UCG Unable To Understand its "Essence" And Thus Members Do Not Share The Vision

 

The only "essence" UCG has is that it was formed to keep the elite ministers with a steady paycheck when they jumped ship from the Mother Church, WCG, after they had spent several years publicly supporting the changes.

UCG claims to preach "depth of truth". A truth that is so precious that they present it in "love". Cough, cough.

UCG blames its problems on the "clutter" in their competing market. The truth of the matter is that other churches preach a better truthful and loving message than UCG does. 

The third was in the area of our vision statement. Whereas most members can recite from memory our slogan, “Preach the Gospel, Prepare a People,” which is a shortened version of our mission statement, the Council began discussion on how we can get everyone to similarly focus on our vision. Brian Shaw presented this to the Council during the COE workshop the previous week, so he presented it again for the administration and elders. This process was begun eleven years ago when a project team worked with an outside firm to help us understand UCG’s critical essence. Their work was supposed to be reworked and made our own, but due to other pressing matters it was never completed. The COE now strongly agrees that the essence of what UCG offers is “truth” and especially depth of truth. There was also agreement in how UCG presents the truth, “in love.” He said that Ephesians:4:15 is one of the core verses of our vision statement and sums up where we are all to be and how we conduct ourselves. He then drew a competitive map so all could see that our competing clutter in the market does not speak to those who are seeking “truth in love.” This isn’t just a slogan, a theme or a tagline but a cultural change that will unify us and lead us all to developing the nature of Christ, as Ephesians tells us. The COE wants UCG administration to lead our ministry and membership in “truth in love,” and believes strongly that as this is reflected in our sermons, publications and video services, all those seeking to do the same will want to engage with us. All of the Council was excited to continue to move this forward with more emphasis on this condensed version of our vision statement and each member expressed this to the administration. The Council remanded this to the SPFC for policies that can be given to the administration for implementation.

LCG: Still Pretending To Deliver A Powerful Warning Message

COMMENTS 

 

The Role of a Watchman: Many churches today feel their mission is to tell the world that God loves them and that Jesus came to save sinners. Yet, there is much more to the biblical mission of God’s Church. Jesus told His disciples to be alert and watch for events that will mark the approaching end of the age and His return (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). The events making news today—severe weather; increasing violence and war; the declining influence of Israelite nations and the rise of a European power with links to ancient Rome, promoted by an ecumenical- minded Roman church; and the rise of adversarial powers in Asia and the Arab world—all tie in to end-time prophecies. Just as the prophets were commissioned to warn ancient Israel and Judah, God’s Church has a commission to function as a “watchman” and warn modern Israelite nations of the coming consequences of their sins (Isaiah 58:1; Ezekiel 3 and 33). Delivering this powerful warning message must also accompany the preaching of the Gospel of the coming Kingdom of God (see Matthew 24:14). 

 

Have a profitable Sabbath, 

Douglas S. Winnail

The Unknown Webcast Will Feature Former WCG Member Discussing Armstrongism

Former member of the Worldwide Church of God, Mark Tabladillo,who is now a Director of Ratio Christi apologetics ministry, will be discussing Herbert W. Armstrong, Armstrongism, and why he left the church on The Unknown Webcast on August 24th.

A Company Of Nations?

 

A Company of Nations

One of the linchpins of Herbert Armstrong's identification of the United States and Great Britain as the modern manifestations of Israel is found in the thirty-fifth chapter of the book of Genesis. The "prooftext" reads as follows: "And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins..." (Genesis 35:11, KJV) For Armstrong, "a nation" implied the single greatest nation in the history of the earth (the United States), and "a company of nations" suggested a great commonwealth of nations led by Great Britain. For him and his followers, those promises could never have been fulfilled by any other nations in the history of the world!

Indeed, this verse continues to be the foundational "prooftext" for the Armstrong Churches of God up to the present day. In their article Does the United States Appear in Bible Prophecy?, the United Church of God underscores the fact that: "God specifically told Jacob that through him would come 'a nation and a company of nations' (Genesis 35:11)." They go on to point out that "The promise of national expansion beyond Canaan into a great nation and company of nations was never fulfilled in biblical times by the Israelites." According to the article, this promise devolved onto the two sons of Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh; and they go on to reference the forty-eighth chapter of Genesis (verse 19) to prove it. They conclude: "Descended from Ephraim was the group of nations that formed out of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, the British Empire...Out of this power came the British-descended countries of the Commonwealth of Nations—Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand." What of Manasseh? They conclude: "From Manasseh came the great single nation. Its people dwelt with the Ephraimites in Great Britain until it was time for their separation through westward colonization and a war for independence—the American Revolution, by which came the formation of the United States."

For the sake of this argument, we will overlook the license which they employ in their interpretation of greatness, and their complete dismissal of the fact that God's promises to the patriarchs were clearly tied to a particular piece of real estate in the Middle East (see Genesis 15). Instead, we will focus on those all important phrases in United's principal prooftexts (Genesis 35:11 and 48:19): "a company of nations" and "a multitude of nations" respectively.

First, it should be noted that these promises are directly/purposefully associated in Scripture with God's promises to make Abraham "fruitful" and to "multiply" him. In other words, whatever these promises entail, they are intimately connected to God's promise to make Abraham's descendants like the stars in the sky or the sands on the seashore in numbers.

Now, according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Hebrew word translated into English as "company" is "qahel" - meaning "assembly, company, congregation, convocation" (especially in a religious context). In similar fashion, the same source informs us that the Hebrew word translated into English as "multitude" is "melo" - meaning "fulness, handful, mass, multitude." In both cases, the English word "nations" is a translation of a Hebrew word that means nations or peoples (especially Gentile ones). Hence, to suggest that the original Hebrew predicts a "commonwealth of nations" frankly stretches linguistic credibility to the breaking point!

In fact, the sense of the original Hebrew wording suggests an assembly of folks from all of the kindreds of the earth. In other words, the language used in these passages once again points to these promises finding their ultimate fulfillment in and through the Messiah (tying it back into the promise that all of the nations of the earth would be blessed through Abraham). Indeed, the English word "commonwealth" suggests a republic or a collection of republics - a much more narrowly defined connotation than that implied by the original Hebrew in these verses.

Is it possible then that these verses refer to Israel and all of the other peoples of the earth who will be saved through Jesus Christ? In fact, isn't that interpretation much more plausible than suggesting that the United States and British Commonwealth are the modern manifestations of Manasseh and Ephraim (especially in light of all of the historical, linguistic, archaeological and genetic evidence which refutes such a conclusion)? Don't we really have to stretch the language in these verses (and their context) to make them identify the U.S. and Britain as Israel?

Lonnie Hendrix

Bobby Fischer: Chess Grand Master, WCG Celebrity, And His Journey Across The Tiber

 Armstrongism has had a few high-profile members over the years and two of its most known members were Dan Truhitte of The Sound of Music who played Rolf and chess Grand Master, Bobby Fischer. both of these men were exploited by the church due to their celebrity status. Garner Ted Armstrong used Truhitte in the America Listen's Campaign and the church exploited Bobby Fischer for his money and his fame.

There was an article released the other day on the Church Militant website about Bobby Fischer. It is really well written and covers a lot about Fischer I had never heard before particularly Fischer's end-of-life journey.

The article starts off with this:

"It appears that the greatest avatar of chess mastery that the world has ever known (and that, perhaps, it will ever know), the man with an intelligence quotient that dwarfed Albert Einstein's, the indigent Brooklyn-prodigy-turned-unlikely-Cold-War-hero, former world chess champion Robert James Fischer "crossed the Tiber" and converted to Catholicism in the final days of his life.

The story of Bobby Fischer's remarkable rise, enigmatic disappearance and tragic fall is one that has, for decades, captivated chess fans and chess muggles alike. It's an epic that continues to vex the world because of its sheer inimitability: There's simply nothing like the Fischer story anywhere to be found in the annals of sporting history. And now, it looks as if the legend of Fischer, once widely supposed to have resolved in bitter ignominy, ended on a note of utmost felicity — with his dying in the bosom of God's one true Church.

Perhaps the primary reason that so many sympathize with Fischer's story (aside from their admiration for his unparalleled genius on the chessboard and his lasting contributions to the theory of the game) is that, despite the disadvantageous circumstances that he was born into, he seemed to be — even during the periods of his life in which he proved to be loudly and painfully misguided (and there were many) — a sincere seeker of truth and a stickler for principle."

After a well researched and description of his life as the son of a poor Jewish mother where he got his first chess set at the age of 6, to the point he entered into the Worldwide Church of God, we get to this:

After living an arduous and austere life in an "almost monastic pursuit of the world championship" (to quote Fischer biographer Frank Brady), Bobby wanted to pursue his religious studies — he was a member of a fundamentalist church, the Worldwide Church of God, which he had given $60,000 of his world championship purse — and to meet a girl and fall in love (Frank Brady, Endgame: Bobby Fischer's Remarkable Rise and Fall — From America's Brightest Prodigy to the Edge of Madness (New York: Crown Publishing, 2011), 205)."

And then this: 

While he began his chess sabbatical with the high-minded ideals of growing in faith and seeking vocation, such noble intentions were soon derailed by the harsh realities of life in a post-edenic world. Bobby had long proudly carried the banner of the Worldwide Church of God, observing its tenets, bankrolling its coffers, even speaking frequently of the impending "Rapture" per its queer doctrines. But his faith in his church was irreparably damaged when "prophecies" about a 1972 second coming of Christ made by the church's founder, Herbert W. Armstrong, proved to be false. Fischer, realizing that he had been hoodwinked, delivered a searing invective:

The real proof for me were those prophecies ... that show to me that [Armstrong] is an outright huckster. ... I thought, "This doesn't seem right. I gave all my money. Everybody has been telling me this [about apocalyptic events that were to unfold in 1972] for years. And now, he's half-denying he ever said it, even when I remember him saying it a hundred times." … If you talk about fulfillment of prophecy, he is a fulfillment of Elmer Gantry. If Elmer Gantry was the Elijah, Armstrong's the Christ of religious hucksters. There is no way he could truly be God's prophet. Either God is a masochist and likes to be made a fool of, or else Herbert Armstrong is a false prophet. 

 

So Fischer, disenchanted with the version of Christianity he long supposed to be true, began groping for meaning elsewhere, eventually straying into irreligion altogether. Nature, it is said, abhors a vacuum.

The article then goes on to describe his descent into atheism (due to his association and exploitation by the WCG) and then into his publicized anti-semitism. It then describes him meeting up with a man who once again sparks his interest in God. The article ends with this:

However, in his final days, Fischer played one last gambit, a curious move that seems to suggest that — maybe, just maybe — he found his way back home to the Barque of Peter: Fischer requested, according to officials from the Catholic Church of Iceland, that he be "buried as a Catholic." On Monday, Jan. 21, 2008, under the unrelenting blackness of the northern winter sky, Bobby Fischer's broken body was lowered into the frozen earth, in a funeral attended by five people. In accord with his last wishes, a French Catholic priest, Fr. Jakob Rolland, presided over the humble ceremony, commending Fischer's soul to its Maker and, hopefully, to the eternal light of the beatific vision. 

 

While we may never definitively know if Fischer officially became Catholic, he, at the very least, fit the bill for a baptism of desire. While God binds Himself to His sacraments, He is not bound by the sacraments, and He can confer salvation — by means understood by the Divine Mind alone — on those who, by no fault of their own, die without formal incorporation into the Church. The illustrious St. Thomas Aquinas himself tells us that "when a man wishes to be baptized but by some ill chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism," he "can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire." 

 

If I were a betting man (and I am), I'd wager that Fischer found his way, at long last, into the one true Church. And, if that's the case, the patroness of chess, St. Teresa of Avila, better watch out: There's a pretty daunting new act in town.

The article is fascinating in the covering of the life of Bobby Fischer that I have not seen in other articles about the man. The article can be found here:

THE REDEMPTION OF CHESS LEGEND BOBBY FISCHER

 

The Rick Caldwell Show - Exploring Armstrongism and Anglo Israelism

 

The Irreconcilable Breach Between Sabbatarian Christians and Sunday Christians

 

Sabbatarian Christians vs Sunday Christians

In my last post, we established that there were two varieties of Christianity extant in the First Century - one which adhered to Jewish laws, rituals, and traditions and another which did not. We observed how Christ's original apostles and his brother James came to lead and represent the Jewish branch of the faith, and how Paul came to represent and lead the Gentile branch of the faith. We also looked at a great deal of evidence which suggested the presence of tensions (and even open hostility) between the two branches at various times. Nevertheless, although the question of whether an irreconcilable breach developed between the two camps was discussed in some of the commentary which followed that post's publishing on Banned by HWA, I felt that it would be instructive for many of the former and current Armstrongites who make up my audience to directly address that topic in another post.

For, while it may be clear that the arguments between Torah Christians and Sunday Christians began in the First Century, it may not be as clear to us exactly when the two perspectives diverged enough that they began to regard each other as not representing a legitimate variety of their shared faith in Christ. Today, of course, we take it for granted that Sunday Christians regard Sabbatarian Christians as heretical and vice versa; but our examination of the evidence in the previous post implies that that was not always the case. Moreover, tracing the historical origins of this breach has a much more practical application than merely satisfying our intellectual curiosity about it, we intuitively comprehend that a better understanding of those events will help us to clarify our own thinking on the subject and make us more tolerant of each other going forward.

For starters, it is critical that we understand that these two branches of the Christian faith arose as a natural consequence of its expansion - NOT as some grand Satanic conspiracy of the Roman emperor and church! It is indisputable that Christ, his apostles (including Paul) and the earliest Christians were Jewish (encompassing all that that designation suggests like circumcision, Sabbath and Holy Day observances, the Temple at Jerusalem, synagogues, clean and unclean meats, etc.). After the previous post in this series, it should also be apparent that Gentile Christians did not have this background, and that the overwhelming majority of them NEVER adopted those Jewish laws, rituals and traditions.

 

However, just as the accounts which we have in the Christian canon demonstrate the genesis of the two branches of the Christian faith and give us a window into some of the tensions and hostilities which developed between the two camps, they also demonstrate that most of these early Christians tried very hard to tolerate and accommodate each other. Hence, the question arises: When did the breach between these two branches of the Christian faith become irreconcilable?

In attempting to answer that question, most biblical scholars and students try very hard not to project our own experiences, views, and prejudices onto the people and events of the past. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we are often not successful in this regard.

At the end of my last post, I referenced a number of biblical scholars whom I believe have made significant contributions to our understanding of First Century Christianity. One of those scholars, a professor by the name of James Tabor (who was formerly associated with Armstrong's Ambassador College), was particularly helpful in summarizing many of the findings which some of our finest modern scholars have contributed to our understanding of this period of Christian history. Even so, in reviewing the same evidence, I also find myself in disagreement with some of Professor Tabor's answers to our question about the timing of the irreconcilable breach.

In his book Paul and Jesus, Tabor contended that the irreconcilable breach happened in the lifetime of the apostles (Paul, Peter, James and John). Tabor sets up his final chapter (The "Battle of the Apostles") with some remarks about Paul's views of the Torah. He concluded that "it should not surprise us that Paul ended up in a bitter struggle with Peter, James, and the original apostles, who claimed to faithfully carry on the message of Jesus." Tabor continued: "We have only Paul's side of that conflict, and his decisive break with Jerusalem is glossed over in Acts, but there is enough evidence still to piece together the story."

Is that true? Did Peter, James, and Paul end their lives as "bitter rivals" - as suggested by Tabor?

While my previous post suggests my broad agreement with the scholarly narrative about the differences which existed between the Jewish and Gentile varieties of early Christianity (and the eventual triumph of the Pauline Gentile variety), I do NOT believe that the evidence points to an irreconcilable break in the time of the apostles. Once again, both accounts of the Jerusalem Council (Acts and Galatians) reflect the fact that some kind of accommodation was reached between the two branches of the faith. Moreover, I don't buy Tabor's contention that Paul's theology was so radically different (in conjunction with the evidence provided by Paul's second epistle to the saints of Corinth and James more general epistle) that it eventually proved to be the death knell for that "understanding" reached at Jerusalem. In other words, while I believe that the evidence demonstrates tensions (which on occasion bubbled to the surface as open hostility) existed between Paul and the original apostles, I don't believe the evidence supports the proposition that those differences ever provoked a clean break between the apostles.

 

In terms of Tabor's assertions about just how radically different Paul's theology was from the Jerusalem apostles, an example will demonstrate my departure from Tabor's narrative. Tabor asserted that Paul's understanding of the Eucharist was very different from that of the Jewish apostles. According to him, the three earliest gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) derived their accounts of the Last Supper from Paul. He reasoned that, because Paul's account of the Last Supper in his first epistle to the saints at Corinth (see I Corinthians 10:16-21 and 11:23-20) predated the finished gospel accounts by ten to twenty years. it is clear that they derived their narratives from him.

For the sake of argument, we will set aside the fact that Tabor himself admits that those three gospel accounts were derived in part from earlier sources and focus instead on his "evidence" for an alternative narrative regarding the Last Supper. He pointed out that John's gospel didn't mention the bread and the wine in its narrative about that event, and that The Didache seems to present a different understanding of the symbolism surrounding those elements. Hence, in fairness to Tabor and the integrity of our search for the truth, we must examine both of these documents to ascertain whether or not they support his narrative about Paul's Last Supper.

First, while it is true that the gospel attributed to John does not include the elements of the bread and the wine in its account of the Last Supper (see John 13), we must not forget that "Paul's elements" are an integral part of this gospel's narrative. In fact, as part of the account of Christ's message to his disciples that evening, Jesus is said to have referred to himself as "the true grapevine" (see John 15:1-8, NLT). According to this account, he went on to tell them that "apart from me you can do nothing" (the clear implication being that Christ is the vine that makes their salvation possible). Moreover, we should also remember that using grapevines and their fruit in such a symbolic manner was not foreign to either Jews or Jewish Christians as Tabor seems to imply (see Genesis 49:11 and Revelation 14). But what about the bread?

Earlier in that same Gospel, we read that Christ declared: "I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:48-51, KJV) And, lest there be any doubt that John's gospel is placing the exact same language which Paul and the other gospels employed in Christ's mouth, the account continues: "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever." (John 6:52-58, KJV)

 

What about The Didache? In the section of that document dealing with the Eucharist, we read: "Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs." So, we clearly have the elements of the bread and wine included in this early "Jewish Christian" account of the teachings of the apostles.

 

Moreover, lest there be any doubt about the symbolism being tied to Jesus Christ, these instructions were followed by a Eucharist prayer to be used in Christian worship services. We read: "But after you are filled, give thanks this way: We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen." Hence, we can see that both John's gospel and The Didache employed the same kind of language and symbolism with regard to the Eucharist/Last Supper which Paul and the other gospels used in their accounts of those events.

 

Well, maybe they weren't as far apart in their theology as Tabor suggested, but what about the evidence he cited from Paul's second letter to the Corinthians and James' general epistle? Let's begin our evaluation of Professor Tabor's evidence by addressing Paul's second epistle to the saints of Corinth.

 

However, before we address the actual language of this second epistle to the Corinthians, I would like to remind my readers that Paul was not bashful about naming names in either his first epistle to the Corinthians (see I Corinthians 1:11-12) or his letter to the saints of Galatia. In fact, while expressing his anger over a similar situation (Jewish Christians trying to require his converts to observe the tenets of the Torah) at Galatia, Paul says that he had to confront Peter over his behavior. (see Galatians 2:11-14)Hence, as almost all biblical scholars acknowledge this second epistle to the saints of Corinth as one of the undisputed writings of the apostle, it seems odd that Paul never mentioned Peter, James and John in connection with his angry rant about "false" and "super" apostles. (see II Corinthians 11 and 12) Thus, while it is clear that the false apostles which he was referring to in this passage were Jewish Christians (see II Corinthians 11:22), it is also clear that Paul was employing hyperbolic language to defend his own apostolic office and authority. In other words, he was only interested in their claims in so far as they related to his own claims vis-à-vis the Corinthians. And, finally, if this is the evidence of a final split between the leading figures of the two branches of the Christian Church, we must insist that some explanation be forthcoming in relation to the fact that Paul was soliciting an offering on behalf of those Jewish Christians in the passages immediately preceding these. (see II Corinthians 9, NLT)

 

Now, we come at last to the epistle of James. First, it should be noted that most biblical scholars either attribute this writing to the brother of Jesus by that name, or some anonymous person writing in his name (and I concur with this conclusion). Hence, I would not dispute Tabor's assertion that this letter is connected to that leader of the Jewish Christians mentioned in the account of the Jerusalem Council recorded in the book of Acts. However, when the professor goes on to imply that the epistle's references to faith without works and controlling one's tongue was really directed at the apostle Paul, we are forced to ask where's the evidence for supposing this? After all, the author of the epistle states that he is addressing "the twelve tribes - Jewish believers scattered abroad." (see James 1:1, NLT)

In fact, it is here that Tabor's narrative about the breach demands the greatest leap of faith. He implies that James and Paul are being very careful to cover up their breach, and that other writers of the period have conspired to conceal the breach. I will simply state what others before me have observed: The claim of such an extraordinary conspiracy requires extraordinary proof! Following this line of reasoning, we are led to believe that the statement in the second epistle attributed to Peter was written to further this conspiracy. (see II Peter 3:15-16)

Finally, although the New Testament is devoid of any mention of the fate of these men, tradition informs us that Peter, James and Paul all suffered martyrdom as a consequence of their faith in Jesus Christ. Hence, while I accept much of Tabor's narrative about the differences between Paul's brand of Christianity and the one practiced by Peter and James, I simply do not believe that the evidence supports an irreconcilable breach between the men. While I see ample evidence of the tensions (and sometimes open hostility) between these men, I do not see the proof that they died enemies.

On the contrary, both from the perspective of the New Testament and the writings of the generations which followed them, it appears that the irreconcilable breach between the two branches of Christianity happened sometime after the deaths of these men. And, while I am confident that the Roman suppressions of the Jewish rebellions and subsequent persecution of them exacerbated the tensions and animosities which were already apparent between the two groups, it is clear to me that the thing most responsible for that final breach was a hardening of attitudes within the groups themselves. Over time, many of the folks within both camps simply decided that the folks in the other camp had strayed too far from the principles of their faith to continue to be regarded as brothers in Christ!

 

In this respect, Herbert Armstrong and his followers have been very much like the Jewish Christians still extant at the close of the First Century and the beginning of the Second Century. They have decided that they are keeping the flame of the "original" Christian Church alive, and that Protestants and Catholics are all apostates - not really Christians at all! Likewise, many Catholic and Protestant Christians see their Sabbatarian brethren in exactly the same light - heretics that cannot really be considered Christians!

However, after a careful examination of the evidence available to us, I am hopeful that modern Christians will take a page out of the playbook of those First Century Christians. I'm hopeful that the Christians of our day will remember a time when Jewish and Gentile Christians not only tolerated each other, but also sought to accommodate each other's practice of their shared faith in Jesus Christ. What do you think?


***I know that this is a long treatise, but James Tabor did write an entire book on the subject! Moreover, I don't think that anyone who is truly interested in the subject will mind the longer post (and I am willing to discuss the thesis presented here in even more detail for those who may be interested in doing so). Thank you for your time and attention!***  

By Lonnie Hendrix

Early Christianity: From Sabbath to Sunday: the Armstrongite narrative

Early Christianity: From Sabbath to Sunday

I recently penned a post for Banned by HWA that was published there under the banner “Quietly Dismissing Herbert Armstrong.” In reviewing some of the commentary which the post provoked, I was struck by how some folks have continued to accept Armstrong’s inaccurate/false narrative surrounding the early history of the Christian Church. According to the Pastor General of the old Worldwide Church of God, the First Century Church universally observed the Sabbath. Moreover, he taught that Emperor Constantine (in cooperation with the Roman Church) changed the day of Christian worship from the Sabbath to Sunday.

The reasoning behind this narrative is almost as interesting and entertaining as the narrative itself. It goes something like this: 1) Scripture clearly records that Christ, his apostles, and the early saints continued to observe the Sabbath; 2) The existence of Constantine’s famous decree recognizing Sunday as a day of rest (and, by implication, worship) throughout the territories of the Roman Empire; and 3) The existence of several statements by Roman Catholics claiming responsibility for changing the Christian day of worship. Admittedly, this reasoning appears reasonable at first glance. However, while I wouldn’t dispute any of the three points which they have employed to generate their narrative, we would be remiss not to point out that these folks have ignored/excluded a whole lot of history to arrive at their conclusions about Sabbath to Sunday observance within the early Church.

It still seems foreign and strange to many Christians, but a consensus has developed over time among Biblical scholars that there were two forms of Christianity extant in the First Century (a Gentile and a Jewish variety). Moreover, the evidence for this, both within the New Testament and among other writings from the period, is pretty compelling. In the New Testament, the account we find there of the Jerusalem Council in the fifteenth chapter of Acts (and in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians) makes plain that there were real differences and tensions between the Jewish and Gentile branches of the Church. Likewise, other early Christian writings like the Didache and some of the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch underscore these differences.

When confronted with the evidence of the Jerusalem Council, many Armstrongites insist that the only issue at stake in those discussions was the Jewish ritual of circumcision. Scripture, however, clearly refutes such a notion. Now, in fairness, it is true that the whole controversy began with the insistence of some Jewish Christians that “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1) However, when Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to resolve the matter, we read: “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5) In other words, some of the Jewish Christians were insisting that Gentile converts to Christianity had to adopt and abide by the tenets of the Old Covenant outlined in the Torah.

After much discussion of the matter, Peter reminded the assembly that God had prompted him to share the gospel with the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7) A casual reading of this account could easily miss just how important this point was in comprehending the significance of what was happening. Unfortunately, as the first eleven chapters of the book of Acts make plain, the original twelve apostles had not fulfilled Christ’s instructions to take his message to all nations. In short, Peter and the other apostles had focused their evangelistic efforts almost exclusively on their Jewish brethren for the ten or so years following the end of Christ’s earthly ministry. Hence, it should not seem strange or incomprehensible to us that the earliest church was almost entirely Jewish in composition, nature, and ritual. As such, we can see that it was completely natural for these folks to continue to observe rituals that were familiar to them (like circumcision, the Sabbath, the Holy Days, clean and unclean meats, etc.).

It should also be remembered, though, that Gentiles had no such traditions, and that most of them were wholly unfamiliar with Jewish rituals and practices. In the account of the Jerusalem Council in the book of Acts, however, Peter points out that God had also chosen to give the Gentiles his Holy Spirit “even as he did unto us.” (Acts 15:8-9) He went on to point out that the insistence of these Jewish Christians that Gentiles adopt Jewish forms did not make sense in light of this fact. “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” he asked. (Acts 15:10) The clear implication being that Christ had fulfilled the requirements of the law on their behalf, because NONE of them (the Jews) had ever been able to do it!

In the account, James agrees with the points that Peter has made. He affirms that it was God who decided to offer salvation to the Gentiles through Christ, and he went on to remind the assembly that this had been prophesied to happen long ago. (Acts 15:13-18) As a consequence of these facts, James concluded: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” (Acts 15:19-21) Notice that James specifically delineates only four items from the entire Torah which Gentile Christians should be required to observe and goes on to suggest that Moses already has enough adherents among the Jews!

Moreover, once again, the summary of the account makes plain that the assembly was dealing with a much more comprehensive question regarding the relationship of Gentile Christians to the requirements of the Torah than the simple matter of circumcision. The opening to the letter which the assembly sent to the Gentile Christians informing them of their decision makes this plain. We read: “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment…” (Acts 15:24) And the letter’s conclusion makes plain that the assembly has adopted James’ “sentence” regarding their obligations to the requirements of the Torah. We read: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” (Acts 15:28-29)

Hence, for the author of Acts, the rather substantial question of whether or not Gentile converts would be required to observe the tenets of the Law, was settled amicably and in short order. From Paul’s perspective, however, the question had never been completely and finally resolved – there were still plenty of Jewish Christians out there who believed that their Gentile brethren should be required to follow the same observances which they had followed all of their lives (and which they continued to follow as Christians).

This is made very clear in Paul’s letter to the saints of Galatia. Nevertheless, in comparing Paul’s perspective on what had happened at the Jerusalem Council, it is important to remember the context of Paul’s remarks. In short, Paul was extremely angry that Jewish Christians had had the audacity to contradict his teachings to the Gentiles. He opens the epistle by claiming his incredulity at the thought that any of his Galatian Christian converts would fall for this message (that they were obligated to observe the tenets of the Torah). He wrote: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Galatians 1:6-7)

Remember, Paul saw himself as the “Apostle of the Gentiles.” (Romans 11:13) Moreover, he believed that the message which he had brought to the Galatians had been given to him via a special revelation from Jesus Christ, and he made clear that he did not appreciate those Jewish Christians invading his territory and imposing their brand of Christianity on his converts! (Galatians 1:8-12) Paul then proceeded to give the Galatians a brief summary of his personal history in the Jewish faith and his interactions with the pillars of the Jewish Church after his conversion to demonstrate that those contacts had not made any significant contributions to his message. (Galatians 1:13-24) Now, of course, those folks had made significant contributions to Paul’s knowledge about Christ and his teachings (the notion that they didn’t is frankly absurd), but we must remember that when he wrote these things Paul was extremely angry with those Jewish Christians who had interfered with his work among the Galatians.

After he had vented some of his anger and frustration, Paul proceeded to give his account of what had transpired at the Jerusalem Council. He wrote that those “who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.” (Galatians 2:6-10)

In this respect, the two accounts (Acts and Galatians) of what happened at the Jerusalem Council are the same: Both accounts suggest that some kind of accommodation between Jewish and Gentile Christians was reached as a consequence of that assembly – to live and let live. In other words, Paul understood that agreement to allow Jewish Christians to continue to observe the tenets of the Mosaic Law and to permit Gentile Christians to ignore them.

For Paul, however, the intrusion of those Jewish Christians among his sheep in Galatia had not only violated the understanding reached at the Jerusalem Council, it had also underscored the flawed premise of the theology of those Jewish Christians. He wrote: 

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Galatians 2:16-21)

Thus, as Paul’s missionary work among the Gentiles resulted in more and more conversions, we can see that tensions grew between the two branches of the Christian faith. In short, Jewish Christians must have felt the pressure of those greater numbers of Gentile Christians within the Church – that the proportion of Christians observing the tenets of the Mosaic Law continued to shrink. And we have all seen the tensions which America’s changing demographics have produced within our own population – So, it shouldn’t be hard for us to imagine similar group dynamics playing out within the early Church!

Thanks to the writings of the First Century Jewish historian, Josephus, we know that Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. It would be hard to overestimate the devastating impact which those events would have had on the Jewish portion of the Church. As Jewish Christians continued to observe the tenets of the Mosaic Law and were in the habit of worshipping at the temple and in synagogues, it is highly unlikely that the conquering Romans would have made any distinction between those Christians and their Jewish brethren. In other words, Jewish Christians were scattered and persecuted by the Romans after those events in 70 CE (just like other Jews).

Hence, it is easy to see how Paul’s version of Christianity would have been in the ascendancy for the last thirty years of the First Century. In other words, by the close of that century, the vast majority of Christians were of the Gentile variety (not observing the tenets of the Mosaic Law). However, while it’s easy to imagine those circumstances, there is other evidence extant that the Gentile branch of Christianity had become the dominant variety by the close of this period. In short, there are other Christian writings from this period which support this narrative of what was happening within the Church. Unfortunately, many lay Christians are not only unfamiliar with the contents of these documents – they are completely unaware of the fact that they even exist!

There is a document known as The Didache (a Greek word for teaching or doctrine) which was probably written late in the First Century and was purported to represent the teachings of Christ’s apostles (see earlychristianwritings.com). The Didache opens with a discussion of the way of life in juxtaposition to the way of death, and it expounds upon Christ’s teaching regarding the two great commandments (love for God and neighbor). The document also discusses the early practices of the Christian Church regarding things like baptism, fasting, prayer, and the Eucharist. Moreover, the document’s commentary about the organization of the Church (or rather the lack of discussion of a well-defined structure/hierarchy) makes plain that it came from this primitive era of Christianity. For our present purposes, however, the most important feature of The Didache is its insistence that Christians assemble on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) for fellowship and worship. In other words, the document takes it for granted that this is the proper day for Christian worship – there is no mention of the Sabbath!

Likewise, we have the writings of Ignatius of Antioch from late in the First Century and early in the Second Century to support this historical narrative about the two versions of Christianity. In his epistle to the saints of Philadelphia, Ignatius wrote: “But if anyone preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchers of the dead, upon which are written only the names of men.” (See earlychristianwritings.com) For Ignatius, any Christians who were teaching the saints that they had to observe the Jewish law were clearly heretics.

In his epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius wrote: “Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace.” Later in the same epistle, he wrote: “It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God.” (See earlychristianwritings.com)

Writing sometime in the middle part of the Second Century, Justin Martyr also provided us with evidence of what was happening within the Church during this early period. In his First Apology, Justin Martyr wrote this about Christian worship in his time: “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” (See earlychristianwritings.com) In other words, by the middle of the Second Century, it was considered standard practice for Christians to gather for fellowship and worship on Sunday!

As we have seen from both the biblical and the historical narrative, the Armstrongite narrative regarding the history of Sabbath to Sunday observance is false. The reality is that the vast majority of Christians had been observing Sunday for hundreds of years by the time that Constantine made his famous decree. In effect, the emperor was merely offering official recognition of what was already the practice of most of his Christian and pagan subjects. Likewise, the observance of Sunday by most Christians was already well-entrenched by the time that the Roman Church had acquired the power to enforce its authority over other Christians. Hence, the narrative that Constantine and/or the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday is shown to be a fiction pure and simple!

**Although I do not wish to convey the impression that I agree with all of the conclusions reached by these biblical scholars, I think that the works of folks like Gerd Ludemann, Bart Ehrman and James Tabor offer some interesting and helpful insights into this period of Christian history (Sorry, I'm not in the habit of name dropping, but scholars do offer some helpful insights for those of us who are truly desirous of understanding this critical period).

Lonnie Hendrix

The Cult Nobody Seems To Remember

 

COGWA: Funny Post Of The Day

 

Page from the Gnostic Gospel of Judas

The Contingent God of Armstrongism

by Neo

I do not believe that the human mind, no matter how much it might be augmented, is capable of deeply understanding God. So when we try to conceive of God, we always conceive of him differently than he actually is. God is mysterious. But this is not in tension with the idea that we may know God “through a glass darkly.” And this knowledge, though falling short of the reality, has definition. In this op-ed I will observe that the Armstrongist god belongs to a different class of being than the Christian God and is much more limited than the Christian God. This is best understood through recognizing that the Armstrongist god is a contingent being and the Christian God is a necessary being. 

Contingency

A contingent being is one that in essential some way depends on external conditions for its existence. A necessary being has no such dependencies but is self-existent. This latter statement is brief and apophatic but I will focus on ontological contingency in this op-ed rather than God as a necessary being. Armstrongism has no document titled “The Doctrine of God.” Its ruminations on God are scattered through booklets, magazine articles, and homiletic messages. So I will rely on my 30 years of experience as an Armstrongist and some internet research to describe the Armstrongist notion of god.

The Armstrongist god is a contingent being. Under this proposition, imagine how the universe started. There was nothing but an empty universe – space with no contents. God lived there but in a spirit realm or dimension. He resided somewhere in the “sides of the north” as viewed from the location of the yet-to-be-created earth. God, in this scenario, is so much a part of the physical universe that GTA stated that you could get into a rocket ship and fly to where god is, if you had enough time. To theologians and philosophers, this means that the Armstrongist god is immanent in the universe but not transcendent.

God as creator populated the empty container of space with celestial bodies. One, in particular, earth, he made habitable for biological creatures. But an issue is that the empty space in which god lived already had properties. It just did not have material objects. It was dimensional and was pre-made to accommodate the laws of nature that we know. Empty space is not the same as nothingness. God did not create spacetime – he had always lived in spacetime. The Armstrongist god is then dependent on eternally existing spacetime – as if it were a divine uncreated environment. But now we know that spacetime is not divine but physical. Spacetime reacts to gravity. This dependency on the spacetime environment means that the Armstrongist god is a contingent god.

A further example is that Armstrongists assert that their god always had a body (see the Mystery of the Ages, pp. 46-47). The human body is patterned after the body of god. So, bodily parts were an inherent part of his eternal essence. This means that god had teeth before ever envisioning the idea of eating. It was like he wondered what the hard, white things were in the unusual orifice we call a “mouth”. So, he started with teeth which had no purpose, they had just always been, and had to make something that they could be used for. So he invented this idea of nutrition and made this stuff called food so that these hard things in his mouth could have something to cut and grind up. The surfaces of these eternally existing hard, white things were already designed to cut and grind. So the engineering design of the teeth encouraged him in a certain direction in his creation. So the Armstrongist god is contingent on an eternally existing bodily construction with its already engineered mechanics.

A myriad of such examples could be constructed but two should be sufficient to arouse some reflection and questioning in the minds of those who accept the notion of the Armstrongist god. But in summary, the Armstrongist god did not create his environment or his body but he is dependent on these external elements. This dependency makes the Armstrongist god not necessary but contingent. Armstrongism does not account for where these external and eternal elements, both highly engineered, might have originated or what their status is in the divine realm. Given the Armstrongist model of a contingent god, one might speculate these elements were created by another superordinate being who is necessary.

There is in Gnosticism a kind of postulated being that matches the description of this kind of contingent god. This category of this created but powerful being is called a Demiurge. The definition below is from the Wikipedia article on the Demiurge:

In the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy, the demiurge . . . is an artisan-like figure responsible for fashioning and maintaining the physical universe.
The Gnostics adopted the term demiurge. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily the same as the creator figure in the monotheistic sense, because the demiurge itself and the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are both considered consequences of something else. Depending on the system, they may be considered either uncreated and eternal or the product of some other entity.

Many human religions have adopted a demiurgic view of god. And this view is particularly popular among atheists like Dawkins and Dennett because it is a much easier target to attack. This is because their arguments are rooted in materialism and the demiurgic god is mostly involved with the material universe. But this contingent god is not God as understood in Christianity. Consequently, many atheists begin their pleadings with a category error.

Who Cares?

Humans have differing perceptions of god. Does this mean that how we conceive of the Christian God is a matter of choice? For instance, the God of Calvinists Christians is much different than the god of Arminian Christians. Also, sociologists Paul Froese and Christopher Bader (“America's Four Gods: What We Say About God--And What That Says About Us”, Oxford University Press, 2015) determined by a survey that Americans attribute one of four different personality profiles to god: The Authoritative God, Benevolent God, Critical God, and Distant God. Because the view of God, both theological and popular, is varied, this does not abnegate the fact that there is a revelation of God contained in scripture – a revelation that permits broad agreement in the Christian movement on important divine attributes. For example, Calvinists and Arminians both believe that God is not contingent but necessary.

From these varied views, one might conclude that the idea of god is indeterminate for most people and that any notion of god will do. And for that reason, the Armstrongist god is just as valid as the Christian god. But this rejects the broad areas of agreement, based on Biblical exegesis, among denominations in the Christian movement. Given the state of knowledge in contemporary theology, there is no reason for a denomination to adopt the retrograde idea of a contingent god. And the boundary between a necessary god and a contingent god is, perhaps, the lowest threshold separating Christianity from non- Christian religions. That is why this issue is worth caring about.

Progressive Revelation and Contingency

I believe it is likely that the ancient Hebrews believed that God had a body. I also believe that they cast him in the role of an ancient Semitic Warrior God or Storm God. We can now see, with the New Testament available, that God’s characterization by Old Testament writers was anthropomorphic but to them it was realistic and they wielded the pen. As Dr. Peter Enns has stated, “God let his children tell the story.” The Logos resolved this problem by coming to earth himself and delivering a message about the nature of God. For this reason, a progressive revelation of God can be seen across the Old Testament and New Testament with the final revelation in Jesus himself.

In these opposing views, we have God as spirit (John 4:24) in the New Testament at one pole and God with a body in the Old Testament at the other pole. Armstrong used a hermeneutic of integration, rather than the hermeneutic of progressive revelation, to reconcile these two strongly divergent viewpoints. Armstrong innovated a novel non-Biblical concept that made God contingent, perhaps inadvertently. Armstrong asserted that god was of “spirit composition” which made it seem like god was composed of some kind of ethereal substance. (This also gave God locality which contradicts the Christian belief that God is omnipresent.) God is not made of spirit but God is, rather, a spirit. The concept of “spirit composition” does not occur in the Bible.

God as a theophany may appear to human eyes but that appearance does not imply he is made of some kind of visible “spirit substance.” Does God require eyes composed of some kind of spirit substance in order to be able to see? First, eyes would be a limitation to God. His sensory capabilities transcend anything we know as humans with our five senses. Second, if he requires eyes, then he is like a sighted created being, dependent on the functioning of internal organs to live. To assert that God is composed out of spirit substance with various organs is to assert that he is contingent and not necessary.

In the last analysis, Armstrong integrated the Old Testament characterization of God as having a body with the New Testament revelation of God in Jesus. He did this instead of simply accepting Jesus and his word as the ultimate and final revelation of the necessary God. My guess is that he did not use this hermeneutic simply to create the heretical concept of a contingent god. I believe he did it to achieve consistency between the Old and New Testaments concerning the nature of god and inadvertently cast god as contingent. We are now unable to ask him about his decisions.

(For the terms “spirit composition” and “spirit substance” see, for instance, Armstrong’s booklet “What Science Can’t Discover About the Human Mind”, 1978. In his “Mystery of the Ages,” Armstrong wrote that god is “composed of spirit.” The verb “compose” is transitive, requires a subject and object, and leads to the question “Who composed God of spirit?”)

Closing Remarks

Nobody knows the scope of God’s grace that he would extend to those who believe in a mischaracterization of him. Any judgment is above our pay grade and involves factors that I have not addressed. One could make the “Thief on the Cross” argument. The thief knew nothing about contingency and necessity yet Christ received him. But how many of us are really in that thief’s circumstances?

Even though God is unknowable in his fullness, there are some obvious errors that can be avoided. For instance, is it reasonable, based on the Bible, that the Christian god could be contingent in view of John 1:3 that states “All things (panta, Greek, meaning “all”) came into being through him?” It only takes a little reflection to understand that God created spacetime and is not captive to it.

There are enough relevant and incisive questions concerning contingency that I believe that the Armstrongist groups should review their beliefs about God, with consideration given to existing Christian dogma, and that their doctrine of god should be documented. And they should start by understanding that God is a necessary being, not a contingent being.

In the Church of God Semanitics Is Everything

Herbert W Armstrong: Semanitics Is Everything

 

If we Google the term semantics, we learn that this word conveys “the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.” And, while we all recognize the importance of being clear about the meaning and scope of what is being communicated, most of us have also experienced those obnoxious individuals who love to split hairs so that they can be right (and, more importantly, everyone else can be shown to be wrong). Unfortunately, in the religious realm, Herbert W Armstrong was one of those individuals who obsessed over semantics.

For Armstrong, most of Christianity had completely missed the proper meaning of what constituted the “gospel” or good news message which Christ taught to his disciples. Armstrong believed that the Christ-centric message of Traditional Christianity completely ignored or suppressed the message about a future and literal world government headed by Christ. And, as has been pointed out in this forum and other places, Armstrong both ignored the Great Commission of Matthew 28 and the clear indications in Paul’s epistles that his message was focused on Jesus Christ and his salvific work. It is unfortunate that Mr. Armstrong seemed incapable of allowing that a message about Christ could accommodate a message about his kingdom. For Armstrong, it was an either/or proposition – clarity demanded one explanation or the other (making one wrong and the other right).

It seemed to be incomprehensible to Mr. Armstrong that words can have multiple meanings. Indeed, his writings suggest that he rejected the notion that words, phrases, sentences or texts might be subject to different interpretations. Armstrong had discovered “THE TRUTH.” If there were other possible meanings/interpretations, they must be disregarded because God or the Holy Spirit had revealed to him the “TRUE” meaning/interpretation.

Armstrong believed that the fact that his organization incorporated the terminology “Church of God” as part of its name was a hallmark that his group was the “TRUE” Church which Jesus Christ had founded on that day of Pentecost so long ago. Never mind that the Greek word “ekklesia” suggests an assembly of people called together for the purpose of worship. Never mind that Scripture also attaches the term to Christ, the First Born and various places. Why not the “Assembly of God”? Why not the “Assembly of the First Born”? And, if the “ekklesia” was composed of everyone who had God’s Holy Spirit, would it really be accurate to suggest that any one human organization claiming to be the “Church of God” fully encompassed what that term really means?

For Herbert Armstrong, traditional understandings of terms like religion, Christian, paganism, grace and truth were said to be wrong. Indeed, in almost any area of Christian doctrine/dogma which we could name, Armstrong claimed that the traditional understanding was the diametric opposite of the truth.

However, Armstrong’s preoccupation with semantics was probably no where more apparent than in the realm of prophecy. It was how Armstrong defined terms like Israel, Babylon, Assyria, Zerubbabel, one crying out in the wilderness, place of safety and Great Whore which colored his unique interpretations of Biblical prophecy. For Herbert Armstrong, it wasn’t just the meaning of these terms either – it was the timing and chronology which he insisted were implied by those understandings. In short, Armstrong’s semantics demanded that the “end times” were upon us and insisted that his followers even more fully embrace his understandings of Biblical semantics.

There are a few scriptures that come to mind when dealing with the power of words, and how they can positively or negatively impact us. Here are a few of them: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits” (Proverbs 18:21), “There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing” (Proverbs 12:18), “Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble “ (Proverbs 21:23), “Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin” (Proverbs 13:3), “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matthew 12:36), “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12) and “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.” (James 1:26) One has to wonder what Mr. Armstrong thought these verses meant.

Miller Jones/Lonnie Hendrix

Can the Church of God Get Any Crazier?

 

If Herbert Armstrong were alive today and could see the abominable mess that the church is devolved into he would be appalled. The absolute batshit crazy men leading Churches of God today are the most disgusting group of men the church has ever seen. 

There is Dave Pack in Wadsworth, Ohio who is ready to meet his Jesus any day now. 

In Edmond, Oklahoma we have Gerald Flurry who has proclaimed himself King and declared Irish dance as the holy dance of God and now claims to possess the coronation stone that Jesus is supposed to be coming back to sit upon.

In the Five Cities area of California, Bob Thiel, the Great Bwana to Africa and 299 Caucasian members worldwide, has declared himself Elisha due to his double blessing by a heretic pastor of Living Church of God and is desperately trying to con us into believing he is a prophet

Ron Weinland, the first convicted felon to lead a COG claims his "christ" is ready to return at any moment and that he and his dingy wife are the two witless witnesses.

Can Armstrongism get any crazier? These are four of the more vocal loudmouths who have set themselves up as mouthpieces for the creature god they claim to serve, but there are many others out there. It is certainly not that God that most COG members follow. It is for that reason that all four of these cult leaders are either losing members or have failed miserably in gaining any members from the various COG's. 

What can we expect from these religious despots in 2021? The year is young!

Unbridled Joy

 

That feeling you get when you finally step away from Armstrongism

Peeling the onion

 from Facebook

Living Church of God: Why is Satan Always More Powerful Than The "Jesus" They Claim To Follow?

As usual, LCG members are being told that they are incapable of discerning what is right. Satan, that all-powerful god of the COG, is entrapping LCG members with desire and emotion. Members are told that they are incapable of discerning right from wrong because of rumors, gossip, and lies that currently abound in LCG.

In a direct attack on Sheldon Monson, Winnail says Satan is using him to sow discord in LCG. Quite frankly, LCG does not need Sheldon to spread anything in LCG. They do a really good job at sowing discord in the church all by themselves.

There is nothing wrong with members of LCG having doubts and resentment over hurts dished out by LCG ministers and leaders. Church leaders and many ministers think they are immune from any criticism. That ability of members to discern things happening to them, that they know is NOT right, is an eye-opening experience into more things wrong with the church. This is a God-given ability for people to use their minds to "fact-check" church leaders and doctrine. No COG member, regardless of which COG group they are in, should EVER have second thoughts when they dare to question church leaders, policies or doctrines. A wise and thoughtful person that follows Christ does that daily.

Is Satan After You? The Bible contains numerous warnings about Satan and how he operates to deceive, divide, and destroy—people, families, churches, and nations. He moves like a hunting lion, carefully stalking his unsuspecting prey (1 Peter 5:8). He is a dangerous adversary who is constantly searching for vulnerable individuals (1 Timothy 5:14–15; 2 Timothy 3:6–7). Satan does not hunt human beings using claws and bullets, but instead he appeals to our desires, emotions, and human vanity. He plants doubts and spreads gossip, rumors, and lies that hurt and confuse and discredit others (1 Timothy 5:13; John 8:44; Leviticus 19:16). Satan fosters dissention and division by stirring up fears, jealousies, and misguided ambitions (1 Corinthians 1:10–13), and he will use anyone—members, ministers, and self-proclaimed leaders—to sow discord and do his work (2 Corinthians 11:1–15). Satan will zero in on people who have doubts, hurts, and resentments or who feel wronged or overlooked because their ideas, opinions, or ambitions have not been acknowledged or accepted. He can use such individuals to criticize, undermine, or lash out at others. To avoid becoming an unsuspecting victim of negative or subversive thoughts and attitudes that Satan beams at his potential victims (Ephesians 2:2), we need to be alert, humble, and patient—and stay close to God (1 Peter 5:6–9).

Have a profitable Sabbath,

Douglas S. Winnail

Low Level COG Prophet Claims He Has Integrity And That People Need To Humble Themselves to Follow Him

 

In his endless quest to try and legitimize himself in the eyes of his African followers, our favorite Petulant Prophet of Possiblys and Great White Bwana to Africa, Bob Thiel, claims he has the integrity to be leading a rebellious splinter group of the Living Church of God.

The end time Christians. Notice what Jesus stated and something the Apostle Peter wrote:

19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (John 15:19, NKJV)

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. (1 Peter 2:9-10, KJV)

This is a peculiar people. These are people who the world does not desire. These are Philadelphian Christians.

How do we know that Zephaniah 2:1-3 is related to Christians?

Because the decree is for the end time and because of what else God inspired Zephaniah to write:

3 Seek the Lord, all you meek of the earth, Who have upheld His justice. Seek righteousness, seek humility. (Zephaniah 2:3a)

The above is a reference to Christians as they are to be the “meek of the earth” (Matthew 5:5) and to Philadelphians who “have upheld His justice. Seek righteousness, seek humility.” These are Philadelphian Christians who understand that church leaders need to have integrity and are willing to be humble enough to accept the authority of a church led by a low-level prophet in the absence of a clear apostle (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11-15). They are humble enough to not think that they should remain ‘independent,’ as many who once were part of the old Worldwide Church of God, during this Laodicean time, have done.

Apparently, all true followers of God must humble themselves and kneel at Bwana Bob's feet and acknowledge him as the true leader in the church right now. After all, he is a low-level prophet and that qualifies him. Then to insult COG members who do not feel inclined to follow him and remain independent, he says they are not humble enough to accept his prophethood status.

For they are the only ones who will actually ‘gather together’ as they should. 

Why?

Because it is they who will lead the final phase of the work and it is only to the Philadelphians that Jesus promises to protect from the coming hour of trial, also referred to as the Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord:

Once again, our favorite Petulant Prophet of the church says all COG members are too dumb to know when the crap is hitting the fan and will not be allowed to join up with his group in Petra or wherever he next dreams they are all going.

Who is the only Church of God in the 21st century to teach all of this?

The [improperly named] Continuing Church of God.

If you are not in Bwana Bob's personality cult then you will not be able to flee. 

If you are not with the group that is leading the final phase of the workwill you not be able to flee if you wait until the last moment? While that may be remotely possible for some, remember that God inspired Zephaniah to admonish God’s people to ‘gather together…before the decree is issued.’

Dreamy prophets are the way to go now in the Church of God.  No other COG has such a fantastic dreamweaver than the improperly named "continuing" Church of God does. that alone should make every single one of us join his group. But, woe be tot eh scoffers and the doubters!  How dare you!

Most will discount this and many will scoff. Most COGs do not have anyone considered to be a prophet, and in those other than CCOG who claim to have prophets, those prophets have been proven to be false. But the Bible says that there will be prophets in the last days and that God does communicate with them in dreams.

All Church of God groups currently in action today are nothing more than useless bumbling minuscule groups that run to and fro looking for a real prophet to lead them. The COG has never had a man more equipped to be a prophet than the one who is completely without error, which currently is Bwana Bob.  

We in the Continuing Church of God “have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts” (2 Peter 1:19, KJV).”

Whip out those checkbooks and get on your knees and humbly repent before God for failing to acknowledge the ONE TRUE MAN that God has sent to lead the church to the place of safety.