ep17:HERBERT W ARMSTRONG & THE WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD - CHURCHES OF GOD -
no trinity, annihilation, SDA, false prophecy
Investigating and Reaching Faith Groups and Cults
We examine different groups to see what they claim compared to what The Bible states.
===
Today’s denomination has been around a long time. With a basis in SDA - Seventh Day Adventism and The Law, its founder Herbert W Armstrong was a strong proponent of BI (see #405 The Cults ep16) and amongst many of the teachings of this group are the giving of several 'tithes' and...
- Abstinence from eating unclean meats listed in the Old Testament, such as pork and shellfish.
- God's children are not actually "born again" into spirit until after the return of Jesus to the Earth.
- Soul sleep
- Annihilationism for unbelievers
- He prophesied world calamity and the return of Jesus by 1975.
This is another must-watch because these churches are known under several names - and are far away from the Gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ - yet many believers seeking a sound church can be drawn towards them because of their strong stance on certain issues.
there is no evidence, no scripture proving that the spirit is a third god, the bible is plain, even the letters written by Paul, Peter, James and John will only mention God and Christ. Not endorsing HWA, only what i have read. Growing up in my years, I started C of E, then Catholic, then various other denominations, and from my own reading/studying, believed that there was God, Christ and then by the power of the Holy Spirit, all believers, to me that was the unlimited power of God to create in his image and likeness, in a way, that was the only way i could see a trinity. I know many have their own understanding, and i guess, God is the one who sees the heart and what actually motivates it.
ReplyDeleteAgain, even if HWA could somehow end up having been doctrinally correct, it is possible via method of presentation to make children hate ice cream! We know that Temple-going Jews derive great joy from the rituals of Torah. Because of his extreme authoritarianism, Armstrong's method of employing church governance, and his constant use of fear mongering, HWA made membership in his church to be a detestable state of existence, and his members into impoverished pariahs who contantly beat up on themselves for their "bad attitudes" when their natural sense of fairness and survival instincts made them ask perfectly reasonable questions. He was not a spiritual guide. He was a cruel martinet with incredible ego, who inflicted permanent damage upon his followers, and exploited them financially. He was the bad karma guy, who never learned to apply the royal laws of love in such a way that they would not do damage or cause pain.
DeleteBB
There are some excellent books that set out the scriptures about the personal nature of the Holy Spirit, acting and making decisions. A good start is the book The Holy Spirit by Charles C Ryrie.
DeleteI do not believe in the Trinity doctrine and have not read this specific book, but I have a Ryrie study bible and have always appreciated Charles Ryrie comments on scripture.
DeleteAnonymous 4:02 wrote, “there is no evidence, no scripture proving that the spirit is a third god, the bible is plain, even the letters written by Paul, Peter, James and John will only mention God and Christ.”
ReplyDeleteThis is an assertion that you will have to exegete. There are millions of followers of Christ that would not agree with you on this point. You have aligned yourself with a minority view held by some of the least credible religious organizations in existence. This should raise a red flag in your awareness.
A simple observation that counters your assertion is that Jesus spoke of the Comforter and described him in personal terms. Specifically, Christ in his language acknowledged the autonomy of action of the Holy Spirit. While there are contexts where the Father and Son are mentioned, there are other contexts with equal validity where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned. But I understand the tension between the triadic and non-triadic language.
The Biblical data at times characterizes the Holy Spirit as a person and at times as an impersonal force. (The same thing happens with God in the Old Testament. He is mostly a person but is also described as a pillar of fire or a whirlwind.) So, we have two different datasets. This should logically lead one to conclude that the Bible is inconsistent and cannot be trusted as the inspired word of God. Unless one dataset or the other is regarded as being metaphorical. How then do you decide which dataset is metaphorical? In literature, a person may be described as an impersonal force. And an impersonal force may be personified. So, how does one decide?
Even though there have been many very complicated theological arguments about this, I think there is a simple argument that is unassailable. There is the statement in Matthew 28:19, “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.” Grammatically, this places all three at parity with regard to authority by name. All three jointly possess the name that Jesus invokes in blessing the disciples in their assigned commission. To declare that there is only the Father and the Son and that the Holy Spirit is the impersonal force in the nature of God is to change Matthew 28:19 to read something like this, “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Father’s left foot.” First, the Father’s left foot does not need to be apotheosized so it can be a personal God with a name that will fit consistently in the triad for any purpose that I can see. The “Father’s left foot” just becomes a quaint and odd redundancy. It also creates a lot of needless confusion. Moreover, the triads cannot be construed from context as metaphor. They are serious business.
Scout
When he gets to around the 30th minute, I am blown away of how much money members had to give in WCG. In the end there was nothing to show for it.
ReplyDeleteThe greed of Armstrong knew no end, and as you noted in the end it achieved nothing, breaking into many pieces and exposed for what it really was, a big fraud .
DeleteA lot of money is given to ll churches, whether or not they have achieved anything is difficult to answer. How do you calculate lives changed for the better? The good ideas can have an impact that is immeasurable in the lives of many.
ReplyDeleteScout 704
ReplyDeleteI know how impressive the "majority" view can be, so allow me to point out that in Scripture, dyadic formulas clearly outnumber the triads by a large margin, and the meaning is consistent and self evident. Not so with the triads, which are open to several interpretations.
Also, Christ did speak of the Holy spirit in a variety of ways and the language of Scripture is very telling. When comparing Matthew 12:28 with its parallel account in Luke 11:20, we read,
"if I cast out demons by the SPIRIT of GOD, then . . .". (Matthew)
" if I cast out demons by the FINGER of GOD (not the Father's foot), then . . ." (Luke).
You were close, but no cigar! Yes, this is serious business.
Anon 751
ReplyDeleteIf you listen closely at the 30 minute mark you will hear Mr. Bosch mutter that "100% of the people were giving 50% of their income" and he's factoring second tithe into the equation. Now I know we all like bashing the pharisees, but this is pure fabrication and demonstrates this guy really doesn't know what he is talking about.
He also wants the listener to accept his biblical interpretations merely on his say so. "The Trinity is correct because I say so". " Soul sleep is wrong because I say so "! He ridicules the idea of a " Fair chance", calling it a "second" chance, which it is not. He calls "universalism" crazy and cultic (is Scout a cult?), and those who deny the traditional idea of "hell" are cultic and brainwashed.
With this guy it's my way or the highway. Sounds like he has more in common with Armstrongism than he realizes! I think I will pass.
Errors by this commentator are insignificant really when compared to the massive speculations and life style and falsehoods of the fake apostle.
DeleteBP8 6:56
ReplyDeleteI may not get a cigar but your response wide of the mark. The fact that dyads outnumber triads is not really a game changer. Then you simply cited some language that one could effectively argue is metaphor. Not really a game changer. You did not address at all the internal logic of assigning a name of authority to something that is an impersonal force that is an attribute of God. Is there any model in scripture for doing that?
But you did respond so while there is no cigar for you, you might get a cigarette.
Scout
In a lot of cases, I no longer care about this stuff in the ways that we were schooled to care. That is because I now know that HWA attempted to parse and to prove that he (and by extension "we") knew things with precision that one simply cannot know of a certainty, based on available scripture. That, somehow, was supposed to differentiate us, and to make us exclusively "God's True Church". This is why people hang on to all of that, even when confronted with very convincing material which supports quite a different belief. They've allowed HWA to define, or actually redefine for them what constitutes "God's True Church" and to believe that he, the great restorer, was an Apostle even superior to the original ones. Oh, and to control them, usurping the job of the Holy Spirit!
ReplyDeleteLiteralists and inerrantists such as HWA are not our friends. They are fanatics who utilize their so-called specialized knowledge in authoritarian fashion to control others. Let's face it, there actually were people (although not all members) who did give 50% of their income to the WCG out of abject fear of failure to qualify. Where is the purity of soul in that? Really the good we do under duress does not count! It's what you do simply for the goodness of doing it that imitates the character of Jesus.
There are strong arguments against soul sleep, binitarian nature of God, tithing on other than agricultural increase, annihilationism, and just about all of the doctrines of which HWA was cock-sure, although the people on the opposite sides of each of those beliefs are cock sure as well, but also have a 2,000 year history supporting their beliefs. HWA did not rely on the New Testament as much as he did the Old Testament. He filtered the New Testament through the Old Testament, which is precisely the opposite of what appears to have been divinely intended. Why otherwise would we have the parable of the new wine in old skins?
BB
Byker 10:50, “That is because I now know that HWA attempted to parse and to prove that he (and by extension "we") knew things with precision that one simply cannot know of a certainty, based on available scripture.”
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment and agree with it. But as a sidebar there is a dilemma associated with walking in The Way. That Walk does have definition. It is not amorphous. It is not arbitrary. There is the ideal Christian status even if we have trouble characterizing it. The dilemma emerges in trying to answer the questions “How far can one get from that ideal state and still plausibly be considered a Christian?” I think there is a boundary but I don’t know where it is.
In the early centuries of Christian history there were many people who were Arians in belief. They believed in a type of monotheism. They believed there was one God and that Jesus was created by that God and the Holy Spirit was an impersonal force. One scholar describes Arianism as pretty much the standard of that time prior to the Council at Nicaea. And the Nicene view was not a majority view.
I can’t help but believe that there were genuine Christians, saved by God, who lived at that time who believed Arianism as a part of their personal theology. To give the issue a practical bent: “How far away can Armstrongist belief get from ideal Christianity before it becomes non-Christian?” There is a boundary stone somewhere. Paul stated, “You who want to be reckoned as righteous by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
If you were to interview typical Armstrongists at this time and asked “Do you believe that you are saved by keeping the law?”, they would likely say “No.” But if you asked them “Do you have to qualify for the Kingdom?”, they would say “Yes.” They do not realize that this is an inherently contradictory logical state.
I agree with you that there are things that we just cannot know and are really a matter of conjecture. I also believe that Armstrongism and Christianity historically have placed too much emphasis on the elusive concept of certainty. Meldenius said, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” This view, while tolerant, does assert that there is a body of essentials that define Christianity. I am glad that I am not the judge of these matters.
Scout
There is no boundary stone, hidden from view, leaving everyone guessing, it's about finding favour with God, it's about having the free gift of God's Holy Spirit. It's about alot of things, faith, mercy, justice and of God giving people a chance.
DeleteHow can you even see what it's all about when you blindly type and label ' If you were to interview typical Armstrongites types.." You say you see but you don't. You come across like the religious leaders who were appalled when news of Jesus giving sight to the blind man. So they marched over to disavow the miracle and got sharply rebuked by Christ calling them blind guides.
The people who would automatically call us antinomians just would not believe how deeply we study into these matters, would they Scout?
DeleteI agree with you about boundaries, and certainly one would anticipate that one of the primary boundaries would be a good, working understanding of God.
Herbert Armstrong used electrical power as an aid to understanding the Holy Spirit. His understanding of electricity appeared to be limited to the wall outlet, the cord, the on-off switch and the light bulb. He likened raw electrical current to the Holy Spirit. And yet we know that the Holy Spirit is interactive with humans. And that interaction is personalized, tailored to the personality, intellect, and needs of the individual. That is what guidance involves.
The industrial equipment with which I am involved utilizes electricity. It is far more than just mechanism which performs a task when its operator flips the switch. The power requires a brain, a center which takes readings from various sensors, runs through self-diagnostics and "homes out" as it is initialized, and then allocates power to perform from one of several programs which are selected or created by the operator. Since both AC and DC current are used, this brain (mother board and power supply board) transforms the incoming power into specific DC voltages, such as 24VDC, 4VDC, or perhaps as much as 100VDC when a variable speed motor is involved. There can also be an inverter which converts 220 VAC Single Phase power to 220 VAC three phase power. Some of our equipment uses all of these types of power, and the power is made to be interactive with the operator and materials, so that in case of a jam, or misfeed, detected by various sensors, the operator is protected from injury, and the machine is protected from damage, as it automatically shuts down. A "fault" also appears on the operator screen of the machine, as well as on the host computer screen, and will not clear until the problem is corrected by the operator, or in deeper cases by the technician.
My point is, to be interactive, "power" requires a brain, Now, some might say that God controls the power (power as defined by HWA), and is therefore the brain. God also IS the power! So, that being the case, why would Jesus reference a separate entity, even calling Him the Comforter? Since humans also have a brain and power, in the Christian, we have a superior Godly brain guiding a simpler human brain, somewhat analogous to the network concept. I understand why HWA, in his leanings to the Old Testsment, would use the concept of power, because in the Old Testament, the Spirit of God was called the Ruach, (wind in Hebrew). However, one key difference between the New Covenant application or function, and that of the Old Covenant is that following Jesus' work for humanity on the cross, starting on Pentecost, the Holy Spirit actually began indwelling humans, interacting, guiding, transforming them, and producing Godly fruits. That demands a Being! HWA was able to understand and expose the fallacy behind "there was no watch maker", how could he fail to grasp this??? And, yet he did fail! The evidence lies in his authoritarian "my way or the highway" approach, his well documented explosive temper, and his use of the ministry as his own spiritual police force, with records of all members compiled and sent to headquarters. These bad fruits were caused by his woefull lack of understanding of 1/3 of God!
BB
Scout 744 / BB 1050
ReplyDeleteMy participation on this site is not meant to convince or convert anyone, or to advance arguments of any organization or movement past or present. For better or worse, these are my beliefs and observations, based on personal study and the premise that God's word is truth.
I appreciate , am thankful for, and enjoy the legitimate exchange of ideas, where iron sharpens iron, and the scriptures are searched to see whether these things are so. Proverbs 2:6 states,
"For the Lord gives wisdom. Out of His mouth (word) comes knowledge and understanding".
Do I have an Armstrong doctrinal bias? It may appear so for I have more study hours invested there than anywhere else. But much (most) has been modified according to my personal ongoing study, which is needful if one is to grow in grace and knowledge.
I'm not hanging on to anything. I'm open to correction and alternative opinions, if they are Bible based. For me, official narratives, 2000 years of " history", and forced authority (because I say so) doesn't cut it!
Scout writes, "I (bp8) cited SOME LANGUAGE that one could effectively argue could be metaphor".
I cited Holy Scripture directly out of the mouth of Jesus Christ (Matthew, Luke) that presented a legitimate analogy of a presentation of the Holy spirit, that has never been addressed or refuted by anyone here.
Scout also says, " I did not address the internal logic of assigning a name of authority to something that is an impersonal force"? I have addressed that before but I will do it again.
The ISBE, 1988, vol.4, page 916 states, "perhaps biblical writers sometimes use personal references to the Spirit in a personifying way for what they actually regard as the power or presence of God---as they do elsewhere for God's NAME, hand, glory, face, finger, wisdom, and word". Furthermore, in the triad formulas, " it is abstractly POSSIBLE that the authors of these formulas have combined a reference to the faculty or power with references to two persons".
Thomas Gaston writes, "these triad passages cannot be taken as evidence of the belief in the co substantial unity of God. NAMES may be conjoined for any number of reasons (unity in greeting, purpose, etc), so even the use of a 3 fold formula cannot be conclusive". (Proto - Trinity: The Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the First and Second Centuries, 2007).
These quotes are from sources that support the traditional Trinitarian doctrine yet they admit the possibility that different interpretations could be valid.
When all is said and done, history, official narratives, the the opinions of man, although useful, will not matter. Isaiah 66:2 reads, " but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembled at MY WORD ".
In the end, all we can do is study these things, and make the best possible decisions, BP8.
DeleteIn the words that William Ernest Henley used to close Invictus, "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul!"
I don't take that as arrogant. It is a statement of personal responsibility.
Cheers,
BB
Well i dont know what translation of the bible supports that, maybe the same translation that has taken out Gods condenmation of lying and the consequences for doing so.
DeleteFor Jesus Christ is the Captain of my Salvation,
Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their Salvation perfect through sufferings.
Ah, 11:11! You want to play with scriptures rather than secular poetry?
DeleteRev. 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
You are in control! You have to make the decision to let Jesus in, to make Him your Lord and Master!
BB
In the video, he claims that America was originally populated by people from England, so America cannot be the tribe of Manasseh. This limits God's power. God can just look at every person's genetics to know which tribe they belong to, and stir up a spirit in them to want to migrate. As an outsider, I've noticed watching the former Cops TV program that America's have a temperament distinct from the British. So Americans and the British are different. He also rejected the second human life doctrine. However, the 'Valley of dry bones' in Ezekiel 37 describes a physical resurrection. This man is blindly parroting contemporary Christianity. He'd be right a home as a Kenneth Copeland guest speaker.
ReplyDeleteDr. Hoeh used to suggest that God planted thoughts into the minds of the two different tribes' members, supernaturally separating the Manassites from the Ephraimites. That theory, if true, would enhance God's powers, but it ignores the other founding colonizers from Europe, as well as those from Africa who were present from the very get-go. The British Empire was already a well-documented melting pot, and there was intermarriage in the new magic land amongst the different types of Europeans, Native Americans, and at least secret cohabitation with the then slaves.
ReplyDeleteThe research of one of our own contemporaries, Henry Louis Gates, has been very informative in terms of the nature and activities of our melting pot. People who appear as blond haired blue eyed white Europeans often have some degree of Black, Hispanic, or Native American ancestry. I have to laugh. At AC, we always diligently searched for that all important Jewish ancestor in our personal woodpile, but as it turns out, there might have been some other nice little surprises lurking below the surface as well! Bottom line, we're all humans, and need to get along!
BP8 7:04
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “I cited Holy Scripture directly out of the mouth of Jesus Christ”
The contrapuntal scripture below also comes directly out of the mouth of Jesus. Jesus characterizes the Holy Spirit as a volitional, personal being:
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
You cited, “perhaps biblical writers sometimes use personal references to the Spirit in a personifying way for what they actually regard as the power or presence of God”
In the scripture I cited above concerning the Comforter, we are reading the quoted words of Jesus himself describing the Holy Spirit as a personal being. “Perhaps biblical writers sometimes” just doesn’t cut it.
You cited, “these triad passages cannot be taken as evidence of the belief in the co substantial unity of God.”
I would agree with this. Other scriptures support to co-substantiality, but then reflect back on the triads.
I think there are many possible interpretations of the Biblical data concerning the Trinity. But I also believe that the Nicene view is the best fit. But I rather expect that one day we will learn that the semantics of human language do not provide the descriptive tool needed to express the reality of the Trinity.
Scout
Anonymous 1:28 wrote, "Dr. Hoeh used to suggest that God planted thoughts into the minds of the two different tribes' members, supernaturally separating the Manassites from the Ephraimites."
ReplyDeleteI think sometimes Hoeh was long on assertion and short on research. He just needed to speak to a few people to disabuse himself of this illusion. I have cousin who migrated to Australia. Does that mean she is an Ephraimite? My wife is descended from Clan Cameron in the Highlands. Are the American Camerons Manassites and the Scottish Camerons Ephraimites, yet descended from the same ancestral lines?
Hoeh's idea about the separation of Ephraim and Manasseh is dog that won't hunt. It does make for entertaining rhetoric in Spokeskman Club.
Scout
6.11 pm, The concept of sieving peoples is biblical. Dr Hoeh and others didn't pull it out of thin air. Amos 9:9 "For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth."
Delete"..is dog that won't hunt. It does make for entertaining rhetoric in Spokeskman Club." I ask that you show respect for others right to to have their own opinion without your mockery and invalidation. The world is not one giant classroom with Scout being the school principal. Many of the posters here are elderly, and it's offensive to treat them like school boys and girls.
Watch your language, 9:05! I for one enjoy being accepted by younger people and treated as one of them!
DeleteThere was non Israelites who came out of Egypt with the Israelites. No scripture records a extra seperate tribe because of this, so we can assume they where grafted into the tribes, through various law abiding ways of marriage and kinship and living and abiding together in peace.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 11:19
ReplyDeleteThere is a haplogroup among various Jewish populations that came out of North Africa. The y chromosome haplogroup is E1b1b. It indicates that Jews had contact with North Africans in their history. E1b1b is common in Egypt. I have read that Albert Einstein carried some subclade of E1b. Oddly, so did Adolf Hitler. (I have always suspected that Hitler, in his masculine line, was an Egyptian).
By contrast, the Yamnaya people from whom the British are descended have not association with E1b. The Brits manifest no contact with North Africans. They were Eurasians who came from the Pontic Steppe. E1b exists in Britain and is rare. It is associated with the Roman invasion of the Isles. This supports the idea that the British and the Jews have separate migration histories. They were not all together some time back in history in Egypt and then in Palestine.
Scout
Not all British people are Anglo-Saxons. Many still only use family surnames to trace family heritage.
ReplyDeleteWestern Eurpoeans also have a far more enlightened view regarding people of color. Jazz musicians discovered during the 1940s and '50s that they could live much better lives in England or France, being considered as and treated as "normal" people, as opposed to facing discrimination here in the USA. They could marry whomever they wished, could live anwhere they could afford, and were appreciated as talented celebrities. This persists, to an extent to this day! It's why Tina Turner chose to live in Switzerland. The Rolling Stones and other British bands gave many of the nearly forgotten Chicago Blues greats second careers by including them in their European tours, recording them live in London, and acknowledging them as having influenced contemporary rock music. This influenced American rock stars to do the same. Early on, the late Al Wilson of Canned Heat spent months reteaching Son House all of his old guitar parts, and taking him out on some of their gigs. I believe he was driving a taxi in NYC when they first found him.
DeleteBB