Since our favorite self-appointed crackpot prophet of the modern-day Church of God movement announced he was starting his own splinter cult, he has been on a calculated journey trying to embed in peoples minds that God has personally selected him to be the end-time prophet to the Armstrongist Church of God movement.
He first tried this shtick with the Living Church of God by trying to con various ministers and church leaders into believing he was divinely appointed. They all laughed in his face and Rod Meredith publicly rebuked him from the pulpit and later kicked him out of the Living Church of God.
In spite of all of those humiliating circumstances, the Great Bwana to Africa Bob Mzungu Thiel found a bunch of church-hopping Sabbatarian leaders in Africa that could easily be bought by laptops, seeds, and money to join his cause. These professional church hoppers are well known in Africa to coddle up to the next White Sabbatarian church leader who gives them more money and goods. Being blinded in his quest for legitimacy, the Great Bwana to Africa found an instant number count he could boast about. After all, he is a prophet and God is working in and through him.
That prophet shtick brings us to today and one of his recent posts where he pops his prophetic cork over people voting. How dare people vote when only God's TRUE prophet can choose the correct leader.
Should Christians Vote in 2024?
There are elections in over 50 nations scheduled for 2024. How old is democracy? Does the Bible sanction it? Do people often act like they want to be deceived? Are there men on the ballots that meet the Bible’s criteria for leaders? How does the Bible show that leaders are to be put in place? Is the lesser of two evils still evil? Does the Bible teach that, “the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, gives it to whomever He will, and sets over it the lowest of men in Daniel 4:17? Could someone vote against God’s plan? Do people know more than a prophet of God when it comes to choosing leaders? Are there truly pro-voting scriptures in the Bible? Are God’s people to support a crowd in doing evil? Will voting change the coming destruction that the Bible prophesies? Steve Dupuie and Dr. Thiel go over these matters.
HERE ARE 10 REASONS WHY CHRISTIANS SHOULD VOTE:
1. Voting publicly recognises that we submit to the authority of the political system in our nation as established by God. (Romans 13:1-7)
2. Voting recognises the equality of all people and their right to speak and be heard. (Deuteronomy 10:17-19)
3. It is one way that we can obey God's command to seek the good of those around us and our nation as a whole. (Jeremiah 29:5-6)
4. It shows that we care deeply about who our leaders are as we are urged to offer prayer and intercession on their behalf. (1 Timothy 2:1,2)
5. It is a simple yet significant way we can do something about politics in our nation. 'All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing', Edmund Burke. (Psalms 34:14)
6. It makes a difference the way a grain of salt makes a difference, and that is how we are to influence our society for good. (Matthew 5:13)
7. It is a privilege not to be taken for granted. Those of us who reap the benefits of living in a democracy should play a part in upholding democracy.
8. Not voting is a form of voting, as it will influence the outcome. We need to take responsibility for our actions, as well as our lack of actions. (Luke 10:25-37)
9. Voting has biblical precedence for example Acts 14:23 describes that the early Christians elected elders by voting.
10. Voting is part of our stewardship to use all the resources we have been given in ways that honor God; to waste a vote is to squander a gift. Christians in Politics
My goodness.
ReplyDeleteThe downside of democracy is some of the individuals we have within the corridors of power.
Clearly unfit for office.
It is undoubtedly the worst form of government as Churchill said, until we look at all the others.
The problem with all systems is essentially that of the human heart.
The day is coming when that dynamic will change as Jesus foretold.
In the meanwhile folks get out and VOTE.
Is it safe to say we already know Gerald Flurry's prediction for President?
ReplyDeleteHe was for Donald Trump all the way to Inauguration Day 2021... and still thinks God is "not through" with him.
How close did that come to disaster this weekend? (Sad to say.)
You can always tell which side the New World Order, whoever these shadow rulers really are, is pushing or backing, because it seems that no matter what others do, or how hard they work or fight it, they always end up falling to the NWO. At this stage, the NWO appears to be backing authoritarian governments, an ugly specter not heard of since the aftermath of World War II. Authoritarian nationalism is currently on the upswing around the world. And, it's easy to see why. What everyone fears about one world government is that an authoritarian dictator type will assume control. That's even the main source of oppression exhibited by the Beast power in the book of Revelation. One authoritarian accumulates and abuses power. It is unlikely that this would happen with the United Nations, a largely democratic institution. That organization was set up to be a global, diversified and protective organization, to prevent powerful nationalistic nations with authoritarian leaders from grabbing the power, enslaving others and inflicting massive damage. There are other secondary organizations such as NATO which also prevent power grabs by defending their members from more powerful aggressor nations.
ReplyDeleteAll we need to do is listen to what candidates are saying, and how their rhetoric and policies fit into what I've outlined above, and basically anyone can forecast exactly who the next president will be. It has become just that obvious in its inevitability! Everyone has done everything in their power to stop it, but nothing has worked.
~A scenario to ponder as we all consider whether we ought to vote!
Acts 14: 23
ReplyDeleteDifficult to see voting occurring here as all we are told is that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church.
The CCOG 8 caucasians are probably just aching for Bob to grant them permission just this one time to vote for Gerald Flurry's same choice. Will they vote in secret & not tell Bob? If anyone catches them doing that & reports it back to Bob, will Bob just call the whistleblower a talebearer?
ReplyDeleteHow bad do you have to be to be fired by Meredith, himself a Crackpot!
ReplyDeleteMany U.S. states, including Ohio, Oklahoma, and North Carolina, make voter registration information available online. They don't reveal who people voted for, but they show their political party (or independent status) and sometimes which elections they chose to vote in.
ReplyDeleteYes, a very few recognizable ACOG names do show up on these lists.
I always thought the WCGs attempted noninvolvement in elections was admirable in the sense that churches should not be shills for temporal politics (whether bought or volunteer). I know the policy and reality werent necessarily one and the same, though.
ReplyDeleteShould an American vote in the Italian election? Of course not since it's not his/her country. Likewise a Christian should not vote in any worldly election since a Christian's "country" is a heavenly one that will be established on Christ's return.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is simple:
ReplyDeleteGen 9:5-6 is the core baseline of earthly civil government. (Lesser government functions are seen as derived from the directive therein.) Doing so is a command for all the descendants of Noah.
Deut 16:18-ch 17 directs the entire nation to select its officials. No express method is given. That will vary with the nation — democracy, republic, oligarchy, monarchy, holding a big giant game of musical chairs, whatever. But note that Judges 10:17-ch 11 shows a practice at that time vaguely similar to that used in the selection of the American President. Even King David ascended to power by using the tribe/clan-based culture of Israel.
These are the commands of the God of the Bible. If the NT directs differently, the NT falls as contradictory. Cf Deut 4:1-2; 12:32-ch 13; Deut 30:1-10. Cf Matt 5;17-20, et al.
The civil authorities are the authorities here now (Rom 13:1-7). Vote or don’t vote, that is up to each individual. But refusing to vote based on the Armstrongist directive or an idea that Christians are distinct in some way, however, is direct disobedience to the commands of the biblical God.
NOTE: For the record, that latter argument against participation (Christian distinction) would not in any case have any bearing on the issue until “Kingdom come” (John 18:36; Rev 11:15). The duties of Genesis 9 are carried out now through the powers of Romans 13.
12:29, Gen 9:5-6 does not authorize us to vote in elections. It merely is a declaration by God that He intends to bring every man into judgment for killing his fellow man. Even human governments are guilty of these sins, as they were when Christ and the apostles were crucified.
ReplyDeleteDeut 16:18 is an interesting verse and one that the church should follow to prevent all of these abuses from ministers who try to protect their employment status and corporate standing by colluding together, whether wittingly or unwittingly, to pervert justice. This law was given to Israel under the OC and, as so many on this blog keep saying, that covenant has been made obsolete, which means that you cannot obligate one to vote in public elections on the basis of this verse. And this passage doesn't authorize that anyway. It behooves governments to follow this law for their own good but how they are elected depends on every person's voluntary contribution. The people are consulted but there is no death penalty for one who doesn't vote or give his opinion on who should be elected. Same in the church.
BTW, the NT is the guide for the Christian today and cannot be contradicted by the OT. Christ cannot contradict Himself, since He was the Lord of the OT. (1 Cor 10:4) Christ gives the higher law to Christians, which is why divorce was permitted under the OT but is not under the NT. Because Christ is of the order of Melchizedek He has the authority to overrule the Levitical/Mosaic law, as he did in Mt 5-7, when giving it to Christians.
Refusing to vote is not a sin against God's commands. As for Christians, they ARE distinct because they are sanctified by God through faith in the elected head, which is Christ. WE ARE DISTINCT because our ruling government is not of this world, as Jesus testified. (Jn 18:36) No contradictions here. Besides, if we were free to vote we would vote for Christ, not for men who who disobey the Lord Jesus Christ or who advocate abortion or who give assent to or support immoral behaviour. The fact that our distinction only "kicks in" and is relevant when the kingdom of God comes holds no water. For the kingdom of God is already spread abroad (through God-fearing and righteous citizens) but you can't see it. How many voted in the last US election? Less than 50%? We're not the only ones not voting.
Whether you vote or not, your choice is irrelevant because it is God who appoints the governments, empires and heads. You may be doing your civic duty and boast if your candidate turns out to be a good one but it is the Lord who does the appointing.
It wasn't the children of Israel who voted for Judah to seed the kingly (government) line, it was appointed by the head, Jacob himself, by way of inspiration. Jacob didn't ask for a vote on this.
The NT model is that the heads do the appointing with consultation from the elders and congregation.
It is a command from God to vote? Oh, right, God will kill us if we as believers don't vote for unbelievers to govern us. We may pray for the human political leaders from time to time but we don't cajole the Lord to install our preferred choice, as though we are doing God a favour.
I should make one more point regarding your distinction, as “Christian.” Read Deuteronomy 30:1-10 carefully. Having a law written in your hearts – the “New Covenant” or whatever – involves THE SAME LAW. No differences. Your approach is an attempt to take a spiritual end run around the Scripture.
DeleteSo yes, ch16:18ff does have bearing on you. It’s actually funny that you write it off as abrogated or such even as you say it would be a good lesson for ministry.
The Christian distinction is spiritual, not civil/political. If Jesus really was a king over you in that context, then, as he said there in John 18:36, his Secret Service would kick into action to prevent his arrest. (And hopefully make it better showing of themselves than the present-day one did recently.) The verse is an allusion to sovereign/diplomatic immunity. He didn’t have it yet. And neither do you. He was, and you are, still as much a part of and subject to the POLITICAL establishment as anyone ever was.
It reminds me of what a WCG minister said in 1995 upholding, the Moses/“as God to us” authority of Joseph Tkach. When I drew an analogy involving how he would certainly report an evangelist-rank minister he knew to be guilty of rape to the civil authorities, he acted as if I had uttered a blasphemy. He refused to flat-out state it, but it was obvious he would not report such a one. “A church pastor, maybe,” he said.
Thinking about it in the years since, I saw in him there and others elsewhere a sense that evangelists as “ambassadors for Christ” would have some sort of “diplomatic immunity” from civil consequences of their actions. It makes perfect sense from your perspective, but it is obviously the opposite of what Jesus said and did there. It goes to part of why you were indoctrinated into believing this idea of the Christian distinction having this political impact: Armstrong and his minions needed to cover for themselves.
As I said before, it’s all garbage.
I could go on and on, and I will answer specific questions. There may be a slight delay, though. If you’ve been following the news, you know there was a lot going on in our country. And my duty to this Romans 13 entity is vastly more important than correcting a small, insignificant cult movement.
But regardless of whether you accept the word of your God, others reading here may see the reality. And that is the big point.
Since I’m pointing out Armstrong, hypocrisy, there’s one more that always comes to mind which is directly pertinent here. In 2000 I was having the same sort of conversation with a UC G minister. He claimed that he had been “taught” (that means indoctrinated by Armstrong) that if you voted for somebody, you had to do absolutely everything they said. This, of course makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If anything, the person voted for is subordinate to those voting for him. In any case, after giving him a brief refresher in junior high, civics, and explaining the nature of our constitutional form of government, I pointed out that he himself “voted” from members of his church is Council of Elders. I asked him if he did everything the CoE said, and he said, “Oh, no.” I asked him about the inconsistency, and he said he just figured that because it was “the Church,” it didn’t count.
DeleteThe truth, of course, is that Armstrong taught ideas like that in order to keep the ministry or membership from thinking church leadership should be elected, and he knew he didn’t quite have North Korea-type control over his people yet.
The ultimate issue isn’t procedures like voting. Ultimately the issue is your duty. Gen 9 is indeed a duty for mankind to execute criminal justice. It is amplified and exposited many times through Moses and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. Armstrong taught as he did about these matters in order to maintain control – in order to create a psychology among his followers they will keep him in power, and keep them from thinking there was any sort of divine authority that didn’t flow through him. He craved that status with people, he admitted, and he would do anything to keep that. Even lie to you about your duties to your neighbor.
Gotta add one more: That same minister who exposed to me the hypocrisy of UCG voting also explained that the real reason behind the prohibition on political involvement was to supposedly help male members gain conscientious objector status in the event of a draft.
DeleteThere is so many levels of dishonesty in this one. First is the most obvious: That scriptures were being twisted to say something he admitted they didn’t. That constitutes “dishonesty with the Word of God,” thereby causing the rejection of Armstrong as “God’s apostle” (01 DEC 1980, Armstrong speaking in Tucson, Arizona).
Second is the fact that political involvement does not count against a person in seeking conscientious objector status, and Armstrong knew it. He was reared a Quaker, a denomination noted for both conscientious objection and active political involvement. He reasonably would have known.
Third, the same minister noted that the real reason behind prohibiting military service was not the killing (cf Ex. 22:2-3a, and the fact that many in the old WCG openly said they would kill someone breaking into their homes). Nor was it the concept of “war” (Deut 20). “Bonded servitude” (a take on 1 Cor 7, a NT
passage loaded with personal opinion) did play a role, but it would not impact on being drafted. The actual reason was the Sabbath-keeping issues in military service. (The obvious answer to that is the military service is the ultimate Gen 9 function and endorsed in Deut 20. So while not ideal, military readiness can righteously take precedence. Like priests, they profane the Sabbath, and are blameless.) This course is not what members were told to tell draft boards, and as noted parenthetically before, is not genuinely a valid reason. (But that does depart into another matter.)
Note also this is another way Armstrong separated out any sort of divine authority not flowing through him
The point here is that Armstrong, et al, were very disingenuous in how they indoctrinated members on the whole matter of civic duty. Keep that in mind as you actually read the passages discussed and actually consider reality. I could go on and on – and some will say I have – even dipping into semi-mythology of “True Church history,” and how that was twisted in this regard. (I am disciplining myself and not telling another story from now… Yes, it hurts a little. :) ) However, I’ve laid out enough here. Give it an honest examination, and remember how you’ve been lied to about it.
One more thing I gotta add: The respondent to my initial comment ignores how Armstrongism both during his life and since has been loaded with politics. Mostly behind the scenes, and sometimes more petty, but always there. It’s because we’re human.
DeleteOne specific thing the individual mentioned was about how people will vote for a candidate and celebrate when God gives him or her the victory over the opponent. The individual says that as if that exact same thing doesn’t happen in Armstrongism today.
Imagine, for instance, the Armstrong wannabe in charge of his or her church narrowly escapes a literal assassination attempt. I mean, literally somebody decided to try to kill him. The ministry and members of that church would hail the survival as a miracle, and ultimately, it would be used to champion that particular denomination and its leader as THE “correct” Armstrongist fellowship. And while in the civil setting something like that happening might create a sympathy vote among the undecided, in the Armstrongist setting, you would have people m changing denominations and bowing down and worshiping that leader the way some of them did that child molesting false apostle.
Maybe even more so. I can see such an incident leading to “Two Witnesses” speculation, especially if a counter sniper from government law enforcement – whose protection they enjoy while refusing to participate in it – took the perp out.
Again, I could go on and on about the parallels between civil politics, and what goes on in Armstrongism. Feast of Tabernacles sites or like party political conventions. There was a lawfare between different denominations. And even civil wars of secession. And when some turn of events favors someone’s particular church, it’s hailed as a miracle from God. Even if it’s something as simple as their church leader, who two years later came to lead a split, being able to handle a recalcitrant donkey (some of you UCG and COGIC folks will remember that).
To substantively close out the point, people with civil authority make the best decisions they can. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes a given voter, with authority from God (Deut 16:18ff; cf Rom 13), is on the winning side, and sometimes he (or she… sometimes I’m convinced 19A was a mistake :D ) is on the losing side.
It’s no different from any other aspect of life. “Man proposes, God disposes.” We do “our part,” but God makes the final decision, either by allowing the natural course of events or intervening in them. Be it who we marry, where we work, what gun we buy at the flea market, or what cat we adopt from the shelter (#AdoptDontShop), the sovereignty of God does not absolve us of responsibilities, or delegitimize our judgments, even if He decides against our judgment.
I could elaborate on how legitimate church decisions can have the same sort of thing happened to them, but this is gone on too long. There is a lot going on in my country right now, and I have my duty.
If Jesus contradicts Moses, then Jesus falls. Deut 12:32-ch13 shows that even if a supposed prophet or whatever pulls off a stunt, his messages still cannot contradict Moses, or else he is fake. That cancels out any NT abrogations or changes in mandated or permitted behavior. You can quote NT all you want. Moses wins – even if that ends up debunking Jesus.
ReplyDeleteBut to address one NT cite: John 18:36. Actually read it. Don’t you believe what some politically liberal Bible commentators or a child-molesting pervert named Armstrong said. Jesus said that his kingdom (”kingship,” some render it) doesn’t yet hold political status in the world. Yet by attempting to make Christians somehow politically distinct, you are giving it exactly that. Your duties as derived from Gen 9:5-6, et al, remain through the existent civil governments. Otherwise, Jesus would indeed have been a rival to Rome. Yet Pilate had no problem with him on that point.
You also need to actually read the historical account of David ascending to power. Actually read it. Ditto the story of Jepthah in Judges. Actually read it.
There is no “model of government” among humans given in the Bible. There simply isn’t. That pervert Armstrong claimed that in order to establish himself in power over his followers. The model even changed over time as his position relative to his coreligionists changed. It is garbage.
I am simply telling you what your God says.
7:43: and the corpulent soul who wanted to be "king" created the corporate sole.
ReplyDelete