Armstrongism is NOT Christian!
While I continue to maintain that God has people in all of the manmade organizations which claim to be God's ekklesia (including the various Armstrong Churches of God), the actual theology of the organizations which comprise Armstrongism is NOT Christian. In other words, the majority of their doctrines and practices do NOT reflect what is revealed in Scripture, or what most Christians understand about their faith. Individual people can and do place their faith in Jesus of Nazareth, repent, be baptized, and receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and still be a member of a group that is wholly or partially heretical or carnal. For those who have been convinced that the majority of the people who claim Christ are not really part of the ekklesia, the statements which I just made will appear jarring, unsettling, or even blasphemous. Thinking themselves rich in truth and obedience toward God, they do not realize just how devoid of truth and rebellious their groups really are!
First, they do NOT understand the nature of God. They fundamentally reject the manifestation of God in three entities as revealed in the Bible. Instead of one God in three, they teach that God and Jesus Christ represent two personages of the God Family, that the Holy Spirit is simply an amorphous power that both of their Gods exude, and that humans can become God in the future. Moreover, they think of God as a spirit in the form and shape of a human, and attribute human qualities and their own reasoning to the Deity.
Second, they do NOT understand salvation through Jesus Christ. Instead of absolute faith in the efficacy of Christ's obedience and sacrifice for us, they believe and teach that each person has a part to play in their own salvation. They believe and teach that Christians are rewarded according to their individual works, and they define righteousness for Christians as obedience to the "moral" parts of the Torah. This stands in stark contrast to the belief of most Christians that we are justified by faith in Christ and saved by the grace of God. Likewise, they do NOT understand that Christians are manifested to the world and each other by the way that LOVE motivates their behavior.
Third, they do NOT understand the nature of the Gospel message. Instead of proclaiming a message about salvation through Jesus of Nazareth, they preach about a literal future government imposed on the world in which they will participate in ruling/governing. Indeed, they believe and teach that most Christians place too much emphasis on Jesus and the nature of what he has done for humankind! In fact, they even ridicule the compassionate, kind, empathetic, and "effeminate" Jesus which most Christians revere. Instead of teaching the world about Jesus, his message, and making disciples of all nations, the ACOGs proclaim a "warning" message of impending doom focused on the English-speaking nations of the world (which is also based on other mistaken beliefs about the identity of the people of Israel).
Fourth, as referenced earlier, they completely misunderstand the nature and role of the Law of Moses relative to Christians. They fail to understand that Christ came to this earth to FULFILL that Law and the prophecies and other writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. They do NOT understand that the sacrifices and rituals of Torah ALL pointed to Jesus of Nazareth and must be understood within that context. Likewise, they do NOT understand that Christ perfectly obeyed the tenets of the Old Covenant, and that he is the ONLY person ever to have done so. Moreover, having fulfilled Torah (the requirements of God's Covenant with Israel), he instituted a NEW Covenant with better terms than the one which he made obsolete! They do NOT understand that the Two Great Commandments of God's Law have been written on the hearts of his disciples, and that they completely define and fulfill God's Law.
Fifth, they do NOT understand that a Christian is defined as anyone who has accepted Jesus as Savior and who has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. In other words, a Christian is NOT defined by how much or how little they understand Scripture! Likewise, the ekklesia is composed of all of those who have accepted Jesus as their Savior and who have received the Holy Spirit. The Church is NOT defined by ANY human organization, its membership rolls, its doctrines, or its practices! The Church is a spiritual organism that belongs to God, and ONLY "He" knows who is a part of it. Finally, Christ said that his disciples would be recognized by their love for each other. Moreover, Christ did NOT expect his followers to withdraw from the wider world. "He" expected them to refrain from participating in the wickedness around them, but he wanted them to minister to the needs of others and help sinners to know "Him."
Sixth, they ignore many Christian traditions and celebrations and falsely label them as "pagan" or "satanic." Although two of the four Gospels contain detailed narratives of the events surrounding the birth of Christ, they reject the Christian community's celebration of that event (Christmas). Likewise, contrary to all four Gospels of the New Testament canon, they reject that Christ's resurrection happened on the first day of the week and refuse any celebrations associated with that event (Sunday and Easter). In similar fashion, they reject any regular celebration of the Eucharist and insist that it be celebrated once each year at the time of the Jewish Passover.
Seventh, like the Law, they completely misunderstand the nature, focus, and interpretation of prophecy. This stems from their failure to appreciate that just as Christ represented the fulfillment of the Law, he also was the focus of the Hebrew prophets and represented the fulfillment of their texts. Their misinterpretation of prophecy is also influenced by their extrabiblical belief that the English-speaking peoples of the earth are properly identified as the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh (the "birthright" tribes of Israel). This leads them to believe that the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. were really intended for the modern nations of Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Although there are certainly other beliefs of the Armstrong Churches of God that some of us would consider misguided or faulty, I believe these represent the major areas of their theology that divorces them from Christianity. In short, this post represents a summary of the errors which these groups have adopted, and the most important ways that their theology differs from the majority of the Christian Church. To be sure, there exists a wide range of beliefs within the Christian faith, but I believe that these seven points represent those teachings which exclude the Armstrong Churches of God from being considered part of the wider Christian community. What do you think?
Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix
43 comments:
If there is ONE thing Herbert W. Armstrong was right about it was the Central Tenet of his creed, which he mentioned in nearly ALL articles and booklets he authored..... That COG ism is definitely NOT Christian..... '
Nck
I believe you are overstating what WCG members didn't understand. First of all, no church has the nature of God nailed down. I have more easily done so by opting after 30 years of study to go with there is no God to nail down, but that's just me.
We can't forget that the vast majority of WCG members came out of mainline Christianity, so to say they didn't understand Jesus, salvation issues, the Biblical story both OT and NT is an exaggeration. WCG, as do the Adventists made the mistake of end time malarkey as the draw into the Church. After all, every time seems like the end times and it sells through fear.
I'd not be so quick to define a true Christian as one who understands the Trinity. Frankly, I never found anyone who understood it or could explain in terms that meant anything. To me it's just a made up apologetic to fit Jesus into the Jesus as God too mythology. The concept of "Fully God and Fully man" is just fully ridiculous.
Huge topic but I'd be less inclined to apply these perspectives as the litmus test for "True Christians" vs the "Never Were's" That's really personal to each person and none of anyone else's business when it comes down to it.
Plainly and as well, the reality that even the Book says that Paul, who is the author of modern Christianity and his own version of the Gospel that won out, as being "hard to understand" is telling. The author, rather than telling Paul needs to be clearer, blames the one confused by Paul's being hard to understand and accuses them of "wresting the scriptures to their own destruction." Why blame them? Blame incomprehensible Paul.
I'll simply note that, to me, it is the Book itself that lends itself to confused theologies and priorities of belief. It really depends on which parts and who you read and are attracted to.
PS Basically and to me, all of your "mistakes" can easily be discerned from the scriptures depending on which you emphasize. The Bible is responsible in itself and its presentation for all the 400 plus denominations in mainline Christianity, who all disagree with or emphasize that which others don't all taken from the Book.
Personally, if any God was real, He/She/It would be wise enough not to go through middlemen in the form of a Book to prove itself and
what it wants of humans, usually framed in the context of "or else...
All Christian Denominations explained in 12 Minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzLS4O7YaUg
You have given a good summary of what is the church.
Also of the evils of Armstrongism. I choose the word 'evils' carefully because Armstrong deliberately chose to develop differences which was all part of his strategy to develop a unique organization in which he alleged the truth resided. So unique it had to be called (by him) the one true church.
DOING of the law for salvation, the false giant pagan conspiracy theory about Easter and Christmas, the false gospel - things you mention are all part of this amazing ploy to build up a system. It worked for a long time given his powers of propaganda and the dedication of acolytes around him.
Ultimately it all came crashing down perhaps God had enough of people misusing His name? A house of cards won't stand forever.
The biggest heresies I believe were 1. the gospel he taught which he emphasized was NOT about Christ but was to do with end time prophetic 'work'; 2 The teaching the DOING of the law is required for salvation.
In respect of the two most important teachings of the New Covenant - the good news of salvation and the sufficiency of Christ, Armstrong was and is a complete failure.
Sadly one sees vestiges of his false teachings in the various offshoots, and in little groups posting in You Tube and other places singing his praises.
all of your "mistakes" can easily be discerned from the scriptures depending on which you emphasize.
if one takes the view that any theology can be justified it becomes quite pessimistic as its saying snake oil salesmen like Armstrong can say and do whatever they like?
The other view is that a message can be discerned and Paul can be understood .
I'm beginning to worry about you, Lonnie.
Miller:
Your summary seems to me to be both on target and conservative. Paul was much more dramatic when he confronted the Circumcision Party. The Circumcision Party consisted of people who were probably attached to the Jerusalem Church somehow. They believed in Christ but they also believed that circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses were required for salvation. Paul told them straight up in Galatians 5 that they had cut themselves off from Christ and had fallen from grace. Yet, when compared to Armstrongism, the Circumcision Party seems relatively tame in its beliefs. Although Armstrongism overlaps with the Circumcision Party in belief, Armstrongism goes much further into heterodoxy.
Your points are incisive and cannot be easily dismissed by anyone who seeks enlightenment about Christian belief.
Scout
Dennis,
Your commentary on this post is consistent with your faith journey. You began as a traditional Christian, and later accepted Herbie's narrative that that was all wrong - that he had discredited it. Later still, after having experienced the failure of Herbie's system, you rejected the whole thing as worthless. I get it. Your path has a certain logic to it. Your conclusions are consistent with what you experienced.
Many of us, however, were also duped by Herbie's heretical theology and traveled a different path. Some of us came to the conclusion that Herbie's failure discredited him, NOT the Christian faith. As you pointed out in your remarks, traditional Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.) also base their faith on the same Judeo-Christian canon that Herbie employed. Moreover, although there is obviously I wide range of beliefs and doctrines evident among these various groups, there are also some commonalities that stand in stark contrast to HWA's theology. My post underscores that divergence.
You have concluded that the book itself is responsible for all of this confusion. And, while you and I agree about the fact that there are discrepancies/contradictions/errors within that collection of writings, we have not reached the same conclusions about what that means about their validity or usefulness. I believe that Scripture was a joint effort between humans and God, and that that accounts for its many imperfections. For me, however, that does not discredit God's contribution to the effort. Like many Christians, you demand an error free text; but I believe that fails to account for the way that human communication works and does not account for the imperfections inherent to that process. In other words, I suspect that if God had personally written the entire Bible, we would be dealing with the same divergence of opinion about how to interpret it.
Unlike Herbie, most traditional Christians are content to label the nature of God a mystery - that it is something that is beyond our capacity to fully understand. Personally, I'm more confident with that position than claiming to understand that God is this or that (which is precisely what Herbie asserted). Hence, I would say that the commonalities and generalizations which are apparent within the vast majority of the Christian community are a pretty good litmus test for describing what is Christian and what is not. One more thing, all Christian denominations explained in 12 minutes seems a bit simplistic and hyperbolic to me.
Dennis, you wrote, “Personally, if any God was real, He/She/It would be wise enough not to go through middlemen in the form of a Book to prove itself and what it wants of humans, usually framed in the context of "or else...
It is clear that this is not the way you would have done things. But it is unlikely that your purposes would coincide with God’s purposes. God works through imperfect human agents. And humans have the freedom to create all kinds of disruptions. Or do good. This choosing differentiates us from robots – we are participants in causation. I can’t help but believe that this heuristic approach is all to good ultimate purpose.
Scout
Would they exist without Jesus, though?
Congratulations Lonnie. What you have accomplished is, you have established your own personal denomination!
There are 41,000 Christian denominations that differ how? Some believe something the other doesn't, they believe this but not that. The others believe that but not this. This is exactly what you have done here.
You say, individuals, which would have to include Armstrongites, can and do place faith in Christ, repent, be baptized, and receive the H.S. ( which according to your own definition, makes them Christian), and still be a member of a group that is wholly or partially carnal or heretical. Then you relate that these 7 subjective points divorce said individuals from Christianity, excluding them from being considered a part of the wider Christian community, as if such a thing really exists.
It's not merely a question of whether Armstrongism is Christian, but what about the 41,000. . .are they truly Christian if we evaluate them by your post? Is it really for us to say? Why the confusion?
Dennis equates these differences in the fact that there is no God and the Bible is a joke. I attribute it to what the God of the Bible says about carnal MAN and his insistence on remaining a part of this world, which includes us all to some extent.
If becoming like Christ is the ultimate goal of Christian growth, then one would hope we Christians would eventually outgrow these attributes in time. This solution will only come by faith which works by love (the holy spirit), and not doctrinal conformity, as witnessed by the many denominations extant..
I never thought I would agree with Dennis on much, but he does bring up some valid points. You (Lonnie) have nailed down in your own mind certain things (nature of God, nature of the gospel, salvation, the law, etc.), but it is an exaggeration to believe your 7 points is standard belief and practice in the "Orthodox" Christian community. They may work in your personal denomination, but they are not a litmus test for true Christians vs. never weres!
Based on point 5, at least the members of COGs ARE Christian. Correct?
As I stated in this post, some of the folks who occupy seats within the Armstrong Churches of God are almost certainly Christians and members of the ekklesia. However, that does not exclude a conclusion that the system of theology which the ACOGs have adopted should exclude those organizations from the wider Christian community.
Would you please stop depicting a man with long hair? Damn!
Lonnie's idea of FULFILL is not magnify. Probably in the next life you'll get it.
Dude! Chill out! It is a meme that conveys the truth about Armstrongism.
This sounds rather close to the no-true-Scotsman fallacy. Distinguishing this Jesus-inspired group from that Jesus-inspired group (however twisted their vision may be) is too often done just so one group can feel no responsibility for the bad press caused by the other group and shrug it off with "They're not REAL Christians".
Thankfully, COGlodytes are mostly impotent outside their own circles.
Anonymous 10:10
Armstrongists are always harping on the depiction of Jesus with long hair. What they never object to is the fact that Jesus was not a White guy. He was not a Western European. He was a Middle Easterner. I have written this a number of times but Jesus looked like the classical Jews of his time. He did not stand out in a crowd. And archaeologists know the physical anthropology of those classical Jews.
Jesus was five-foot one inch tall, he weighed 110 pounds, he had dark curly hair, olive-skinned, brown eyes and he had a gracile build. This is a description of the average Jew of that time. My guess is that most Armstrongists would have problems with this view. Jesus looked too much like a Gentile for them to be comfortable with him. They expect him to look like a Northwest European with short hair. He did not even remotely look like that. Armstrongists have that expectation because they are familiar with Ashkenazi Jews. But they do not seem to be cognizant of the fact that Ashkenazi Jews are from 30 to 70 percent European, principally Southern European from the Italian region.
If you want to see what Jesus looked like, look up Mizrahi Jews on the web. They are the Jews who have always been in Palestine.
Scout
I ask myself, if Miller Jones has gone fully independent, the proving all things thingy, why do his seven points encapsulate Protestanism. I could watch any televangelist program and hear the same 7 talking points. People typically have a theological home base, a hidden bond with some group. Few have the mental health to go completely solo and embrace truths divorced from any organization.
Armstrongism is as Christian as Mormonism is. Mormons and Armstrongists are both considered non-Christian because they reject the Trinity and instead embrace Polytheism (multiple separate gods). The Trinity is a core doctrine to be considered Christian. A Christian doesn't have to understand the Trinity, just accept that it is a mystery. Traditional Christianity will require re-baptism from former Armstrongists because they weren't baptized into the Trinity (One God), Armstrongists are baptised into multiple gods.
Not a single person commented on my posting. That is because I am right as "Orthodox COG" commenting here is. HWA never proclaimed COG to be part of the "Christian" world he fiercely opposed all of it in all his booklets. Anyone commenting we were Christians for SURE did not get it.
Nck
I would guess the members of ekklesia occupying chairs in COG's are not bothered about acceptance of the wider Christian community being a part of their life goals tbh.
You are right NCK. The disciples were called "Christians". It's not what they claimed to be. I can't speak for everyone, but I use the term in a generic sense.
Now that Nck has jogged my thinking about the term "Christian", I was curious what people thought about the Catholic church? Is the Catholic church Christian? Are they " orthodox ", mainstream, considered part of the Christian community?
I watch a lot of YouTube debates between Catholics and Protestants and one thing I have noticed is a very striking similarity between certain Catholic and Armstrongism beliefs. I'm talking generalities, not necessarily specifics.
Consider this:
Both Catholics and Armstrongism believe in a hierarchical government.
Both promote " baptism " as a necessity for salvation. Many protestants do not.
Both claim a connection and are secession to the first century early church.
Both deny sola fide, and promote a heavy emphasis on obedience, although they disagree on what must be obeyed.
Both deny, once saved, always saved.
Both claim to be the one True Church.
Catholic apologist Trent Horn, when asked whether one had to be Catholic to be Christian, said no, but you will still be outside the jurisdiction of the universal body of Christ, and not in communion with the church Christ founded, and not a part of the body Christ is working through.
If that sounds familiar, it's close to the same answer HWA has given in the past on whether the COG 7th day was part of the true church.
According to Trent, this truth about the true church is extremely important because, according to 1 Timothy 3:15, it's not Christ, the H.S.. or even the Bible, but it's THE CHURCH which is "the pillar and ground of the truth"!!
In my opinion, Armstrongism is closer to Catholicism than Protestantism. It would be interesting getting COG Catholics opinion on this.
So does the Catholic church pass Lonnie's subjective 7 points? Is the Church with questionable beliefs but having the most believers in Jesus Christ IN or OUT? Are they orthodox and part of the Christian community? I guess it depends on who you ask!
So, what you're saying is that HWA is right, but so are the "other denominations"? In other words, the "ACOGs" are right, but you want to do it your way and still be in The Church. You see the ACOGs as simply a denomination, which clears your conscious.
When asked if we are christian I say "no, we are followers of Jesus Christ". We don't use the term "christian" because it misleads people.
No, he would write about others as "professing 'Christians'" and other such terms, while calling his group "true Christians" or "real Christians".
Though I myself care less about what he said than what it is. The COGs, however different they are from others, still would not exist without the person of Christ - even, in the most craven depiction, if they were a counter-culture group of sorts.
NCK
NCK
I initially thought the issue you raised was simple. Armstrongists believe that the term Christian refers to followers of HWA. And mainstream Christians are just pagans. So, I picked a Good News magazine at random and it had a lead article by HWA. HWA did not use the term Christian to refer to his followers in the article. He did use the term “traditional Christian” pejoratively to refer to the non-Armstrongist Christians. He also tended to use the term “Christian” with quotation marks to refer to that same group. But the remainder of the issue, written by other authors, but no doubt with HWA’s approval, was rife with the term Christian referring to WCG members. This is, of course, no well-crafted survey. But it does raise questions. Would HWA have preferred that his followers be called something like “Armstrongists” rather than Christian? Did he find the term “Christian” to be disgusting and pagan?
As a side note, in this same article, HWA made the following shocking statement:
“The latter (Judaism) is NOT the religion ancient Israel received from Moses but a perversion introduced by rabbis after the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.”
What HWA calls a perversion actually began with Yohanan ben Zakkai and went through the Bet Din. HWA's statement raises many questions that I will not consider here. But one wonders if Teddy Kollek knew this was HWA’s published viewpoint.
Scout
In the inimitable words of President Clinton, "That depends on what your definition of is is."
We parse every little detail inherent in Armstrongism here, but whatever it is or was, one fact still remains. It was totally FUBAR! No cheering section in search of remote positives can change that. The overall effect was negative and very bad.
...a leader with a vehement countenance ....shall stand up.......and corrupt to an extraordinary degree, and shall prosper...........
This past Sabbath, CGI Pastor Bill Watson delivered a sermon about what it means to be a Christian. For those interested in hearing the Armstrongist perspective, his remarks began at 58:15 - https://www.cgimedina.org/sabbath-services-archives
Thank you. You guys are raising the bar and therefore giving me food for thought as I currently reside in the Jewish quarter of an ancient city raized by the Arminian (Armstronist) Visigoths, Roman Christians and Catholic Kings expelling shallow morisco and Jewish converts..... So I need the bar raised...
Thank you again.
Nck
Who is "we", 6:29?
Oh? Is HWA the little horn now?
Oh yes Scout. And by the way. Kollek and many other jews would not have cared much. Since Zionism is not religious perse....
Nck
BP8. In the Protestant Wars and cutting ties with the Habsburg Empire they often aligned with the Ottomans since it was so much more preferable to be Muslim then Catholic according to their 16th century propaganda leaflets.
Indeed. Mohammedans is a stupid word since Islam is the name of their religion.... Likewise "Christians" versus HWA
Nck
Well it makes sense that the great false church, the counterfeit church, The Roman Catholic Church, would copy the True Church in many ways, only with a slight twist to as to trick folks into accepting and following them.
Wow! Gotta love that nck! He not only raises the glass in toast, he raises the whole damn bar! Way to toast the hayseeds of yer old quarter neighborhood!
Scripture informs us that the designation of "Christian" or "christianos" appeared first at Antioch (Acts 11:26). We are also told that Agrippa told Paul that he had almost persuaded him to become one (Acts 26:28). Finally, in his epistle, Peter embraced the moniker as something that Christians should not be ashamed to wear (I Peter 4:16). Hence, the name is simply a designation that was used to describe the followers/disciples of Jesus of Nazareth.
From my perspective, it is telling that anyone would want to shun the moniker, and that would definitively identify them as being something other than Christian. As for whether or not Catholics are Christian, that is a holdover from the rancorous and intolerant days which followed the onset of the Protestant Reformation. I believe it is self-evident that some Catholics are Christian. Now, whether every person who warms a seat in a Roman Catholic Church is a part of the ekklesia is an entirely other question. My mother is a Roman Catholic, and she certainly exhibits the evidence of the Holy Spirit (I believe that the current pope, Francis, does so too). Moreover, I know of some folks who are part of the Church of God International and United Church of God who have displayed that same evidence of the Holy Spirit (which would also place them in that same ekklesia that we have discussed here). Nevertheless, as I said before, only God knows all of those who are "his."
In early America, it seems the popular term was "Mussulmen". I still run across young folks bemused at older books calling the prophet "Mahomet" or his followers "Moslems" and have to explain that since Arabic does not use the Latin alphabet, any number of approximations of pronunciations are theoretically possible.
Praise HWA. In this most of catholic cities where today I reside I decided to follow the Indian dressed up people..... They all entered a church. On the sign it said they are for 3 days celebrating the Feast of St Thomas the apostle to India most popular in Kerala.
Never would I have heard of this were it not for the esoteric writings of Dr Hoeh.
I told my companion. About the only people who believed this stuff is my former wacky church...... I LOVE IT... What a coincidence.
Nck
"only God knows all of those who are "his.". I love it. This is of course the exact phrase used to burn the entire city of Beziers during the Crusades against the apostate........ Because "God would know his own..."
I love it here...
Nck
Nck: keep commenting; I'm learning: Beziers/Wikipedia/Massacre
It is NEVER OK or "Christian" to impose conformity or unity within a group. Our experiences within Armstrongism should have taught us all that by now. While it is certainly appropriate to define what is and isn't heretical, any means used to enforce conformity to that standard comes up short. For instance, the use of shunning/disfellowshipping/excommunicating employed within some organizations is NOT Scriptural. The New Testament formula was that Christians would grow in grace and knowledge over time, and they would only achieve unity when they were fully mature. This underscores the problems inherent to trying to define a Christian based on what he/she does or doesn't understand.
Post a Comment