God. My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die."
This is what it means to rest in Jesus Christ.
Yes, Hebrews 4 showing believers as entering into Christ's rest is excellent. It is very inspirational and is the goal of all Christians. Included here is the command in verse 9 "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God". The word is the Greek sabbatismos, a keeping of the Sabbath day. So it is clear that we do indeed have that ultimate goal of entering into that eternal spiritual rest that comes with faith, and that we are to remember how great that will be by observing a Sabbath day while in the flesh, lest we forget. It is too bad that so many think that the promise of entering this spiritual rest means that we don't have to rest while we are flesh. Again, God gave us laws for our good (Deut 6:2 and others). We disobey to our detriment.
Unfortunately, some simply cannot see. We obey God by accepting his Son, and what he has done for us. As Christians, we obey God by loving each other as we love our own selves and treating other folks the way in which we would like to be treated. This demonstrates our love for (and obedience to) God! Moreover, our lives will reflect the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Law of Love which has been written on our hearts (humility/meekness, compassion, kindness, patience, self-control, etc.). Resting in Christ will result in eternal life in God's presence - observing the Sabbath will NOT produce the same result.
@ Lonnie 9:47PM
" We obey God by accepting his Son..."
Where is the command from God to accept His Son? Sure, He encourages it, and makes His Spirit available to those that keep His commands so that they will be able to accept Him, but there is no command to do so. It's a choice, and He hopes we will choose to obey His law and by doing so accept His Son's sacrifice.
"This demonstrates our love for (and obedience to) God!"
God says that keeping His commandments demonstrates our love for Him. Your position is clearly anti-bible. It's painfully obvious who you are listening to.
9:20 wrote, "It is too bad that so many think that the promise of entering this spiritual rest means that we don't have to rest while we are flesh."
Let me elbow in. Circumcision was a requirement for receiving the promises made to Abraham. These promises are really what Christians expect to receive in their full spiritual meaning. Paul states that the addition of the Torah did not nullify these promises. But what happened to circumcision. It became spiritual and is now of the heart.
Paul waged war against the Circumcision Party. The Circumcision Party were Pharisees who became followers of Jesus. So, they knew Paul’s authority and they knew his declaration that circumcision was now of the heart and not of the flesh. But they wanted to retain the letter of the law – circumcision of the flesh – as a requirement for the inheritance of the promises made to Abraham. If you were to ask them why, I am sure among the reasons offered would be that circumcision of the flesh reminds believers of the promises made to Abraham.
The Sabbath still exists. Seventh day observance was a mere foreshadow of Christ in substance. The Sabbath in its true spiritual meaning is Jesus. Jesus is our Sabbath. This follows the circumcision model precisely. It was something that was kept in the letter that has now become spiritual so the letter is no longer needed. It is about resting from our works of sin and trust in Jesus. We do not need to keep the seventh day just as we do not need to be circumcised in the flesh to be able to remember the spiritual intent of these superseded requirements.
In fact, it is the reverse. The people who observe the seventh day seem to be unable to remember its spiritual intent. The letter eclipses the spirit for them and they persistently argue for the letter. If you mention resting in Jesus to them, they are perplexed. For them it is about resting from physical labors. Or about the creation. And Jesus is nowhere in sight.
The semantics of Jesus being our rest seems ethereal to those who need an explanation that relates to the material realm. But the New Testament uses this language repeatedly. Jesus is the Temple. Jesus is the life. Jesus is the resurrection. Jesus is the bread of life. Jesus is the truth. Jesus is the way. The fact is, Jesus is the summation of all things (Ephesians 1:22).
Scout
Anonymous @ 5:36,
You quote me like you quote the Bible!
Is it really any better though, to sign up with Emperor Constantine's Sundays & Eostre
How about ex-WCG youths Tricia Jenkins, LaNisa Frederick and Glynn Washington who are podcasters now
one episode features real mid-70's lost tapes of WCG coworker/world chess champ Bobby Fischer 'splaining how upset he was to find out that 1975 in prophecy "came and went"
Ep 1.7: Finding Bobby Fischer: Lost Interviews with the World Chess Champion (Worldwide: The Unchosen Church) on Worldwide with @TuneIn. #NowPlaying http://tun.in/tnAeP0
Why would you think it originated in the States?
what if they believed that a complex watch could not be made without a watchmaker
isn't atomic and DNA & stellar orbital complexity as complex as a watch or a Henry Ford car can a Model T suddenly evolutionize itself into existence?
aren't the other side of black holes probably so hard to explain that the real God would have to be up in there operating things
or down below the higgs-bosons
how can a speck of mud and enzymes & proteins claim the spark of life on it's own from in or out of a black hole or dimension without a God or watchmaker?
besides, when Brexit came true, that proves God exists and reveals to us a lot
Post a Comment