Anonymous said in a previous thread:
"Protestantism is now visibly dying some 500 years after Luther nailed his theses to a church door. Church buildings are empty on Sunday. Some major denominations even have Pastors or "Priests" that are openly atheists! There is an increasing odour of denominational desperation with some Protestants seeking ecumenical reconciliation with Rome for moral support.But most of their practices, traditions and holidays have no scriptural basis at all. THAT is why some left them for the Churches of God."
Very good point, Anonymous. And one worthy of discussion. So today, let's delve into this, one of the biggest reasons why Armstrongism was such a draw for many who were attracted to it.
In the previous article, what was simply presented was scripture in the book of Romans which was handling a major controversy within the Church concerning a division between the brethren. There was a breakaway group within the Church (Haha, isn't that a big surprise?) that believed that they were free of the binds of shackles. They believed that they were now free to eat anything that they wished for (Meats, etc.) - while the legalists of the Church still believed that the food laws were still enforced. The arguments were understandably, apparently, pretty heated between the two segments. Heated enough that Paul had to draft a special letter to the Church to address this serious issue.
From verse one in Romans 14, we can see the very attitudes of human nature that were prevalent then, and just as prevalent at the start of the Armstrong movement, and even now. The human arguments and disputes about what is interpreted to be "right", and what is interpreted to be "wrong". Paul's basis of thought was a condemnation of the need to argue about it.
Paul went on to make the point that those who feel free to discontinue the practice of food dietary laws are not to look down on those who feel the need to do so, and for those that do practice the dietary laws not to look down on those who don't - because - and this is the big point, the point that needs to be yelled loud and clear to all of the legalists who continually try to enforce their opinions in arguments about right or wrong - that God has accepted all of them.
Paul was clear that God accepts those who do not adhere, and who do adhere. He goes on to stretch the point to not only include the food dietary regulations - but clear up to days of Worship. Paul said some believe that they must keep one specific day (obviously, the Seventh Day Sabbath), and others believe all days are alike (obviously those who accepted the new way of thinking) - and then made another "heretical" statement to legalists that said simply this: Whichever day you choose is acceptable".
Now here is a statement that is nerve-wracking to legal-minded thinkers, that both ways of doing it are acceptable to God - IF - and it's a big IF - it is done to honor and to please the Lord. Paul is making a distinction between matters of legal compliance, and matters of a heart yearning to please God and honor God. It is this attitude that seemed to float over the legalists' head because - in the minds of the legalists - they aren't doing it "right".
Now we will address the elephant in the room - Christians - (or, to Armstrong Apologists, falsely-so called Christians) who observe days and traditions that do not have scriptural basis. We are talking about those who claim a love, reverence, and belief in Christ who believe they are honoring God while attending Christmas, Easter, and Sunday services, or for that matter, Wednesday services, Tuesday night Services - you fill in the blank here. We're talking about Christians who have developed a way of doing things that is different from the Law or Traditions that have existed for thousands of years.
We know that this includes Biblical commands of food law because that is the basis of the arguments of those on the legal side who would have pointed to the Torah. We know that this basis includes the Sabbath, because that is the basis on the legal side of the arguments who would have pointed back to Deuteronomy. We know that the Old Testament commands were the basis of the disputes between those of the legalism side and those of the "freedom" side. Those of the legal side would defend vigorously with argumentation the validity and enforcement of the Mosaic Law, and those of the freedom side would defend with equal vigor their freedom in Christ. Paul's point was that God has accepted both sides based on their heart and their desire to worship God. That God was not looking at who was "obeying" this or "obeying" that - but that Christians have - (GASP) choice in what they prefer, in faith, is right to them.
This idea of freedom of choice was new then - and in Armstrongism - is new, even now. This idea of freedom of choice is spat on, frowned on, and stomped on by legalists who don't believe that God can honor those things that aren't written in iron-clad black and white print in the Scriptures. They believe that no person can choose to worship God in any other way than specifically ordained and commanded by scripture.
The argument - then - if one finally relents on the freedom of choice given to a Christian in Christ that Paul clearly states God accepts - switches to an argument of "unknown observance of pagan rituals" - citing past historical things that happened on certain days, times, seasons and years. The argument becomes exactly as stated above - the argument that "practices, traditions, and holidays that have no scriptural basis at all" can possibly be accepted by God.
The question has to be thus: What is it that causes one to be accepted by God?
Paul was very clear, in regards to the food issue, that both sides were accepted by God. He was very clear that the Church was not to argue about it. He also made it clear that it is not our business to condemn another believer. That all will stand before God and all will give account for our choices. But that does not negate the fact that we have choice. And choice is the one thing Armstrongism has robbed their members of for over 70 years.
Since Paul was clear that in regard to food, and in regard to worship, and days, that both groups are acceptable to God based on their faith and based on their heart of worship to God - is it then so difficult to conclude that God can also accept Sunday-keepers? Or that God can accept Christmas keepers? Or that God can accept those who worship God on "non-scripturally based days"? Is it possible that God has accepted all of those who worship Him and believe in Him with pure hearts? Is it possible that all in Christ have been accepted, whether they are in an Armstrong Church or whether they are in a Sunday-keeping, Christmas-keeping, Ham-eating Church?
How Many Armstrong Apologists would have stoned Paul themselves for making such a statement? How many would have accused Paul of having a demon? How many would have rejected this chapter in Romans if being told that by a person themselves? If someone in the Church walked up to a minister and said such a thing, what would happen? Would they have been kicked to the curb? Would such a declaration have raised the ire and fury of the legalistic minister? And in Armstrongism - would accepting such a declaration have harmed the Church's financial and business bottom line - by daring to state that a Christian has choice - and freedom - to choose and to honor God in whatever way is acceptable to them.
The entire construct of Paul's teachings is personal responsibility. Personal freedom. Personal choice - based on individual faith, and freedom in Christ. God has accepted both sides - and looks on a believer's heart - not on what day or what food or what legalistic command is or is not in force. This is the one thing that Armstrong stifles. Personal Choice and freedom in Christ.
The other entire construct of Paul's teaching? To not judge. To not condemn. Which is precisely what we as legalists did to all others who did not do things in the way we thought they should. "Who are you to judge another's servant"? Yet for years, that's exactly what we all did - based not on the faith and mind of the heart but on suppositions of days, times, seasons, years, and what is or is not "pagan".
What's the bottom line. The bottom line - according to New Testament teaching - is that the decisions of what is or is not acceptable in regards to worship, to meats, to food, whatever is physical - is between that person and God, and that no person has the right to interfere in that person's choice and decision. That faith is the binding glue of relationship as to what is or is not acceptable to a person - and that arguing about it does nothing but tear down and divide the Church. The biggest point of all of this? That no matter if one keeps Saturday or Sunday, or eats Pork, Ham, or Beef - that all - if their heart is right with the Lord - in faith - are acceptable to God, and are Christians as much as the other.
This is the Good News that Armstrongism staunchly rejects. This is the message of righteousness, peace and Joy in the Spirit. It is the message or a righteous heart - and the freedom of choice in faith that has been provided in Christ to the believer.
Submitted by SHT
