Bible Talk: Could Jesus Have Sinned?

 

Could Jesus Have Sinned? (Of Course Not!)

I first heard the question, “Could Jesus have sinned?” in the early 1990s. The leadership of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) was making the point that Jesus was never tempted to sin, but rather was tested.

According to the popular usage of these words, they were absolutely right. Jesus did not endure temptation in the sense of resisting a strong urge to sin and only succeeding by the skin of his teeth.

But the old guard of COG doctrine vociferously objected. The voices that eventually caught my ear — like those of Garner Ted Armstrong and CGI pastors Bill Watson and Wayne Hendrix — would quote Hebrews 4:15, saying Jesus “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (KJV).

And so they insisted, “If Jesus could not have sinned, then you have no Savior!“

They believed as many COGers still do today — that Jesus' mission was the riskiest venture of all time. He might have sinned and all would have been lost forever, including God the Son himself! The stakes were high, but thankfully Jesus won the challenge.

At first I was sympathetic toward WCG's new position — that Jesus was “tested” but not “tempted.” It seemed to make sense. Yet, influenced by my associations, I eventually accepted the old view — that Jesus could have sinned, but didn't.

Now, I realize that this “old school” COG crowd was wrong — dreadfully wrong — because they didn't understand at least two things:

First, the fundamental Christian doctrine of who and what Jesus is — that Jesus is at once both fully God and fully man.

And second, how sin is committed.

The Real Jesus

We cannot correctly answer the question of whether Jesus could have sinned if we wrongly believe (as many within COGs seem to) that Jesus

1. was God in the beginning
2. stopped being God during his earthly life, and
3. became God again at his Resurrection.

If God is eternal (no beginning and no end), then he cannot stop being God. That's what it means to be “eternal.” He can't be “eternal until he stops being eternal” — a contradiction of terms.

The Word (who became Jesus — John 1:1,14) always was, and always will be, God. But when he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, he took for himself an additional nature — a human nature. (By “human nature,” we don't mean in this context a proclivity to sin, but all the qualities that make us a member of the Homo sapiens family: body and spirit.)

Since his divine nature (that which makes him God) is eternal, then he can't stop being divine. Taking on an additional nature — a human nature with all that entails — does not change that. And so Jesus is often called the “God-Man,” which is a way of saying he is at once both God and man.

“But that doesn't add up!”

I've heard the objection that the math is all wrong if we say Jesus is fully God and fully man. If something is 100 percent one thing, then there's no room for it to be 100 percent something else, too. It doesn't add up — nothing can total 200 percent.

But there is no mathematical contradiction if we understand the difference between who someone is and what someone is.

What I am is distinct from who I am. The what of me is possessed by the who of me, not the other way around. (That's why I can speak of “my arm,” but not “an arm's me.”)

We have to realize that the Person of Jesus (who he is) is always and only divine. It's not 50-50 — he's not part divine Person, part human person. He is a divine Person, without qualification, 100 percent.

But the nature of Jesus (what he is) is twofold. He has a divine nature, and he has a human nature.

How sinning is done

I said earlier that the old guard of COG doctrine was wrong about Jesus being capable of sin because they didn't understand that Jesus is fully God and fully man. Now that we understand Jesus is one divine Person with two natures (human and divine), let's flesh that out.

How do we sin? Are we sinful merely because we have material bodies, with flesh and blood and bone? Or did God consider everything he had made in the Garden and say “it was very good” (Genesis 1:30)?

Think about the animals. With all its flesh — weighing tons — never has any elephant been guilty of sin. By instinct, an elephant can exhibit aggressive behavior, and does not live a monogamous mating lifestyle. But in no way can it be held morally culpable or even capable of “sin.”

Why? Because it's not what something is that sins. Sin is not committed by natures, but by persons! Elephants are not persons as we are, for we have rational, spiritual souls (think “spirit in man”).

And then there's Satan and his demons. They are incorporeal as pure spirits. (Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that they have “spirit bodies,” they still don't have human flesh.) Yet they have committed the gravest sins!

So how does this apply to Jesus?

The fact that Jesus has a human nature does not mean he is capable of sin. Remember, while he has a human nature to go along with his divine nature, he is only one Person. A divine Person!

Natures on their own cannot sin. My body cannot sin without being directed by me, because only persons can sin. And since Jesus is a divine Person, it follows that Jesus cannot and never could sin.

The temptations of Jesus

Because the Eternal Word took to himself a human nature, he shares in our experiences and our sufferings.

He lived his earthly life in the flesh just like we do. He endured hunger. He bled. He cried. He suffered all the things we do.

But he never teetered on the edge of sin. There were no close calls.

Read Matthew 4. Even during the full-on assault in the wilderness by Satan the master tempter, Jesus did not hesitate in perfect obedience to the Father.

Jesus fasted 40 days and 40 nights, and was hungry. He could only be hungry through his human nature, which he shares with us. Yet when the great tempter tried to lead him astray, Jesus had no second thoughts:

But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God’” (verse 4).

His truly hungry human body was not his boss; he, the divine Person, was wholly in control.

His inability to sin is evident in the next temptation, when the devil told him to jump from atop the temple, since the Scriptures said he would be protected.

Jesus' did not have to battle pride. He did not think, “Hey, who the heck do you think I am? I am the I AM, buddy! I'll show you!”

No, with absolute, unwavering conviction, Jesus said,

Again it is written, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test” (verse 7).

And finally, the devil tempted Jesus with all the kingdoms of the world if only Jesus would fall down and worship him.

We can't take the fact that the devil tried to lead Jesus into sin as proof that Jesus was capable of having second thoughts.

No, the all-knowing God-Man was not impressed.

Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’ Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.

Again, we see because of who he was (God), Jesus was unshakable; but because of what he was (Man), he suffered intensely.

In other words, while Jesus was tempted in the sense of being put to the test in his human weaknesses, he was not tempted in the sense of struggling to decide whether to sin.

He was never close to sinning through anger. He was never in danger of lusting for power, riches, or women.

Contrary to what I heard years ago, if Jesus could have sinned, then he is not God, and you have no Savior!

Conclusion: It makes perfect sense to think of it this way — that Jesus was tested, but not tempted.

So then, since we have a great High Priest who has entered heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we believe. This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin. So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most (Hebrews 4:14-16, New Living Translation).

---

The COG Catholic currently blogs at www.cogcatholic.org.

Did LCG's Fast Servce Its Purpose?

 

LCG's fast is now over. Did anyone in LCG feel the Holy Spirit stirred up? More importantly, did any minister? It's the ministry that should have been on its knees fasting and praying for humility and forgiveness instead of placing the burden on the members.

Was this about members looking inwardly or trying to influence God to do what they demand? 

How many doors were opened to spread LCG's gospel as a result of last Saturday?

Has the church reached the world? Bob Thiel claims it hasn't so he had to step in and do their work.

Prepare for the Fast—Part 3: The growth of the early Church was driven, in part, by men filledwith the Holy Spirit, like Peter (Acts 2:1–4), Stephen and Philip (6:3–8; 8:5–8), and Paul (13:1–12; 19:1–6). The Scriptures also reveal that God will pour out His Spirit abundantly in the last days (Joel 2:28–32; Acts 2:17–18). To that end, the Apostle Paul urged Christians to “stir up” the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is a Spirit of power, love, and a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:6–7). We nourish that Spirit through daily prayer, Bible study, fasting, and meditation on God’s word (2 Corinthians 4:16). As we fast, we need to pray for open doors to boldly preach the Gospel (Acts 4:29–33; Revelation 3:8), for courage to “cry aloud” and show God’s people their sins (Isaiah 58:1), for a clearer understanding of prophecy (2 Peter 1:19), and for laborers and resources to finish the Work (Matthew 9:37–38; 2 Corinthians 8–9; John 4:34). Jesus commissioned His Church to reach the world (Mark 16:15), and He promised to be with His Church to the end of the age (Matthew 28:19–20). Let’s do our part as we draw together to pray and worship during the coming Fast.
Have a profitable Sabbath,
Douglas S. Winnail

The Foolish, Arrogant and Biblically Illiterate Shepherd David C Pack

It's no secret, if one listens to Dave Pack, the theological misfit, he feels that he knows more than anyone else about the Bible. Evidently reading it and then cut and pasting the parts that tend to agree with him and even point to him motivates him to spin one false biblical scenario after the next ad nauseum. Those who enable Dave, stroke his ego and refuse to confront him keep the fables flowing.

Dave Pack is not a trained theologian. His education was in Bible reading and the false practice of "here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept" misunderstanding of that scripture's context, which is nowhere near the meaning the Churches of God ascribe to it. 

"Here a little, there a little"

Dave Pack knows nothing about the actual sciences and no, he did not study and settle the topic of evolution "50 years ago" once and for all. I took the same stupid and ignorant class he did and just trust me, it was stupid and ignorant. Dave's understanding is at the level of "A Whale of a Tale" and a "Theory for the Birds" which WCG published to settle the question of "no, evolution did not happen" once and for all. It was grossly out of date scientifically when published as was the course material Dave claims he studied 50 years ago. 

Aron Ra slaughtered Dave Pack's series on Creationism and why Evolution cannot be true with 19 a Pack crushing series of his own as to why it is.

 

Dave knows nothing of the actual background and composition of the Old Testament. He takes obviously borrowed mythologies as being literally true. He knows nothing of Gospel origins, authorship, politic and intent. He never studied such topics. They were never understood by the WCG faculty or ministry much less taught. Herbert Armstrong was merely a charismatic Bible reader and the pattern Dave Pack found to fit his own ego and theological nonsense.

Dave knows nothing of the first century political and theological intrigues between the Jerusalem Apostles and the Apostle Paul. He probably does not realize that Paul wrote, lived and died before any Gospel was ever penned and comes first in the story of the NT. I doubt Dave would understand that Paul never met Gospel Jesus nor why he never quotes him. 

Dave certainly would never entertain the idea that the Book of Revelation is not for anyone today or that "to show things (THEN) which must shortly come to pass" and "Behold I come quickly" meant "to them not us" and, of course, didn't happen.  He'd argue it is "both then and yet now again", but he'd be wrong. 

And of course, there really are not any Old Testament references to David C Pack's coming, mission or message. 

Nonetheless, there has never quite been the expert in all things like David C Pack. 

Just ask him.

I’ve come to the point whereas I’ve explained, I’m encyclopedic on the Bible, I can just study it in my mind, I can call up these verses and I just then I just said, ‘I’m not gonna stop.’ Then I took a pause and by nightfall I was over a hundred and eventually over a hundred and ten.”

 “It just never happened. I’ve studied Church history like no one I’ve ever known, maybe there’re some who know it better than I do, but I wrote a lot about it, I’ve talked about it, and I’ve I’ve harkened to this point.”

 “I’ve been studying God’s word for almost 50 years. And I’ve studied prophecy, I know

this, like no man who’s ever lived. And I’m gonna tell you things over the next several weeks that are so awesome, so mind-bending, even before today.”

 “I’m telling you, brethren, I understand this. I’m equipped. I am trained to understand. I know what war is, I’ve studied it all my life.”

 “I’ve studied prophecy, I am sure, by far, more than anybody who ever lived.”

 “I’m not the Apostle Paul, but I am one and I understand what he’s thinking. I’m sure I’ve pastored more people than he did. He probably traveled more in many ways. Maybe raised up more congregations, although I raised up almost fifty, but I don’t know...”

 “This is a profound understanding and nobody ever put it together and it was my task to do that and begin to explain it to the church. I’m going to tell you, I think there probably are still a few flaws in what I’ve said, but very few.”

 “What we learned on Thursday night, nobody on earth knows! Nobody knows it. My whole life I’ve dug into these things. I know prophecy better than any man alive. I’ve said it before, if you think I’m arrogant saying it, as I like to say, ‘Then, pray for me.’ But I’m gonna tell you I’ve dug and dug and dug like nobody I ever knew...and now a thousand wise men could not convince me I’m wrong.”

 “These are mysteries. Nobody understood any of this. I didn’t and took me a while to put it together. I mean, I feel like I could write a new King James Bible better, with the Greek and Hebrew. They were fine, I’m not I’m not trying to brag, but I’ve had to. That’s where I got up to and I do estimate it’s about 9000 hours of study on this.”

 “Look, maybe there’re people who know New Testament Church history better than I, but I but I I’ll bet there aren’t three in the last two thousand years, partly because I live at the end of it and I’ve studied it and written long books on it and studied it...”

For the whole nauseating list of Dave's quotes about himself see:

DCP_Like-No-One-Else.pdf - Google Drive

=================

Dave Pack Defined

5 Signs You're in an Abusive Church (crosswalk.com)

 The cult of the leader.

Abusive communities often have a dynamic leader. They appear personable and engaging. They command attention and energize a room. They teach with authority (often quite loudly) and employ a multitude of scriptural references. At face value, it appears as if their leadership is biblically based and divinely blessed.

While the teachings of the leader may appear biblical, there is often little discussion of the biblical text in its historical or theological context. Scripture verses are used as proof-texts alone. 

Teachings are designed to illustrate the leader’s special knowledge or experience. Either by prayer or personal study, the leader is deemed to understand the correct application of Scripture, an application that others fail to notice. Importantly, as the leader alone holds this secret knowledge, individuals are dissuaded from asking questions or researching the topic themselves.

These dynamics create an exalted status of the leader. In abusive communities, the leader is to be followed blindly. His or her leadership is understood to be divinely ordained. Questioning the leader, therefore, amounts to questioning God’s holy and unalterable word. The continuous message to the community is “be like the leader” rather than “be like Jesus.”

Armstrongism, Ebionitism and Adoptionism

 

Armstrongism has always been well known to be an amalgamation of different thought processes and beliefs stemming from the many religious movements that developed as a result of Millerism. While not all of Armstrongism carries all of the beliefs of Ebionitism it has lots of similarities as well as with with adoptionism beliefs. It seemed to latch on to anything that supported their view that the law was still a requirement.

What say ye? 

EBIONITISM

The Ebionites also tended to demote the place of Christ. They taught the necessity for Christians to also uphold and obey the law of Moses and so have often been compared to the Judaistic group who were undermining Paul’s teachings at Galatia. A few have claimed that the Ebionites were the descendants of the Jerusalem church of the first century, but this is very far from being proven. Like the Arians, this group were very soon on the outside of the established Church. This approach is very very similar to the approach adopted by Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the ‘Worldwide Church of God’ cult/sect.

For Armstrong, law was everything although he was very selective about which laws he was keen on; some were almost ignored, others such as the seventh day Sabbath and the Leviticus 23 holydays, were relentlessly pushed by Armstrong. He appeared totally disinterested in the major Christian doctrine of Grace, despite that doctrines very high profile in the writings of Paul. Armstrong would have agreed that the Old Covenant sacrifices had now ceased but was unwilling to make further concessions which placed his theology a long way from the theology of the New Testament. The tiny WCG offshoot cults have tried to maintain, to a greater or lesser degree, Armstrong’s approach. Ancient Heresies and Discredited Theories

Other views on Ebiontism:

Dr. Schaff sharply distinguishes Ebionism from Gnosticism as follows: "Ebionism is a Judaizing, pseudo-Petrine Christianity, or a Christianizing Judaism; Gnosticism is a paganizing or pseudo-Pauline Christianity, or a pseudo-Christian heathenism. The former is a particularistic contraction of the Christian religion; the latter a vague expansion of it" (Church History, § 67). According to the same writer, "the characteristic marks of Ebionism in all its forms are, degradation of Christianity to the level of Judaism, the principle of the universal and perpetual validity of the Mosaic law, and enmity to the apostle Paul. But, as there were different sects in Judaism itself, we have also to distinguish at least two branches of Ebionism, related to each other, as Pharisaism and Essenism, or, to use a modern illustration, as the older deistic and the speculative pantheistic rationalism in Germany, or the two schools of Unitarianism in England and America. 

1. The common Ebionites, who were by far the more numerous, embodied the Pharisaic legal spirit, and were the proper successors of the Judaizers opposed in the epistle to the Galatians. Their doctrine may be reduced to the following propositions:

(a.) Jesus is, indeed, the promised Messiah, the son of David, and the supreme lawgiver, yet a mere man, like Moses and David, sprung by natural generation from Joseph and Mary. The sense of his Messianic calling first arose in him at his baptism by John, when a higher spirit joined itself to him. Hence Origen compared this sect to the blind man in the Gospel who called to the Lord without seeing him, 'Thou son of David, have mercy on me!'

(b.) Circumcision and the observance of the whole ritual law of Moses are necessary to salvation for all men.

(c.) Paul is an apostate and heretic, and all his epistles are to be discarded. The sect considered him a native heathen, who came over to Judaism in later life from impure motives.

(d.) Christ is soon to come again to introduce the glorious millennial reign of the Messiah, with the earthly Jerusalem for its seat. McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia

Note this about adoptionism:

It is frequently claimed that the earliest christology was “adoptionist,” the theological claim that ontologically (by nature) Jesus was nothing but human, nothing but “mere man.” This ancient “reductionist-humanistic” concept did, however, allow for an exalted view of Jesus as Messiah, great high priest, the “Prophet like Moses,” and other Jewish-Messianic affirmations. It also permitted Jesus to be a risen prophet, one whom God raised up from the grave as a seal of approval. Moreover, it allowed this risen Jesus to be an angelic being, glorified and exalted into heaven and standing at God’s right hand, carrying God’s name in him, and waiting fto carry out a “second coming” in which he will judge the world. This adoptionist Jesus – properly understood not as a god or God, but as God’s agent – may even be addressed in the Maranatha prayer: “Come, Lord Jesus.” 

 

But all of these glorious affirmations still pertain to the monotheistic, Jewish Jesus, a man, a prophet, a righteous Israelite rewarded by God. God’s reward, as mentioned, was to raise Jesus into heaven. This heavenly reward is necessarily an aspect of adoptionism. Clearly, a risen Messiah to whom one can pray has par excellence been adopted (as “Son”) by God. Yet Ebionites and other early Jewish Christians believed that Jesus’ adoption by God began even earlier, in his earthly life, before his death and resurrection. 

 

It was claimed that Jesus, a devout Israelite, excelled all others in piety, obedience and righteousness (as reflected in Luke 2:51-52), so that, by the time he was baptized by John in the Jordan, Jesus had reached the pinnacle of holiness, and so was “ripe for adoption.” Indeed, say Jewish Christian sources, it was at his baptism that Jesus was “officially” adopted as God’s son: the heavens opened, the holy Spirit descended on Jesus “like a dove,” and God’s voice proclaimed him “Son.” This early Jewish christological understanding extends even into the canonical Gospels and the Pauline writings. 

 

It is generally maintained among scholars that this “low” adoptionist christology characterised only the early, “Jewish” period of church formation. So-called “higher” christologies which made more explict divine claims for Jesus, are held to be much later developments in the tradition. The idea is that the “Jewishness” of low/adoptionist christology indicates its plausibility, because notions of higher christology had not yet had time to evolve. 

 

Adoptionist christology, it is claimed, is in keeping with Jewish perspectives about prophets, inspired or” holy”people, and the monotheistic/singular-unitary nature of God. Higher christology, it is claimed, is the product of later theological reflection and possible importation of pagan, Hellenistic ideas about god-men and demigods.

However, some expressions of early Jewish christology actually contain both “high” and “low” concepts about Jesus. 

 

For the Ebionites, Jesus was the adopted son of God, the Prophet like Moses, whose righteousness caused God to embrace him in a filial relationship at his baptism and then to “set the seal” on the act by raising Jesus from the dead. For the Ebionites, Jesus was the Messiah in the sense of carrying out messianic goals during his ministry. (Interestingly, they also held that messiahship is potentially everyone’s birthright, maintaining that all Ebionites, and those who enter that fold, are oiled with the same messianic chrism that anointed Jesus. Adherents can, like Jesus, perform the messianic task.) 

 

Thus far, Ebionitism qualifies as a typically “low” christology. However, Ebionites also claimed a kind of “high” christology, because they involved their Christ in the field or schema of heavenly pre-existence. Ebionites typically claimed that Jesus, the wholly human but divinely-adopted prophet also embodied God’s holy Spirit. 

 

To return to the baptism scene: Ebionites claimed that the “Spirit Like A Dove” that descended on Jesus was a type of pre-existent, heavenly “Christ” sent down to abide in Jesus. 

 

This spirit was thought to be more or less interchangeable with the Adam Kadmon, or heavenly primal Adam; Yahoel, God’s chief assisting angel; Metatron, the Angel of the Throne; and the Standing One or heavenly Son of Man. 

 

For the Ebionites, Jesus was a man adopted and risen to heaven by God. But he was also the embodiment on earth – or if the term may be used – the incarnation of a pre-existent celestial being. The Ebionite Jesus thus carries in him the dual dignity 1) of a righteous human being and 2) the numinous character who incarnates a revealing tutelary spirit, who is pre-existent and closely related to God. 

 

To reiterate: Ebionitism claims a dual christological significance to Jesus’ baptismal adoption, an adoption that simultanesously consists of: 

 

granting to Jesus a filial relationship to God

– and –

the entering into Jesus of a pre-existent celestial tutelary spirit, perceived, conceptualized and symbolized as a dovelike spirit. 

 

The Ebionite Christ thus exemplifies a synthesis of both “low” and “high” christologies, because: 

 

on the one hand he is the obedient-and-rewarded prophet,

and on the other hand he is the recipient of a pre-existent, heavenly being. 

 

It is therefore possible to think that the Ebionite Jesus speaks in two voices: one, the voice of the Jesus “the carpenter’s son,” the obedient-but-transformed/adopted human mystic, “Jesus the Galilean”; the other, the self-revealing, incarnating Spirit, or Adam Kadmon, primal Son of Man, holy angel. 

 

This christological paradigm is worked out in Islam by the separation of the the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) personal voice from the Voice of God speaking through him. The New Testament does not often or obviously separate the two voices, but a close reading will find them implicit in many texts, most pointedly in John’s Gospel. 

 

John’s Jesus, embodying the Spirit and will of the Father and being the vehicle for the Logos’ incarnation, speaks with the Voice of the Divine, such as in the “I am” statements. Many of the Johannine Jesus’ statements can be read as self-revelations of the Spirit incarnate in him (“I come from the Father and return to the Father; I know the hidden things of God; before Abraham came to be, I am,” etc.). Here – theoretically at least -is the incarnate heavenly Spirit speaking through Jesus.
At other times John’s Jesus looks more like a human mystic reflecting on and talking about what it is like to incarnate God’s spirit and to be filially united with that God and his spiritt (“the Father and I are one; when you see me, you see the Father; I am a man who hears and obeys the word of God; the Father is greater than I; I can do nothing of my own will, only by God’s will,” etc. Here – theoretically – Jesus the Galilean mystic is speaking about himself.

These considerations indicate that the dichotomy between high-late and low-early christologies is at least partially dissolved in Ebionitism’s combination of the two. For a fascinating discussion of the possible “two voices” of Jesus, the reader is referred to Stevan L. Davies’ book, Jesus the Healer (Continuum Publishing Company, NY 1995, especially pp. 151-169). Ebionitism’s Dual Christologies

 

 

Guess Who Is Elijah Again?

 

RCG News Flash – August 3, 2024

David C. Pack IS Elijah The Prophet After All.
All Restored Church Of God Members Are Prophets, Too.

During “The Greatest Unending Story! (Part 526)” on July 27, 2024, the Pastor General of The Restored Church of God spent one hour of a two-hour and eight-minute sermon explaining that he is, in fact, Elijah the Prophet. But all the members of RCG are also prophets.

I Am Elijah – Part 1

I Am Elijah – Part 2

“I’m Not Gonna Claim To Be A Prophet”

The June exrcg.org article, The Elijahn Wink, already called his bluff.

Dave has had an on-again, off-again love affair with being Elijah the Prophet since first believing he was during the worst Sabbath six-hour marathon in RCG history in 2015.

“I Hafta Be Elijah Now”

His god sure has a hard time making things clear to the only living apostle on earth charged with delivering just-in-time divine knowledge. That is probably the product of the not-so-great idea that Dave’s god can talk to him without using an audible voice.

David C. Pack Compilation – Elijah the Prophet 

He knows the date for the return of Jesus Christ. But won’t tell anyone. Yet.

Dave knows his enemies will attack him, but he just laughs about that. Sure, he laughs…sure…

Marc Cebrian  exrcg.org

William Miller and the Armstrongist Church of God Movement

Weeping Until Dawn: October 22, 1844 the Great Disappointment of William Miller 

and America's First End Time Prophecy

 

Robin Brace, a former Worldwide Church of God member and a former minister, has written extensively on the UK site Outreach Trust which works to help people recover from abusive churches, legalism, and defending the faith.

This is some of the information he has written about William Miller and the erroneous church movements he fathered (including Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Armstrongism, and even Mormonism).

Note the highlighted section below. Today's Church of God's self-appointed leaders do this exact same thing. They despise the cross and the atoning work and place their entire focus upon fantastical and absurd prophecies interpreted according to their "understanding". This is particularly true of Bob Thiel and his hatred of the cross. The cross and Jesus take the focus off of him.

One cannot stress enough the desire of the early Americans to be free of religious control after having suffered often in the Old World because of its excesses. This hunger for freedom led to a powerful sense of independence and a resulting desire to rediscover Christian community and experience. Much good came from this pursuit of a more personal Christianity, but it also led to an atmosphere in which idiosyncratic beliefs were often tolerated in ways they would not have been in the Old World.

By the 1840s, overlapping historically with the early development of the Mormon religion, William Miller sought to refocus Christianity away from Christ’s atoning work on the cross and instead preached an envisaged, imminent second coming supported by his interpretations of Bible prophecy (especially that found in Daniel and Revelation). He was drawing on strands of sensational teaching which were in no way new. Similar arguments had been attempted before in the Old World but had not prospered because of the wide accessibility of more deeply grounded biblical theology. The New World, however, was determined to be “open” religiously; this American, individualistic freedom assisted the new, exciting adventist worldview and provided an environment in which it could flourish.

All the “adventist” cults and sects—which are American phenomena—can be traced to the legacy of Miller. It matters not whether we speak of Joseph Smith, Ellen White, Hiram Edson, Joseph Bates, Charles Taze Russell (who became the first leader of the Watchtower Society—later, Jehovah’s Witnesses—in 1896), or Herbert W. Armstrong  who founded what became the Worldwide Church of God in 1933—these theological mavericks who posed as Christians all reflected America’s individualistic freedom and bore the marks of William Miller’s “gospel”, replacing the finished work of Jesus on the cross with the alarm: “Jesus is coming; get ready!”

Miller’s new approach had proven to be so popular that by 1844, F.S. Mead calculated in his A Handbook of Denominations in the United States, p 20, “… there were between 50,000 and 100,000 adventists in North America.” 

Miller’s doomsday legacy continues to evolve; David Koresh, of Waco, Texas fame, was also an adventist, originally of the Seventh-day Adventist sect, later leaving to pursue his own highly idiosyncratic theological path.

Today, Miller is quite famous for his date-setting for Christ’s return based upon his understanding of the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation. Inevitably, however, his dates failed, and many gave up adventism; others went into mental asylums, and some committed suicide. They had given up everything, even leaving their crops unharvested, because they believed Jesus would come and take them away. 

Others, however, were not deterred by Miller’s failed prophecies. These adventists refused to accept the fact that they had believed a lie and had discounted the clear teaching of Jesus: “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mk. 13:32). This group never gave up Miller’s approach of refocusing adventists away from the cross and toward the second coming. As time passed, their methods included prophecy, legalism in various forms, and, inevitably, all the pet theories of each of the founders of the sects that emerged from those persistent Millerite faithful.

Miller, like the founders of almost every adventist cult who would follow him, had little deep knowledge of the word of God and had not been a long-term practicing Christian. He had never studied Greek or Hebrew, and it is known that he only used the Bible and Cruden’s Concordance in his work. He was unaccountable and marched to his own theological drum. 

In fact, all the subsequent sect-founding adventists followed a similar “me-only” approach, believing that God was revealing new truth—only to them! They even rejected the new understandings of other adventists. In short, their Milleresque methods became notable for their sublime senses of self-sufficiency!

These men and women had never been masters of even one of the biblical languages in which the inspired texts were originally written. Neither were they prepared to check their conclusions against the more time-honored conclusions of men such as Luther, Calvin, Augustine, and others. Consequently, it has been easy for adventists to hold their ground, since they have never felt the need to defend their teachings against the more thoroughly biblically-grounded teachings of the Christian world. In adventism itself, typically, the people are held in subjection to various charismatic leaders and do not dare pose questions. Further, most such sects have painted a picture (also very much part of adventism) that they alone have all truth and that those who hold other biblical views are the tools of Satan! Robin Brace: Moving Away from Legalism

 

LCG: Sciatica, Rumor Mill, Church Successor, Church Wide Fast, Humbling Ones Self, and DON'T PLAY CHURCH!

We are drawing close to the fall Holy Days time and Satan is getting angry. LCG is starting to feel his wrath by Gerald Weston being sidelined by painful sciatica and a herniated disc and busy rumor mills are already starting to spread rumors wondering who his successor will be.

Weston has seen several doctors about this and the prognosis is that it will heal in time. Gone are the days when the church taught that all illnesses in the church were a direct result of personal sin in one's life. And, that God refused to heal many due to their lack of faith. It's interesting that when Herb started getting sick this teaching swiftly went into the digestor in Big Sandy 

Also, it seems pride and haughtiness have set in in the membership of the LCG. Remember, church members can never do anything right so they now need to humble themselves on August 3 to see what's wrong with them in order to appease that incessantly angry COG god.

Oh, and apparently some LCG members are only "playing" church. Stupid members! Don't you realize that all the problems of the church and the failure of Christ returning to spank everyone's behind is all YOUR fault?

Dear Brethren,

 

Rather than allowing rumor or speculation to occur, I want to let you know about my physical condition at this time. Seven years ago, I had a bout of sciatica—a very painful condition. It lasted about three weeks and went away. It came back last September before the Feast of Tabernacles, but it improved enough for me to fly to Texas for the Feast, even though I had to stand at times due to pain while sitting. 

 

By November I was much better, and it was very manageable. However, a few weeks before the Texas Teen Camp this summer, the symptoms started coming back. Though painful, this did not prevent me from traveling to Texas to direct the camp, but I had to fly back to Charlotte on Friday to be here for Mr. Ames’ funeral. 

 

Dear brethren, even though I regrettably had to miss speaking at the funeral, I am extremely thankful to have returned to Charlotte. I was very, very blessed to be able to come back because by Sabbath it was worse, and by Sunday morning, I went to the emergency room for some relief from excruciating pain. This situation would be far more complicated for a variety of reasons if I were stuck in Texas. 

 

I have seen several doctors and the diagnosis is that it is a herniated disc causing pressure against the sciatic nerve that runs down from the buttocks, along the leg, all the way down to the foot. I am surprised how many of you have also experienced this and understand exactly what I’m talking about. While similar to past episodes, this time is far more intense. 

 

I am letting you know of this as I am a little sidelined for the moment. This is something that is temporary. It is excruciatingly painful and very unpleasant, but my doctor told me that 80 to 90 percent of people recover without surgery. 

 

Even though I don’t like focusing on my problems, I know that if I don’t say something then rumors and speculation can get started and people start worrying needlessly. It is kind of funny, but when I get a cold, a few members become anxious and wonder who is going to succeed me. Suffice it to say that there are some very fine men here at Headquarters who are thoroughly converted, strategic thinkers. The only concern I have about succession is which one is Christ’s choice. So far, He has not made that obvious, but it is encouraging to know we have men who can step in when and if needed. 

 

This is written to let you know that I may not be as visible for a few weeks. I sincerely do not like focusing on my own problems because there are brethren who are going through trials that are far, far greater than mine. Some have been going through long trials—very painful situations. And some are in end-of-life situations. So, while I appreciate your prayers, I feel unworthy of them and hope you will remember our dear brothers and sisters who may be going through much greater trials. They are precious in the sight of God the Father and Jesus Christ and must be in our eyes, too. 

 

Now may I address another subject—the upcoming fast on August 3. Sometimes people ask the question: Why are we fasting? What is the cause, purpose, or focus of the fast? Sometimes we miss the major focus of fasting, which is to draw close to God. As we read in Matthew 9:14-15, the disciples of John asked why the disciples of Jesus did not fast. Christ pointed out that since God was with them in the flesh there was no reason for them to fast, as the purpose of fasting is to draw close to God. It is very important that we recognize that we do not approach a fast from the perspective of ganging up on God to force our will upon Him. 

 

There are cases, for example with Esther, where there was a specific issue, a crisis for which to fast and cry out to God. But, as Mr. Herbert Armstrong taught, the focus should be on humbling ourselves. That is what fasting is: humbling ourselves, finding out what is wrong with us, finding out what we need to change. And while there are times where there is a specific focus, most of the time our fasts are about getting closer to God. 

 

Consider what is happening all around us. The world is in turmoil and looking for a savior. We already have three major upsets in elections. Here in the United States Mr. Biden has dropped out of the Presidential race. We had the assassination attempt on Mr. Trump. We have Mr. Macron in France who took a significant hit in the polls. I don’t understand the French system, but certainly Marine Le Pen won the greatest number of votes. Macron it appears, is still in charge, but the dynamics have changed. And, there was a major overthrow in the British government, with power returning to the Labour Party. Several other significant elections are upcoming this year. We also have members suffering serious trials. Our world is burning up in many respects and who knows where we are going to be by the end of the year. 

 

So, brethren, we need to recognize the need to draw close to God. This is a time when we must be serious. As Dr. Meredith used to admonish us, “Don’t play church!” I understand that most of you are not. Most of you are very serious and dedicated. But these are serious times, and we must grow closer to God. We need to examine ourselves, praying for God to show us how we can change as individuals and as a Church to get the message out to the world. Our focus should be on humbling ourselves, drawing close to God, being moved in light of all the things that we see in our world today. And be sure to reference Dr. Winnail’s comments on the fast. 

 

Sincerely, in Christ’s service,
Gerald E. Weston