Proof-texting and Cherry-picking in Armstrongism

 

Proof-texting and Cherry-picking in Armstrongism

 

If there was anything the Church of God was good at, it was proof-texting and cherry-picking.

 

Proof-texting refers to the practice of using isolated Bible verses to support a specific doctrine or belief, often without considering the broader context, original intent, or related scriptures. In Armstrongism, the teachings and doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), proof-texting has been noted as a significant method of biblical interpretation, particularly in establishing distinctive doctrines that diverge from mainstream Christianity.

 

Herbert W. Armstrong emphasized a literal interpretation of the Bible, claiming his teachings were divinely revealed and represented the "restored true Gospel." Critics argue that Armstrong's approach often involved proof-texting, where specific verses were selectively cited to support doctrines such as British Israelism, Sabbath observance, dietary laws, and the rejection of the Trinity, without fully engaging with the broader biblical context or historical-critical methods. This approach is seen as contributing to the controversial nature of Armstrongism, as it sometimes led to interpretations that conflicted with traditional Christian theology or other biblical passages.

 

Key Examples of Proof-Texting in Armstrongism:

 

• British Israelism: Armstrong taught that modern-day British and Americans are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, a key doctrine for understanding biblical prophecy. This belief relied on selective interpretations of Old Testament promises to Israel, such as those in Genesis 12:3 and 15:6, often ignoring New Testament passages like Romans 11:25, which emphasize God's continued plan for Israel and the inclusion of Gentiles without replacing Israel. Critics note that this doctrine was supported by citing specific verses while overlooking broader biblical narratives that do not align with Anglo-Israelism.

 

• Sabbath and Holy Days: Armstrongism emphasizes strict observance of the seventh-day Sabbath and Old Testament festivals (e.g., Passover, Feast of Tabernacles). Verses like Genesis 2:2-3 and Leviticus 23 were used to argue that these practices are mandatory for Christians, often without addressing New Testament passages (e.g., Colossians 2:16-17) that suggest these laws were fulfilled in Christ. This selective use of scripture is cited as an example of proof-texting, as it prioritizes certain texts over others to support the doctrine.

 

• Non-Trinitarian Theology: Armstrong rejected the Trinity, teaching that God is a family rather than a triune being. He cited verses like John 1:1 to argue that Jesus was not eternally the Son, ignoring broader theological contexts and passages like Matthew 28:19, which imply a triune relationship. Critics argue this selective use of scripture distorts traditional Christian doctrine by focusing on isolated texts.

 

• Three Resurrections and Annihilationism: Armstrong taught a unique eschatology involving three resurrections, with the second offering a "second chance" for salvation, and annihilationism (complete destruction rather than eternal punishment). These ideas were supported by citing verses like Revelation 20:4-14, but critics highlight that this interpretation conflicts with Hebrews 9:27, which states there is no second chance after death. This selective use of scripture is seen as proof-texting to justify a distinct eschatological framework.

 

Critics argue that Armstrong's proof-texting often ignored the literary, historical, and cultural context of verses, leading to misinterpretations. For example, his literalist approach rejected textual criticism and broader biblical themes, which some claim "doomed his interpretations to failure."

 

The church was great at cherry picking, too. By focusing on verses that supported his doctrines while dismissing or reinterpreting contradictory passages, Armstrong's method is accused of creating a biased theological framework. This approach is seen as undermining the coherence of biblical teaching.

 

Armstrong's reliance on proof-texting reinforced a rigid doctrinal system, where questioning interpretations was discouraged. This is reflected in his claim of being "God's Apostle," demanding loyalty to his teachings as divinely inspired.

 

Scholars note that proof-texting in Armstrongism contrasts with hermeneutical approaches that emphasize contextual analysis and the unity of scripture. For instance, mainstream Christian theology uses a canonical approach, ensuring interpretations align with the Bible's overall message, whereas Armstrong's method often prioritized his unique doctrines.

 

Armstrong and his followers maintained that his teachings were biblically grounded, not proof-texted, but rather the result of intensive Bible study guided by divine revelation. They argued that mainstream Christianity itself relied on "traditions of men" (e.g., Mark 7:5-9) rather than scripture, and that Armstrong's approach restored original Christian practices. For example, supporters claim that his emphasis on Sabbath and Holy Days was rooted in clear biblical commands, not isolated verses, and that critics misrepresent his method as proof-texting to dismiss his teachings.

 

After Armstrong's death in 1986, the WCG underwent significant doctrinal shifts toward mainstream evangelicalism, renaming itself Grace Communion International (GCI) in 2009. This shift was partly a response to criticisms of proof-texting and doctrinal errors, leading many ministers and members to form splinter groups that continue to adhere to Armstrong's original teachings. These groups still face accusations of proof-texting when defending doctrines like British Israelism or annihilationism.

 

Proof-texting in Armstrongism is a central point of contention, with critics arguing that Herbert W. Armstrong's selective use of scripture to support doctrines like British Israelism, Sabbath observance, and non-Trinitarian theology often ignored broader biblical context and led to controversial interpretations. While Armstrong and his followers believed their teachings were biblically sound and divinely inspired, the reliance on isolated verses contributed to accusations of hermeneutical error. Understanding this practice requires examining both Armstrong's methods and the broader principles of biblical interpretation, such as contextual analysis and hermeneutics, to avoid the pitfalls of proof-texting. Sadly, the average COG member has no idea what contextual analysis and hermeneutics are. Thus, they easily jump from one splinter group to the next that they feel best practices the proof-texting they need to keep their faith secure and unchallenged.

 

David D