Thank goodness for the nonconformists!
graphic courtesy of SHT
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Another Question Concerning HWA's Baptism: Laying on Of Hands?
Some time ago, I submitted an article here at Banned which detailed the controversial details on HWA's Baptism. The questions were posed concerning if the Baptism of Herbert Armstrong could possibly be valid - in that Herbert Armstrong was baptized in a Worldly Baptist Church - something he, himself, over and over again, condemned as one of "satan's churches", worldly, not knowing the truth, and on and on, you know the rest.
The response was huge - and varied. Some said that God is not restricted as to how he works since the Gospel was suppressed for 1900 years. To others, it made all the sense in the world and explained much. Still, the main fact was very clear - HWA was baptized in a way both he, and the church, agreed in virtually every way was thoroughly worldly, thoroughly wrong, and in a completely (to them) satanic institution.
What I did not go into, and will now - is another aspect that needs to be discussed about baptism - the Church's teaching on the laying on of hands - and the Baptism of Herbert Armstrong - and does it matter?
It is Important to note this: Most baptist churches DO NOT practice a "laying on of hands ceremony". It was never considered a mandatory matter, regardless of whether a baptist church did so, or did not do so.
Here is what Herbert Armstrong said about his own baptism:
GN, AUG 69, Page 4 - No mention of Laying on of Hands.
I looked further into this, to see the "worldly church's" practices on the Laying on of Hands Ceremony, to see if it is possible if it did happen. I also tried to see if I may have overlooked an HWA mention of such regarding himself inadvertently.
The Southern Baptist Church, the Pentecostals, Anglicans, Catholics - most mainstream groups - do NOT officiate a laying on of hands ceremony. In nearly every case, this ceremony is reserved for ordinations. Also, since nearly every Baptist Church does NOT practice this as a Baptism rite (though some leave this up to individual church choice), even if HWA says it happened that way (and I have not found anywhere that says that he had this happen to him), I would NOT believe it. It would be a rare thing for this to happen with a Baptist Church - anywhere - at least then.
The practice of the Worldwide Church of God was the laying on of hands by the ministry as an example and recognition of the "human instruments through which He works", even in Baptism.
The Church taught:
Timothy couldn't be ordained by just any church or any minister. He had to be ordained by the TRUE CHURCH and the TRUE MINISTRY, through which God was working.
What, then, separates the act of baptism from the act of ordination? What was it that separated Herbert Armstrong from the rest of the heathens at that Baptist Church that somehow, God worked differently? And, if Herbert Armstrong did not have the "laying on of hands ceremony" in His baptism, according to the very traditions and teachings of his church, is this further evidence that Herbert Armstrong's baptism - in accordance with his very teachings and very practices on the subject - could not be determined as valid? And does his recorded and obviously UN-Christian fruits bear evidence to the same? And - Did ANYONE else in the Worldwide Church of God ever receive ordination if hands were not laid on that person in baptism?
I must add that a question was raised in a "giveshare" article if HWA was possibly re-baptized in another congregation later, to overcome the "error" of a "worldly" baptism. The conclusion was that that was not a correct memory.
Regardless of whether HWA received a "Laying on of Hands" in Baptism or not - this remains:
" However, notice that the one performing the baptism ceremony was a representative (though not necessarily an ordained minister) of the true Church of God in every New Testament case. This was the Church Jesus founded" - All about Water Baptism.
Contributed by SHT.
Monday, September 17, 2018
Clint Zimmerman on "Churchianity" and how the COG has "washed" the gospel message clean
Tomorrow's World July/August 1970
Zimmerman dares to declare Christians sanctimonious when the modern-day splinters of the COG as a whole are the most sanctimonious group of Christians who think they know everything about everything. Just look at James Malm, Bob Thiel, Dave Pack and Gerald Flurry; can the church have any more self-righteous and sanctimonious group of men than these?
Like Clint Zimmerman, these self-appointed hypocritical buffoons think they have "washed" the gospel back to its purest form.
Zimmerman continues: The "most perfectly administered government attained."
Seriously?
The COG movement has been corrupted by the vilest men imaginable who are presiding over their own personality groups where they destroy members lives
with legalism and outright blasphemous heresy.
The Church of God has NEVER "completed the quest for the ages" that Zimmerman describes below. How can it when it denies the very man they claim to follow.
If they knew the man they claim to pay lip service to then they would know that the
"quest" has been completed as an assurance to any follower.
The "quest" they so seriously search for is the "rest" they have never found
in the one they claim to follow.
graphics courtesy SHT, comments mine...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)