Meats: Universal and Plain?

In my investigation into meats laws I tried to learn why it was that the WCG taught what it did. If the laws were in effect, and it was so plain, the believers should be able to explain their reasoning. I started at HWA's beginning, with the Church of God (Seventh Day). They kept the food laws. However, some influential ministers’ understanding of those laws was different than what Herbert Armstrong taught. How can it be so universal and plain if he thought his own superiors in the church were wrong?

Unfortunately, the investigation didn’t get any easier. It would appear that after certain years in his own church, Herbert Armstrong returned to the interpretation held by the Church of God (Seventh Day). And not only that, but I wound up seeing that many of the splinters that came from the Worldwide Church of God disagree again with Herbert Armstrong. (And I apologize in advance for the length of this post.)

In his autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30, Herbert Armstrong speaks of his own beliefs and experiences as a young minister regarding the dietary laws. Here is an excerpt:

The "Pork" Obsession

"The opposition through the spring and summer of 1933 had come through the two ministers who had moved up to Oregon from California, Elders Sven (Sam) A. Oberg, and A. J. Ray. Mr. Ray was developing, through the summer, a sort of obsession against the eating of "unclean" meats -- pork, ham, bacon, seafoods, and those labelled "unclean" in Leviticus 11. The emphasis he continually put on this doctrine, almost with vehemence, rather gave the impression that, in his eyes, the eating of pork, which came in for his greatest condemnation, was the greatest of sins.

"About the time the Firbutte school meeting started, July 9, 1933, Mr. Ray began aiming his "anti-pork" guns directly at me. He demanded that I state definitely my stand on this question. I had written him a Biblical exposition of the subject, showing that it was a physical FOOD question, rather than a spiritual or Gospel subject. Unless a man broke the tenth commandment by lusting after it, the eating of pork did not violate the Ten Commandments, which constitute a SPIRITUAL law.

"I quoted Mark 7:15-23, where Jesus explained that sin is a spiritual principle -- that which is coming out of the heart of a man -- evil thoughts leading to actions of adultery, murder, theft, deceit, blasphemy, pride -- violations of the Ten Commandments; but that nothing from without, entering in his mouth, defiles the man spiritually. Jesus was speaking of SPIRITUAL principles, and SIN as a spiritual offense."

-Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30

These are very important points. Mr. Armstrong, in contrast to his own church, did not teach the clean and unclean meats laws as a spiritual sin. He clearly says that eating the meats is not a sin. Instead, he taught the foods were unfit for the digestive process. As Herbert Armstrong said in His booklet

“God did not give poisonous herbs as food. He gave man the healthful herbs. Man can determine which herbs are healthful, but man cannot by himself determine which flesh foods are harmful. That is why God had to determine for us in His Word which meats are clean. Since the Flood every moving clean, healthful, nonpoisonous type of animal life is good for food—just as God gave us the healthful, nonpoisonous herbs.”

-Herbert Armstrong, “Is All Animal Flesh Good For Food”, p. 3

Actually, Genesis 9: 3 does not specify "clean", but rather it says "every moving thing that lives", the root word of 'moving thing' includes reptiles, and again it says "all things".

I utterly disagree when HWA says, "man cannot by himself determine which flesh foods are harmful." Let’s think about that for a moment. If this is not a sin issue, but a health issue, then we have a physical law of nature that can be proven with observation. What do we observe? That certain regions in Japan, certain regions in Germany, and certain regions in Italy have much higher life expectancy rates than the rest of the world. Why mention that? They eat unclean meats regularly, some of them almost exclusively, and they will probably outlive you. How can that food be bad for your digestion if people who eat it regularly can expect to outlive the rest of the world? Look in the United States. The life expectancy rate climbs upwardly. Most people in this nation eat unclean meats regularly. Look at what is called the “Mediterranean diet”. It includes meals with seafood and lean pork, but is considered one of the healthiest diets on earth. There is simply no truth to the claim that pork is bad for your health. Obviously, after thousands of years of eating "unclean" meats, it would be widely known if it were physically unhealthy to eat pork. High fructose corn syrup was discovered in the 1970's; not 30 years later many people are aware that it isn't the best idea to ingest it. Same with hydrogenated oils, or saccharine. But we are to believe that after thousands of years and trillions of people eating pork and shellfish, the majority consensus is that there are no physical ill effects, yet it isn't healthy to eat? That's just ridiculous.

So the claim evolved to emphasize improperly cooked pork. “God was protecting His people from trichinosis,” was oft heard. OK. Trichinosis is terrible. I wouldn’t wish it on an enemy. But what then do we say about mad cow, tape worms, ring worm, lice, salmonella, liver flukes and other parasites, avian flu, and not the least of all anthrax? All of these things can easily be contracted from clean meats. All of these are centuries old diseases that have plagued man. Why single out trichinosis and not these?

And if it is a health issue, proper digestion being the focus, how on earth can we continue to eat hydrogenated oils? They are the plague of modern man, raising levels of homocysteine and other bad chemicals in the blood, punching holes in our arteries and causing the liver to produce cholesterol to patch the holes which then blocks up our arteries and causes heart attacks, strokes, and death. Yet neither God nor Armstrong has said, “Thou shalt not eat Crisco!”

Now, I am not arguing that we should put things that are bad for our health into our bodies. We are the temple of the Living God, and we must respect and care for that temple as we are able. But to claim pork and seafood is somehow unhealthy, or more a risk than what we normally eat and call “clean”, is simply not accurate, nor is that found anywhere in the Bible!!

Let’s continue on in the Autobiography and see how that isn’t exactly what HWA believed:

"I told him I refused to make this food question a subject for sermons to the unconverted, unless he could show me Scriptural grounds for so doing."

-Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30

HWA plainly shows that in his opinion the laws were not for the newly converted, but for the experienced Christian only. I cannot fault that logic. We cannot expect all people to understand all things from the start of our journey. However, on one hand he says it is not a sin, but then on the other hand he says the law is still in effect. If the law is still in effect, and it is violated knowingly, that makes it a sin. It cannot be a sin, and not a sin. His teaching was inconsistent.

HWA continues:

"Point number one: I read in Scripture that sin is the transgression of the Law. In Romans 7 Paul says the law it is sin to transgress is spiritual -- a spiritual, not a physical law.

"Point two: Jesus Christ, speaking of spiritual defilement in Mark 7, says that physical food entering a man's stomach from without cannot defile him spiritually, but that which comes from within, out of the heart -- adulteries, murders, thefts, covetousness -- transgressions of the Ten Commandments -- defile the man spiritually.

"Point three: The 'clean and unclean' laws of Leviticus 11 are physical, not spiritual laws.

"Point four: Christ preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. He commanded the Apostles, and us today, to preach the KINGDOM of God. That is the GOSPEL I am commanded to preach.

"Point five: Paul says plainly in Romans 14 that the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, which is obedience to God's Law.

"Point six: Therefore I do not preach to the unconverted meat and drink because it is not the Gospel. But, on the other hand, the physical body is the 'temple of the Holy Spirit,' and we are taught not to defile it, even physically.

"Finally, point seven: I realize fully that there were both the clean and unclean animals long before Mosaic Law -- even prior to the Flood -- and therefore from creation. God did not create the unclean animals for food. Just as many plants and weeds are poison and not food, so unclean animals were not made to digest properly or nourish the human body. They are not "creatures of God" intended for food. They are not sanctified -- or set apart -- by the Word of God. Peter's vision of the unclean animals in the sheet was given, it is distinctly stated in Acts 10, to show him that he should not call any man unclean -- not to make unclean animals clean. Therefore I do teach every convert and every church member that they should not eat the unclean meats. We do not eat them in our home. Not one of our church members -- not one of my converts -- is eating unclean meats. But I teach it as a physical matter of health, not as a spiritual matter of the true Gospel."

-Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30

And that, my friends, was the opinion of the Church of God (seventh Day) and Mr. Armstrong in his early ministry. The clean and unclean meats laws were a physical matter of health, not a spiritual matter of sin.

A massive problem in the Worldwide Church of God was assumption. Even though we commonly claimed to be Berean, we always believed our leaders over the Bible. In fact, to believe unquestioningly was commanded and harshly enforced. No one could question anything. God only worked through the ministry, and not through the congregation. In other words, the members at large were leaves attached to the ministry, and the ministers were small branches that were attached to Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Armstrong was a large branch attached directly to the Vine. We commonly said to reassure ourselves, “God inspired Mr. Armstrong to teach his converts exactly as Paul and James taught,” when that is often demonstrably false in many areas. The proof comes when we review the scattered COGs – very few believe exactly what Mr. Armstrong taught but at the same time few truly agree with each other. How is this teaching universal and plain, then?

For example, the CGG teaches the matter as one of the spirit, and of health, as well as a random and rather meaningless “test commandment” given by God just because He can. They have all the bases covered. This partly contradicts Herbert Armstrong, whom they quote.

“Even though people throughout the world eat unclean food and live, and even though we could probably do the same – and many of us once did – for Christians, it is more than a health matter. In the Bible, God never directly connects keeping the laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 with health. In reality, it is a test commandment to see if we will obey God.”

-John O. Reid “Did God Change the Law of Clean and Unclean Meats”

If God never associates the food laws with health, why do the COGs? Incredibly, when the need arises to explain away Genesis 9: 1-5, they resort to calling the foods laws a matter of health again, preferring to compare pork to deadly nightshade:

“Does God allow us to eat poisonous plants like poison ivy, hemlock, deadly nightshade, etc.? Of course not!”

-John O. Reid, “Did God Change the Law of Clean and Unclean Meats”

But if clean/unclean is a matter of poison, as with the plants, then why are there no unclean plants? [Answer: clean/unclean is ceremonial and relates to sacrifice.]

In this next quote from the founder of the CGG, notice a few things. Note how it is now both a health and a spiritual issue. Carefully note how this is also a sign of keeping the Old Covenant. None of us should be keeping the Old Covenant!

“…in refraining eating the forbidden flesh meats listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 is a sign of keeping the Covenant. Do you understand the spiritual issue that is involved in this? Do you understand that your and my health is secondary? The issue is HOLINESS—spiritual holiness; not physical health. [Directly contrary to HWA!] Why did God do this? I don't know. Maybe it was only arbitrary. [Nothing God does is simply arbitrary. JR just doesn't understand why his desire to partially follow HWA doesn't match the gospel of the New Covenant.] He wanted to see whether we would restrain ourselves. [Because the 612 other laws wouldn't do that well enough?] That's a possibility. Restrain ourselves, refraining from eating those things that everybody else in the world seems to be enjoying and finds tasting so good."

"Now please don't be misled by what I said, because I think there is a physical health issue involved here. But God wants above all that we be holy, and that is the real issue, and so the first place that the "clean and unclean" appears is in what book? Leviticus — the book of holiness.” [Or, if you ask HWA, it first appears in Genesis 4.]

-John Ritenbaugh, “Maintaining Good Health (part 3)”

As a second example, most people who came out of Worldwide only keep the meats laws because they were taught to. They don’t know why. They don’t generally care why. They say, “God said ‘do it’, so I do it.” Noble indeed! Except they have not proven whether or not God says for them to do it. The majority of what Paul taught must be ignored or explained away in order to return to the “yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear”. They read in the abolished Old Covenant some verses that say to Israel that they should not eat pork, so they also avoid pork. Meanwhile, they don’t realize they are keeping the sacrificial law that they themselves teach was abolished. Nor do they realize that avoiding unclean meats was only a small portion of the various washings and sprinklings and meats and drinks laws – most of which they do not keep. They say “I keep the law”, but as I have already demonstrated time and time again, they most certainly do not!

The COGs would love everyone to believe they keep all the food laws. Anyone who does not keep all the food laws is disqualified from sainthood in this age, by their theology. But let's just see if they keep all of the food laws.

(LEV. 3: 17) 17 ‘This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor blood.’

(LEV. 7: 25-27) “22 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 23 “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘You shall not eat any fat, of ox or sheep or goat. 24 And the fat of an animal that dies naturally, and the fat of what is torn by wild beasts, may be used in any other way; but you shall by no means eat it. 25 For whoever eats the fat of the animal of which men offer an offering made by fire to the LORD, the person who eats it shall be cut off from his people. 26 Moreover you shall not eat any blood in any of your dwellings, whether of bird or beast. 27 Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.’”

In Armstrong's zeal for the law, did we ever eat beef fat? Answer: yes! Every time we ate McDonald’s french-fries, or any beef broth, or a juicy steak (if one could be afforded), etc.

All discussions on clean and unclean meats would be incomplete without someone mentioning Isaiah 52: 11 (even though the context of this chapter has nothing at all to do with food laws)

(ISA 52: 11) Touch no unclean thing

I ask you, do you own a pet? Have you ever touched a dog? A cat? Hamster? Gerbil? Iguana? Horse? Donkey? Been to an exotic petting zoo and perhaps touched a stingray or a shark or a sturgeon? Ever kill a spider? Guess what, you’ve touched an unclean thing! No self-respecting Armstrongist in all their legalism ever mentions that, though.

Did anyone ever, while asking question for conscience’ sake about pork, ask their generous host if there was any beef fat in their food? Then they didn’t keep all of the food laws, did they? Only the ones that suited them.

In conclusion, while this meats issue may appear very simple it most certainly is not. Just look at the many posts I've made on the subject of meats, and I'm not done yet! While the COGs may appear to be keeping the law they most certainly are not. We were clearly cherry-picking and keeping only the laws we felt like keeping! While the COGs claim it is universal and plain it most certainly is not. There is little agreement among the COGs. I suspect the main issue here is not the law, but that we were attempting to force the Bible to conform to our flawed assumptions. Unwittingly we followed a man rather than God. The confusion that surrounds this topic is not from God! And there is certainly plenty of confusion to go around. Even I don't claim to fully understand the whole scope. I am still, months into my study, trying to separate what flawed teaching was placed into my head from what the simplicity of Christ's gospel for the New Covenant actually teaches.

Robbed of Tithes And Offerings?

Malachi is a small book, only four chapters. Yet its words are very potent. In my continuing investigation into tithes, I would like to investigate Malachi.

Much ado has been made by Armstrong, and especially Flurry, about Malachi 3: 8-9, where God says:

(MAL. 3: 8-9) 8 Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. 9 You are cursed with a curse, for you have robbed Me, even this whole nation. 

But let's take a much closer look here. Who is the majority of Malachi speaking to?

(MAL 1: 6) To you priests who despise My name.

(MAL. 2: 1) And now, O priests, this commandment is for you.

(MAL. 2: 7) For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

The entire first chapter is to the priests. [There are no more priests in the New Covenant, but Christ only.] The first half of the second chapter is to the priests. [There are no more priests in the New Covenant, but Christ only.] We should ask, which priests are we referring to here?

(MAL. 2: 4, 8) 4 Then you shall know that I have sent this commandment to you, that My covenant with Levi may continue

8 You have corrupted the covenant of Levi

There is not a priest who draws breath who is under the covenant of Levi. Malachi is God's (to borrow a phrase) final witness to the Old Covenant priests. The very same ones Christ supplanted, as described by the author of Hebrews (HEB. 7: 11-13).

Now, the first half of the third chapter is a prophecy of the coming Christ. Herbert Armstrong would have us believe it is about His second coming. I will remind you that all prophetic interpretation is speculation, and nothing to base theology on. I take the position that this speaks of His first coming. The temple in Jerusalem is gone. Judah was judged. And Malachi was fulfilled:

(MAL. 3: 1) And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant [the New Covenant!], in whom you delight.

We can see the fulfillment of these very verses in Matthew 17.

(MATT. 17: 5) While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”

And the very same thing again!

(MAL. 4: 5) Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.

We again see the fulfillment spoken of in Matthew 17.

(MATT. 17: 10-13) 10 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” 11 Jesus answered and said to them, “Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.

I like how it is worded in Mark 9: 12-13 as well.

The only reason why Mr. flurry is so adamant that Malachi is about this time is because he is wedded to the false idea that Herbert Armstrong was Elijah. And why that? Because Herbert Armstrong is the sole and singular source of authority, for Gerald Flurry and all of Armstrog's many self-appointed successors, to assume the position of priest and to extract tithes from people against the clear teachings of God's New Covenant. But how many times do you hear them go on about this next verse?

(MAL. 3: 5) And I will come near you for judgment; I will be a swift witness... against those who exploit wage earners and widows and orphans

Will there be a future fulfillment? This idea has been debated for 2,000 years - starting at the very time of Paul. It probably will have a future fulfillment. But that foreshadowing is peppered in with words meant directly for the time Malachi wrote them. Thus, Armstrong makes a terrible error in assuming the entire book of Malachi is explicitly for the future, and every last word in it. How does he explain the exhortation in Malachi to keep the covenant of Levi (which Christ clearly removed)? He does not. But he does spend an exorbitant amount of time concentrating on the verses dealing with tithing. A double standard? Or cherry-picking perhaps?

The book of Malachi is addressed to the Israel. But then it immediately starts God's case against the priests. The priests who despise God, that is. What warning does any of Armstrong's ministers take from this? They use it as a tool to accuse the ministry in competing organizations. They compete for tithes and they compete for control and they wield the scriptures as a club to beat each other over the head with. (GAL. 5: 15)

In contrast, the Gentiles are prophesied to glorify God.

(MAL. 1: 11) For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; in every place incense shall be offered to My name, and a pure offering; for My name shall be great among the nations,” Says the LORD of hosts. 

The "Gentiles" are the people of the New Covenant; the covenant brought in fulfillment of Malachi 3: 1. No doubt that the New Covenant is implied here. Never before were the Gentiles invited to worship God. The incense are prayers, BTW (REV. 5: 8). 

Israel may be judged, but it is not forgotten. Even in Israel there are those who fear God. They will be remembered.

(MAL. 3: 16) Then those who feared the LORD spoke to one another, and the LORD listened and heard them; so a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the LORD and who meditate on His name. 

Read Malachi 1 to get the context of this book. Who offers offerings? Just anyone? No. The priests! Who claim over and over to be the modern priesthood? The ministry. [That's their claim, not mine. I say Jesus alone is a Priest.] Nevertheless, by this claim they incriminate themselves. To ignore the guilt, they pass blame onto the membership.

How was God robbed in offerings?

(MAL. 1: 12-14) 12 But you [the priests] profane [God's altar], In that you say, ‘The table of the LORD is defiled; and its fruit, its food, is contemptible.’ 13 You also say, ‘Oh, what a weariness!’ And you sneer at it, says the LORD of hosts. 

And you bring the stolen, the lame, and the sick; thus you bring an offering! Should I accept this from your hand?" says the LORD. 14 “But cursed be the deceiver who has in his flock a male, and takes a vow, but sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished

God makes it quite plain what the problem was with the priests – they took their duties for granted, they were tired with the services of the temple, they despised God's worship. So they stole from God the perfect sacrifices He is due, substituting all sorts of lesser sacrifices, and keeping the good, which they certainly had available, for themselves. This is very much in line with what I have observed and heard about among the ministry of Armstrongism!

Finally, how many times have we heard the following verses?

(MAL. 3: 10-12) 10 "Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now in this,” says the LORD of hosts, “If I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it. 11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, so that he will not destroy the fruit of your ground, nor shall the vine fail to bear fruit for you in the field, says the LORD of hosts; 12 and all nations will call you blessed, for you will be a delightful land,” says the LORD of hosts.

Yet Armstrong did not understand what he preached. You see, we in the New Covenant are not ever going to receive these promises - tithe or no tithe - because these promises aren't for us!

(HEB. 8: 6) But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

Herbert Armstrong and his students had us all looking for physical promises of a physical covenant when the far better covenant with far better promises waited for us!

Beloved by God and dear to His heart, understand this - you are not a part of the Old Covenant! It is gone. It has been gone for 2,000 years. You cannot be a part of it even if you want to. The opportunity has passed. The world waited for 4,000 years for what we have received. Prophets and angels deeply desired to see it arrive. Now, delivered to us without any help from us, through no effort on our part, which we do not deserve nor have we earned, comes the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ. To this we are called. The breach between man and God has been healed! Our sins are forgiven us! Why insist on attempting to resurrect that which Christ has replaced? Step into the New Covenant!!

Great Falling Away?

Few "proofs" of Herbert W. Armstrong's claims to greatness are promoted quite like the doctrinal changes implemented by Joseph W. Tkach Sr. But I ask the question, is the breakup of the Worldwide Church of God the "Great Falling Away"?

(2 THS 2: 1-12) 1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Paul is referring to questions about the coming of Jesus and the gathering of His own to Him - ie. the second coming. Keep this firmly in your mind while you read! Though the prophecy of the Antichrist progresses over the millennia, this section is not speaking of anything other than the return of Christ. Not some wispy time previous, not another in a long line of inter-organizational disputes, not some minor blip in the overall workings of mankind, but the single greatest occurrence of the common era. Note that we have not experienced any second coming to date. Ergo, this selection in no way refers to either our current time or more importantly our past. 

Paul is calming the worries of the readers who have been troubled by deceptive reports, from false prophets. People were saying "it has passed", but Paul said "no, it hasn't", and he gives specific details of the very end. 

Notice how he says "as if from us". Someone claiming authority, special understanding, or some secret revelation, was troubling them. If I have demonstrated anything about Herbert Armstrong, it is that he claimed all three of these things, yet he was a false prophet. (See my posts on "False Prophecy" for more details. My blog is the least of sources on this topic! Try this article on for size.) Paul begs us "Let no one deceive you by any means". It's not some simple thing that we can just assign any interpretation we want to this. It is not a ball that we should just casually toss it about. I've read the writings of many COG splinters and they nearly unanimously say "we know the falling away has passed", one even claimed they could prove it! Honestly and plainly, think about it, if this day were past, Christ would be here. I asked you to keep in mind at the beginning that this section is about the return of Jesus Christ. Where is He? If He hasn't returned, then there is no great falling away.

It is currently 2009. The 'great falling away' is claimed to be 14 years ago. Where is Christ? Then that was NOT the great falling away!

Even the very so-called "ministers" who promote this silliness will say there is nothing unusual about the splits in Worldwide.

"Apparently, five of the seven eras were led into oblivion and disaster!"

Gerald Flurri, "Malachi's Message", in section "A Call To Remembrance"

What Gerald Flurry doesn't tell you is that he has no understanding of the history he claims. Most of the men Herman Hoeh claimed were ancestral leaders of the Church of God were actually Catholic reformers. Others were Baptists. Read my post "50 Truths - Part 1" for more info on that.

There are several things listed in the above verses by Paul, not just one. The COGs have been told the falling away has already come, as if it stands alone. It does not. Read it again. There is a falling away, a man of sin revealed, false miracles and wonders, the return of Christ, and finally removal of that man. He is alive when Christ returns. Anyone who says this particular falling away has passed is grossly misinformed. I remind you again that Paul said, "Let no one deceive you by any means." All the claims and all the boastful talk in the world cannot undo the plain words of this epistle. They are nothing but hot air.

I ask, how can a church who boasts that it proves what it believes from the Bible be so very far from the simple words therein?? No one can say "I have proved" that the falling away happened 15 years ago. It cannot be done! Where is the "man of sin"? Joseph W. Tkach Sr.? He's been gone since September 23, 1995! Read the words again "whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming." Where is the Lord? Has He returned? No. Have any saints been gathered to meet Him in the air? No. Did He destroy Joseph Tkack at His coming? No. Joe Tkach Sr. died of complications related to cancer. Was Mr. Tkach accompanied by "all power, signs, and lying wonders"? No. Not a single thing fits. Not one. Yet to bolster their own positions and use prophecy as a tool for control, most COG ministers teach the falling away has passed. This, dear readers, is the very deception Paul warned against!

I will say a third time "Let no one deceive you by any means." Have you allowed these false prophets to deceive you?

O, how very many times I have read damning accusations against the people who remained with the WCG - that they were sent great delusion so they would believe a lie since they do not love the truth. Who is it that believes an untruth? Anyone who accepts Joe Tkach was the "man of sin" and that the falling away has passed are the ones who accept a clear lie. Who, then, is deceived? And this after we were sternly warned by Paul not to be!

These things precede the return of Christ. If there is any explanation for a deceiver that precedes Christ's return, it is here:

(REV. 19: 20) Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

What do we see here? 

Joseph W. Tkach: Deception? Check. (But no more than is common to all mankind.) Wonders? No. Powered by Satan? Highly unlikely. Destroyed at Christ's return? No. This does not meet the requirements.

False Prophet of Revelation: Deception? Check. Wonders? Check. Powered by Satan? Check. Destroyed at Christ's return? Check. This one meets all requirements. 

Are you willing to say Joseph W. Tkach Sr. is the False Prophet of Revelation? Hardly! Then it is high time we relegate all this slander about Mr. Tkach where it belongs, in the trash!! It is ungodly to misapply these things to someone, especially in such a malicious and deceitful fashion. The truth is in the Bible; the lie is in the slander of the ministry who love to perpetuate a blatant lie. This is not righteousness, but unrighteousness!

"...that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

What personally bothers me the most about all of this is how "the great falling away" is held up as the greatest "proof" of Herbert Armstrong's apostleship; I hear few things more often. But it clearly is no proof at all! These shameless self-promoting ministers twist the gospel for their own gain. Beloved by God, open your eyes and see the truth staring you in the face! For example, read the following:

"Several different churches have been formed by former Worldwide Church of God ministers. All of these churches—including the wcg—are Laodicean, except one. So says your Bible! Only one church has God’s lamp."

Gerald Flurri, "Malachi's Message", in section "A Call To Remembrance"

What is that? Slander. Pure and unadulterated, ungodly, self-promoting deception! Of the same sort which Paul warns us about in 2 Thessalonians. Though I am using him as the example here, Gerald Flurry is not by any means the only one caught up in this type of thing. Almost to the last one, most of Armstrong's ministers are engaged in it.

And it's competition as well. These ones say "God is unity in love", but they display in every way competition in bitterness. 

And for a group who claims their unique relationship with God is based on keeping His commandments, this grossly violates the 6th (EXO. 20: 13; MATT. 5: 21-26) and the 9th (EXO. 20: 16) Commandments. Paul tells us in Romans 13: 9-10, that love is the fulfillment of the law. Yet I see no love here. Christ says in Matthew 22: 39 that the second most important instruction God ever gave us it to love your neighbor as yourself. Are we to assume this is how the ministry would like to be treated? In Matthew 5: 43-47, Jesus takes it even farther and says to love your enemy. Yet I see no love whatsoever in such deceitfulness and opportunistic misapplication of prophecy. On one hand, they call each other "brother", but in the other hand is a knife.

(PRO. 21: 28) A false witness shall perish, but the man who hears him will speak endlessly.

Boy, howdy! Do they speak endlessly! Bearing their tale again and again against the ones they call "God's church" (the Laodiceans are still Christ's).

(PRO. 19: 9) A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who speaks lies shall perish.

This type will tell you there has been the final and great "falling away from the truth", but over and again I have shown in this blog that the truth was not with them to begin with. Certainly not with men such as these! How do you fall away from the truth when there was precious little truth to start with? On the other hand, falling away from a lie is a good thing!

(REV. 2: 2) "and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars"

I'll let Mr. Flurry have the final word on this one:

"If the Ephesus Church members, in a right attitude, tried those who said they were apostles, shouldn’t you?"

Gerald Flurri, "Malachi's Message", in section "A Call To Remembrance"

Not All That Glitters

I have been thinking about my time in Armstrongism. It was fear and intimidation, ultimately, that held me there. I was deceived by the half-truths and outright lies. But I have to admit that among all the hypocrisy, pride, guilt, fear, rivalry, envy, deception, and all that, I heard some VERY high quality preaching about some fundamental Biblical issues. 

I wonder to this day if there is another group who has the nerve to preach to their people what the authoritarian structure of the COGs allows them to get away with (not that I'm praising their structure, I'm just making an observation). There are many problems in certain Christian denominations which I feel ultimately stem from fear of preaching a solid message for fear of losing bodies from the seats. No COG fears losing bodies, that's for sure! It has its upside in that they can preach a prickly subject at will. But the downside is, in all honesty and bluntly, far worse than the upside.

(DEU. 8: 3) "So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD." 

(II TIM. 3: 16-17) "16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 

I love the way they emphasize actually living by the words of the Bible rather than just knowing the words academically. No, seriously! Practice what you preach! Not a bad message at all. I love that. You can't go wrong pointing people towards the Bible. You can't go wrong recommending people concentrate on Godliness and the truly important things in life like love and charity and humility -- which are manifested in such things like actually living peaceably, putting away self-centeredness, seeking approval of Christ rather than men, etc.

Paul absolutely, positively did not say "put away the law, take up hedonism, don't do a dawgone thing except call on God in times of stress, and go live in any way you see fit... to Christ". Paul holds us up to a clearly defined standard of living! I define a Christian as a person who follows Christ. Even though that leaves a lot of room for leeway, I would have a very hard time applying my definition to someone like Homer Simpson, or someone who arrives at church on Christmas and Easter only, or someone who launches a 'holy war', or even someone who can academically argue nuances of the Bible and Bible history but does not actually put in to practice the tenants of the faith.

The COGs do a pretty good job at preaching against that sort of thing. And I commend that portion of their messages.

However.....

I know from experience that they generally put on a great show but fall flat in practice. A great number of those same people who preach Christ are placing themselves on pedestals and in some cases praying for people to die. Have a nice day! I don't want to harp on that right now, though.

But even though they at times have good content, they always ruin the message by pressing this modified Old Covenant legalism!!

They become hypocritical in that they say "live by every word" when they most certainly do not live by every word! You cannot preach the keeping of the law and then turn right around and only keep the parts you feel like keeping. Look, it's really quite simple:

Armstrong says "tithe or die". OK. But before I send in my tithe, I want to make sure they have storehouses fit to keep it. I would be told it's none of my business, of course, but a storehouse is needed because God never said tithing came from money - Armstrong said that - God clearly stated tithes come from the garden, field, and orchard. Period. Now, I also need to verify that they have some Levites there to receive the tithe, because God clearly gives the tithe to the Levites since their livelihood was taken from it. Period. Yet ministers are not in fact Levites. Paul says the Levitical priesthood is gone and replaced by Christ Himself and not men (ministers are not priests); in his argument, Paul used tithing to show how Christ excelled Abraham - Armstrong said that means tithes go to ministers... again, NOT what the Bible says. So then I would have to ask how on earth is it that they teach that we should follow every word of the Bible while they clearly and blatantly do not. 

And I don't want to give anyone the impression that tithing is the only area where this can be demonstrated. What about minister = servant? What about how we are all family and all equal in God's eyes? What about the fact that there is no clearly defined office of minister in the first place, but only elder and deacon! (The word for 'deacon' and the word for 'minister' are the same word in Greek.) What about the one-on-one relationship every one of us has as a God-given opportunity? God's Spirit is in the hearts of all of His people, and that means without any man in between us and God. What about how all of God's people are called to become a kingdom of priests - and not the ministry only? 

Should I even go in to the structure of the COGs? The trained and ordained ministry is elevated to a position where, in their private theology, God works through the ministry alone. Why, of course! That's needed to keep control! Just as the Catholic Church refused to allow the Bible to be printed in common tongues to prevent people from reading it and learning what it really says, so the ministry places themselves between men and God so the common person cannot believe he or she could actually have a close enough relationship to God (that gave up all that is and died to ransom them) that they might possibly be able to read the Bible for themselves and know what it really says!! We need the ministry as a buffer to keep the people in fear and ignorance and keep tithes rolling in. Live by every word indeed!

They will press that anything aside from what they teach is "doctrinally perverted" and a sin. Of course! They need to keep control! They need to propagate the lie that Herbert Armstrong was an Apostle - since it is that which gives them their authority. Is there such a thing as being "doctrinally perverted"? In other words, are there wolves in sheep's clothing preaching falsely? YES! But are those people in the COGs or outside of them? Well, to be entirely correct, it's both. However, I have never heard of a COG minister who understands the New Covenant. Nor could I imagine there could be such a person, since that person would leave that church and no longer be a minister therein. 

The Didache, a Christian document written during the lives of the Apostles, clearly empasizes the dangerous people are the ones who preach for money!

Keep in mind that salvation is by undeserved grace from God through faith in God. I went through in two separate posts where I sent letters to the COGs and not a single one said plainly "salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ" without adding to it "and following Armstrong's doctrines" (I paraphrase, but that's how it boils down). 

Now, I've heard one minister say clearly, "God will not give grace to somebody who hears the words and does not do them." Then there is no salvation for these ministers! Because there are words that they twist, words that they ignore, and words that they add outright. I submit for evidence that a close friend of mine said bald faced to me "Mr. Armstrong changed the law out of necessity." And this was by no means the first time I'd heard that from people.

So what am I on about? What is my complaint summarized? That these men, these ministers of Armstrong, that inject themselves between people and Christ and enslave people to a cherry-picked legalism that cannot save, sometimes sound wonderful, but they are dangerous!

They give messages that have invaluable bits of truth hidden therein. I totally agree with much of what they say and I whole heartedly back the idea that we should actively live as followers of Christ. But without fail they go back on their own instructions. They say, "Live by every word of the Bible." But they practice, "Live by every word of Armstrong." And to keep people from simply reading such things as Galatians and having their eyes opened to its clear and wonderful meaning, they press fear and control! They preach that you will die if you disagree with them. That they are the true shepherds and all others are wolves. They say it is "Spiritual disorientation" and a sin (to disagree with them). Well then Paul must have been incredibly disoriented! Jesus Christ must have been incredibly disoriented! The Bible itself must be disoriented, because in many places it disagrees with them.

I'm not holding these ministers to a standard they can't hope to reach. I completely admit that no man understands all the truth, or understands all prophecy, or has all knowledge. There are wrong ways outside of the COGs just as in. But what they have that they call "truth" is cherry-picked, added to, and distorted. Nor either am I bashing them personally. I'm not bashing anyone. It's a matter of calling a spade a spade. 

You who are in the COGs - desperately and deeply loved by God - listen not to what I have to say, but to your own Bibles. Listen to Christ! Step into His New Covenant! I want you to actually have all of those things that those ministers say you can have, but they can never seem to bring you to that point. I want you to reach out to Christ! He is the only way.

What Do You Mean, One True Church?

What is it that the COGs say sets them apart? Well, which one of the COGs do you mean?

I have sent an email off to the following organizations: United Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, Living Church of God, Restored Church of God, Church of the Great God, and Church of God Fellowship. I asked them the following questions: "What thing or things sets the Churches of God apart?  What unique knowledge, specifically, do we possess and teach that only we possess and teach?" 

Here are the responses I received:

The Restored Church of God sent me this:

"To answer your question—and it certainly is a fair question—the true Church of God can be identified by certain earmarks:

1. It carries on the Work of preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God to all nations (Matt. 24:14; Mark 13:10) and warning modern Israel of the difficult times that lie ahead (Eze. 3:17-21; 33:1-7; Isa. 58:1). This narrows the field down to about four or five organizations and at least two of these now preach a corrupted gospel (II Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6-9).

2. The true Church continues in the governmental structure outlined in the New Testament (Eph. 4:11-12, II Cor. 12:28). This excludes at least two more of the groups above.

3. Since the true Church is called the “pillar and ground of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15), it continues in—holds fast to (Rev. 3:11)—all of the true, scriptural doctrines that were restored to the Church in the twentieth century (Matt. 17:11). This narrows the field down to only one—The Restored Church of God. This can be easily proved by comparing our doctrines with those of any of the groups mentioned above—or any group, period.

4. Finally, RCG is the only organization that actively teaches (through hundreds of pieces of literature, as well as hundreds of broadcasts and sermons) and practices all of the truths mentioned in point three. We are also the only group that provides the tools necessary to thoroughly research and prove our doctrinal positions, in both hardcopy and electronic form. We do not ask you to accept this on our statement alone but to prove (1 Thes.5:21) the truth through diligent study.

To some, this may seem “too simple.” But we must ask ourselves: Would God expect each of his people to spend the rest of the age as “detectives”—responsible for investigating the “pedigree,” of hundreds of tiny groups. Also, would Christ somehow lead separate “twin,” “triplet,” or any other manner of multiple organizations? No. Christ is not divided (I Cor. 1:13).

We have no statement of beliefs; our statement of beliefs is our literature. Our literature is what makes us unique and our vast array of literature explains in exact detail the doctrines we teach. We invite you to study and draw your own conclusions." --end quote

NOT A WORD about Jesus Christ. I copied and pasted these responses from their email to this page. Go ahead, search this page for the name 'Jesus'. You won't find it but in my comments. You will find the title "Christ" one time - but not until later on. You will see the word "God". I would call it a name, but I wonder who these people are referring to when they speak it. I get the distinct impression they have set themselves up as gods.

From the Church of the Great God, I received this:

"The Holy Spirit (the mind of God) dwelling in us sets the Church apart because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50-53); only that which is spirit. God is in the process of saving us through the renewing of the Holy Spirit within us (Titus 3:4-7). We (the Church) are sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14).

It's not necessarily a matter of unique knowledge. It 's a matter of obeying and living God's Truth.

(2 John 1-6)" --end quote

NOT A WORD about Jesus Christ. Not a mention of the author and pioneer of faith. Not a passing credit to the Head over all things to His Church. I like what they had to say about it not being a matter of unique knowledge. But you just try to disagree with the leadership and you'll see what they feel about their knowledge then!

From the Church of God - Fellowship, I received this:

"This is a basic list of the differences between the COG-Fellowship and the "world's" Christian churches:

1.   The recognition of both the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God

2.   The understanding that man can become God

3.   The understanding of what God is

4.   The understanding of what man is

5.   The recognition there is a spirit in man (not an immortal soul)

6.   The understanding that only those called by God can be converted now

7.   The understanding that God has a plan of salvation for all mankind (The Great White Throne Judgment)

8.   The identity of modern Israel

9.   The recognition of the Sabbath as the day of worship

10. The understanding of the annual Holy Days and their description of the plan of God for the salvation of mankind" --end quote

NOT A WORD about what Jesus did.  All law.  All about what we can do. All about unique knowledge.

In responding more thoroughly, they defined salvation as, "Salvation is being married to Christ" (That makes them the one group to mention the title "Christ". Good for them!) They explain this will not happen if we do not change and conform to the character of Christ [humility, love, charity, etc.], which is only possible through the Holy Spirit.  I applaud this statement with much gusto! It is true. Of course they also add in a heavy dose of 10 Commandment keeping as a requirement for being accepted by Christ.

...About the keeping of the law, I once wrote to the COG-Fellowship and asked:

"I want to know what you mean by "law".  Or more specifically, I want to know what you think the Apostles meant by "law".

In one part of your Galatians 2:11-3:18 message, you said something like "Romans 3: 20 and Galatians 2: 16 read 'the works of the law', but that is incorrect, it should read 'works of law'."  You follow it up by saying something like "now we can see how Paul isn't talking about God's Law, but the Jewish added laws."  So, law=Talmud.

Later you explain that when James says "works" he means law.  So, works = law.

Later, you show how law=10 Commandments.

Now, I know from years in the church that when we say "law" we do not just mean 10 Commandments, we also mean tithing, meats laws, etc.  So we really mean the whole caboodle.

That's 4 different things!!

So, I ask you... how can there be so many aspects contained in this one word "law", and how on earth is the Bible reading Joe Idiot like me supposed to keep all this straight?  How do I know when it means Talmud, and when it means 10 Commandments and when it means all law?  Because it says none of those - it just says "law".  To be honest, it seems a bit like picking and choosing to me.  I can completely understand why the Protestants have a hard time. 

[No offense to Protestants intended. I was writing in the COG fashion, and speaking tongue-in-cheek.]

Also, this thought just popped into my head as I was about to click 'send'.  If "the works of the law" means God's law, why doesn't "works of law" mean all law?  The wording seems to me, in the incorrect version, to be narrow and focused, but in the corrected reading to be all inclusive.  In pointing out this mistranslation, isn't it just making it easier for the Protestants to say we're crackpots who write our own Bibles?  I mean, now we're picking and choosing what "works of law" means, arbitrarily, aren't we?

Which brings another point to my mind.  If we're talking Talmud here, decades after Jesus died, why didn't anyone seem to get the point that while Jesus was alive He taught against the Talmud?  You pointed out that in Acts 10 Peter was quoting it.  You show in Galatians and then again in Romans how it seems to be an issue; Peter, James, and even Barnabas were carried away by it.  We always say "if Peter didn't know about meats laws being gone in Acts 10, then Jesus must not have taught it."  But clearly Jesus taught against the Talmud and 30 years later His own Apostles are regarding it."

Here is the response I received (in part):

"Rather than trying at this time to address your frustrations with what is meant by "law" or "the law", I would prefer you listen again to GAL 2:11-3:18 and then listen to the upcoming section (GAL 3:19-4:20) next Sabbath. There is further explanation in the next section that should help answer several of your questions.

 The important point to remember throughout the central part of this letter is that Paul, in trying to clarify the difference between the covenant God made with Abraham and the covenant He made with Israel at Mt. Sinai, refers to the covenant with Abraham as "THE PROMISE" and the covenant with Israel as "THE LAW". If you can keep that in mind while listening and reading the material, you will see how the other references to "law" fit in." --end quote

You should know by now if you read this blog that I understand "THE PROMISE" God gave to Abraham and his seed as having been passed down to us through Christ. We now inherit that same promise through Christ since we are one with Him, body and blood. The memorial of the bread and wine symbolize that very thing. The spiritual Church is His body, and He the Head of that body. 

This is important to understand since the COG-F defines "salvation" as "marriage to Christ". That is not a direct Biblical statement I can find anywhere. I believe the saved will be the bride of Christ, but I don't think this is a great definition of 'salvation'. But I can certainly use that same line of thinking then and say "salvation is sonship to and inheritance from God." (Not that I mean to say that actually, just as a point of argument.) And this promise is in no way related to the covenant with Israel, of which the 10 Commandments is a major part. The law cannot undo that promise (GAL. 3: 17). Our inheritance is of the promise, not the law, or else it wouldn't be by promise (ROM. 4: 13-14; GAL. 3: 18). It is that promise that makes the inheritance sure, or the only sure thing would be our failure to achieve it!

My point being, they keep mentioning the 10 Commandments when the 10 Commandments have nothing to do with the promise that comes by faith.

As for the Living Church of God: 

From them I received 2 booklets: 'What Is A True Christian?' and 'Satan's Counterfeit Christianity'. 

These booklets dealt mostly with Alexander Hyslop's theories, were based upon the identity of modern Israel (British Israelism... which is dead-to-rights bogus), and a concentration on what we can do to retain salvation through legalism. Barely a mention of Jesus Christ. No mention of His saving sacrifice that takes away the sins of the world. 

There were a few things I agreed with wholeheartedly! They actually say clearly that we cannot earn salvation - it is a gift. I applaud that! However, from there they go immediately downhill. The booklets were so useless it was startling.

From the Philadelphia Church of God, I received this:

[nothing]

That's right. I got no response whatsoever. That makes it among the best response of the bunch in my eyes. 

Perhaps they refuse to speak to me after I gave a somewhat critical sermonette about Gerald Flurry a few years ago when he declared his faithful followers were forbidden to even speak to their own families outside of his cult. I noticed my subscription to the Key of David stopped coming about that time. They haven't responded to me at all since. 

NAH! They wouldn't pay any heed to what I say. But it's a fun thought to amuse myself with.

From the United Church of God, I received this:

[nothing]

Tied for #1 with Philadelphia. But I'm a little curious as to why they didn't respond. It's not characteristic of them. I intend to try again and add that here as an addendum.

THEY HAVE RESPONDED!  Read it here.

One thing I would have you notice as you consider these things is the infighting among Armstrong's splinter groups. They bite and devour one another (GAL. 5: 15). The Restored Church of God actively pitted itself against the others in their response to me. The other groups had no mention of each other. They all want to be THE true church. Of these groups, the COG-Fellowship and the CGG do the best job at saying they don't believe they are the only true church, but once you get behind the curtain, both groups have their internal opinions that they are.

Also, I've highlighted the fact that none of these groups emphasize Jesus Christ. They all emphasize who they are, not who Christ is. To be fair, I asked them to emphasize who they are. I can't quite get after them for answering the question as I asked it. But I honestly expected to hear MUCH more info about Christ and what He did. All I got is what their organizations of men are and what they (or I through my own effort) can do for me. Thanks, but no thanks.

Now, I've told you what I've found, but I've given you very little about what I think you should do about it. Pray! That's one thing. And feel free to discuss.

Feast of Tabernacles 2008

I used to keep the Feast of Tabernacles with the scattered Armstrong churches. I would have been in Panama City, Florida right now having an incredible vacation. I seriously miss the people and the fellowship and the 'spirit' that was certainly there. It wasn't just a vacation for me, though in effect that is what it is.

Who can fault people who seriously want to be godly people? Who can say anything against people who pray to be Christlike and led by God, and be good examples of Christianity? In listening in to services this morning I heard deeply, honestly believing people who believe what they do because they feel they see it in the Bible. They genuinely believe they follow Christ and refer to Him as the Head over all things to His Church. They concern themselves with a close relationship from the heart with God. It's beautiful!

Let me tell you a little about the people I used to fellowship with. These are people who do not elevate Herbert Armstrong. They do not play his recordings nor quote him nor refer to him often. They see themselves as being a group who owes much to the Worldwide Church of God, but they see many flaws and shortcomings in the old teachings. They seek to correct those errors. Everyone who still speaks to me only has good and kind words to say to me; filled with hope that my family and I will work out whatever we are going through and return to their family. Is this condemnation? No! They do not condemn at all in the way most certainly anyone doing what I am doing would be ensured of in the old days. I have NO condemnation in return for these people and I am not bitter against them. I cannot help but love them deeply and rarely a moment goes by when I do not miss them.

Why separate myself then? Because it's not so simple as to say "circumcision is of the heart". Circumcision must actually be of the heart. I hope you understand what I mean by that. As much as I firmly believe that these people are not far from the Kingdom of God [I know that you sneak in here from time to time to read - I do not say this to flatter you.. I mean it], there are some points which simply cannot be ignored or paid lip service to. I do have deep, fundamental disagreements with Armstrong's basic theories; and to those theories it is undeniable that all COGs cling. It is the base and foundation of all they believe. One can say they follow Christ and not a man, but what one says is inconsequential compared to what really is. There is an old saying, "perception is reality". I think a change in perception is desperately needed.

What are some differences? See any post here at my blog discussing 'law vs. grace' or 'cherry-picking', or 'legalism'. I recommend reading Three Times in the Year parts 1 and 2. A good summation is my post on Old Covenant vs New Covenant. 

You see, I believe that the Old Covenant was not just expanded but completely superseded by the New Covenant. This is contrary to Armstrongism. For decades I could not grasp the concept of the removal of the Sabbath and Holy Days. "Sin is the transgression of the law;" I would say, "without those things how can I know what sin is so that I can avoid it?" I didn't want to be the one left behind while the other was taken. I didn't want weeping and gnashing of teeth. Since these are the verses often read to keep the minds in line through fear. They talk a wonderful game about Christ and salvation and peace and being part of God's Family. I really wanted those things. I still want those things! Then one day it became inescapable that within Armstrong's attempt to reconcile the Old Covenant with the New, there were irreconcilable errors. When Paul says in Galatians 3: 10 and again in Galatians 5: 2 also James says in James 2: 10 that anyone who attempts to keep the law but does not keep the whole law, that one has fallen from grace and is under a curse. Even the COGs read these verses. However, they say "Look! You have to keep the Old Covenant law!" To which I often have asked "Then why on God's green earth don't you keep the whole law??"

Christ, whom they say is the Head over all things to them, becomes NOTHING in that case. "...for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain" (GAL. 2: 21)! How much LESS then does righteousness come through a partial keeping of the law? Even so, to compensate for this short falling I was often told "Herbert Armstrong changed the law by necessity". No man can change the law!!

(GAL. 3: 1-5) 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you  as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?

5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Is this "using liberty as an opportunity for the flesh" (GAL. 5: 13)? Not at all! There is still law - an even better, greater, magnified law! Only not the Old Covenant shadowy, burdensome, temporary law. There is reality. There is salvation. There is justification. There is true righteousness. NONE of those things came or could come through the Old Covenant law, and most especially not from a cherry-picked and incomplete keeping of that law. Paul says that FALSE brethren taught such a keeping of the law (GAL. 2: 4). And why? To keep people in bondage and to prevent them from achieving the freedom of the New Covenant!

I heard a message that said such and such are the rewards Christ will bring to you. Then this disclaimer was added: IF you are among those who are being spoken about. What do you mean IF?? How can one know? Haven't you ever asked yourself why you can never be sure if you've 'qualified'? The clear and certain answer is that no one can "qualify"! But you know that it is a gift. No one receives the reward because they've earned it. But then, why do you try to earn it? You say it is a gift, and you are right. But then you say the gift will only be given to those who keep the law. So you then you immediately turn right around and make it no longer a gift. 

Here is the logic:

It's a gift that no one deserves; but to get it you need to keep the law; so you must qualify for it; but no man keeps the law fully so no one qualifies; so the law isn't the qualifier since Jesus' grace is needed; then it must be by faith; but if so, then it is a gift apart from the law; but you need to keep the law in order to qualify; but no man keeps the law fully so no one qualifies; so the law isn't the qualifier; then..... and round and round it goes.

Or do you see that as the old way? The new way goes like this: 

It is a gift that no one deserves - you just get it. However, if you don't keep the law you will LOSE that gift. 

Is that how you feel? Don't you see that this is no different from the "old way" of viewing it. You still have set up the law as a qualification - only now it's not for the receiving but for keeping the gift. So therefore you wonder if you actually have kept the gift or thrown it away in a moment of weakness.

Let me offer you this what I think I see to answer your dilemma. It is a gift indeed; undeserved indeed. Not by law and not by qualification. It is a gift by PROMISE! There is no qualification to be met save accepting Christ as Lord and proclaiming as much. (I suggest reading my post By This All Will Know.)

(GAL. 3: 16-18) 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

So Christ is the inheritor and object of the promise. How, then does it come to us?

(GAL. 3: 26-29) 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

You are heirs NOW! In Christ, by faith - NOW! One with Christ NOW! Will there be things to come? Will there be a reward Christ will bring at His second coming? Certainly! But at that point the guarantee is already past. The inheritance is already sure. It should be no surprise to you whether or not Christ comes for you. So how do you know? By the evidence of the fruits of the Spirit in you. And that Spirit does not come by the law.

Yet many of you would say "I have that now". Do you? Are you so certain? Why, if you have that now, do you look forward to a time years in the future when you will share oneness and peace with God? Have you not read?

(I COR. 10: 16-17) 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

(EPH. 5: 23, 30) 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. ... 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 

(GAL. 2: 20) I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 

(REV. 3: 20) Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

If the Spirit is in you, then you are one with Christ at this moment. Is this not a closeness? I know that one would say the closeness doesn't compare to that promised in the future. But I would respond that you shouldn't discount the closeness we have now. Don't lessen it because it perhaps is less by comparison. Let me show you something even further!

(I COR. 3: 16) Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you

(I COR. 6: 19) Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

IF you are the temple and that Spirit is in you, then this verse takes on a whole new meaning:

(JOHN 14: 2) In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

You no doubt hear that at every Feast. You no doubt are told this will happen at some future point after Christ returns. But in the New Covenant understanding, taking all of the previous verses we have just read above, let's look at this more closely. A "mansion" is a dwelling place, a residence, an abode. It is a place where God lives. In God's house there are many places -not for YOU to live in, but for for HIM to live in. What is "God's house"? Is it not His temple? What's more than that - is it not His Church (EPH. 2: 19; HEB. 3: 6; I PET. 2: 5; I PET. 4: 17)? So we see here that Christ had to leave to prepare a place for God in us. Have we not achieved that now? Certainly we have! When did we receive it? When the Spirit came. "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you" (JOHN 16: 7). John 16 explains this so well. Jesus had to depart to prepare a place for us in God's household. And He has prepared that place even now. The deposit of the final fulfilment of that is the presence of the Spirit in us - God's presence... in us.. now. We are the place that was prepared in God's household and God has come in and made His abode with us.

Do you see the incredible difference in the way Armstrong views scripture - future, distant, unsure - and the alternative? It is a gift. It is a promise. Am I saying there is no way to lose the gift? Certainly not. Reject it and it will be taken back for sure. How do you reject it, in a moment of weakness? Hardly! One must grow into it over a lifetime. To reject it you have to both accept it to begin with, then willfully turn completely from it without repentance. But for the COGs the real question is have you ever accepted it in the first place? You say you have the Spirit in you, and I pray you do, but with your words you show those things have yet to occur.

While you who are still in the COGs are at the Feast or if you have just come home, or whenever you read this, think of the Feast of Tabernacles. Think of the first resurrection for which you strive to achieve. What amount of risk are you willing to take that you might lose part in this resurrection? For what would you trade a share in the glory of Christ? For a man? For a group of friends? If you do not love Christ MORE than family, friends, and even self, then you are not worthy of Him (MATT. 10: 37). You know this. Then you know why I had to separate myself from Armstrongism. Are you so certain that Galatians is not referring to you? That you can sit on a fence between the Covenants and not offend both? That you can achieve by the Old Covenant law all those many things the New Testament clearly shows you will never receive from the Old Covenant law? Are you certain you should bury your head to these things and cover your ears and cry DECEPTION! DECEPTION!  Have you proven? If you will not look or seek or ask, then in what way have you proven??

You don't have to stop keeping the Feast. (Although, it's probably better that you do.) Just stop keeping the Old Covenant law and step boldly into the New Covenant. If you so deeply desire to fellowship with old friends at the Feast, then go. However, go in newness of Spirit rather than in the oldness of the letter. Don't believe that righteousness can come of keeping the law. If you want a happy Feast, certainly this is the only way to truly achieve it.

Old Covenant vs. New Covenant

Got this from Tentmaker.org. I have seen it elsewhere on the COG blogs, but I thought I would like to have a copy here. (Not that this is an endorsement of everything on Tentmaker.org; I just think they did a fabulous job with this material.)

It gets to the root of what I think the major error of Armstrongism is: that HWA tried to resurrect the Old Covenant, but it cannot be resurrected and shoehorned into the New Covenant. All he accomplished was a cherry-picked version of the law, which is not good for anything. In fact, it could very well be quite harmful to its adherants.

Mosaic Covenant	New Covenant
Old covenant II Cor. 3:14	New covenant II Cor. 3:6
First covenant Heb. 8:7, 9:1	Second covenant Heb. 8:7, 10:1-9
Came by Moses John 1:17	Came by Christ Heb. 8:6, 9:15
Law of Moses Acts 13:38-39	Law of Christ Gal. 6:2
Law of sin Rom. 7:5-6	Law of righteousness Rom. 9:30-31
Law of the flesh Rom. 7:5-6	Law of the Spirit Rom. 8:2
Not of faith Gal. 3:2	Law of faith Rom. 3:27
Yoke of bondage Gal. 5:1	Law of liberty Jam. 1:25
Ended by Christ Rom. 10:4	Established by Christ Heb. 8:6, 10:9
Law of death II Cor. 3:7	Law of life Gal. 3:11, 6:8
Entangles Gal. 5:1	Makes free John 8:32, 36
A shadow Col. 2:14-17	The reality Heb. 10:1-18
Fulfilled Mat. 5:17-18	Now in force Heb. 8:6, 10:9
Leaves imperfect Heb. 7:19	Makes perfect Heb. 7:19
Glorious II Cor. 3:7	More glorious II Cor. 3:8-10
Powerless to save Heb. 9:9, 10:4	Saves to uttermost Heb. 7:25
Many sacrifices Heb. 9:12-13	One sacrifice for sin Heb. 10:12
Temporary priest Heb. 7:23	Eternal priest Heb. 7:17
Remembers sins Heb. 10:3	Forgets sins Heb. 8:12, 10:17
Yearly atonement Heb. 10:3	Eternal atonement Heb. 10:14
Priests have sin Heb. 5:1-4	Sinless priest Heb. 7:26
Aaronic priesthood >Heb. 7:11	Melchisedec priesthood Heb. 5:5-10, 7:21
Out of Levi Heb 7:11	Out of Judah Heb. 7:14
Animal sacrifices Heb. 9:12	Human sacrifice Heb. 9:14-28
Earthly tabernacle Heb. 9:2	Heavenly tabernacle Heb. 8:2
Imperfect mediator Gal. 3:19	Sinless mediator I Tim. 2:5
No inheritance Rom. 4:13	Eternal inheritance Heb. 9:15
Instituted upon animal blood Heb. 9:16-22	Instituted upon blood of Christ Mat. 26-28
Law of works Rom. 3:27	Law of grace and faith John 1:17
Works wrath Rom. 4:15	Saves from wrath Rom. 5:9
Non-redeeming Heb. 10:4	Redeems Gal. 3:13, Heb. 9:12-15
Non-pleasing Ps. 40:6	Pleasing to God Heb 10:5-18
Abolishment predicted Is. 51:6	Establishment predicted Heb. 8:7
Circumcision Ex. 12:48	No circumcision Rom. 4:9-12
Made to change Heb. 7:12, Gal. 3:25	Made eternal Heb. 13:20
Faulty Heb. 8:7	Perfect James 1:25
Weak Heb. 7:18	Strong Heb. 7:25
Unprofitable Heb. 7:18	Profitable Heb. 7:19,25
Natural program Heb. 9:10-14	Spiritual program II Cor. 3:6, 18
Daily program Heb. 7:27	Finished program Heb. 10:10-18
Infirm high priests Heb. 5:2, 7:28	Perfect high priest Heb. 7:26
Made priests by law Heb. 7:12, 28	Made priests by an oath Heb. 7:21, 28
No salvation Heb. 10:2-4	Eternal salvation Heb. 5:9, 10:10
Perfected nothing Heb. 7:19	Perfects believers Heb. 7:19, 10:14
Earthly priests Heb. 5:1-4	Heavenly priest Heb. 9:24, 10:12
Repeated inability Heb. 10:11	Glorious success Heb. 10:10-18
Many offerings Heb. 9:7	One offering Heb. 10:10-14
Good promises Dt. 28:1-14	Better promises Heb. 8:6
A good covenant Rom 7:12	A better covenant Heb. 7:22, 8:6
Many high priests Heb. 7:23	One high priest Heb. 7:24-28
Typical tabernacle Heb. 9	True tabernacle Heb. 8:2, 9:11
No mercy Heb. 10:28	Complete mercy Heb. 8:12
Handmade things Heb. 9:1-5, 24	Not handmade Heb. 9:23-24
An old way Heb. 8:13	New and living way Heb. 10:19-20
Unavailing ministers Heb. 7:18	Able ministers II Cor. 3:6
Carnal ministry Heb. 9:9-10	Spiritual ministry II Cor. 3:6
Ministration of condemnation II Cor. 3:9	Ministration of righteousness II Cor. 3:9
Glory covered II Cor. 3:13	Glory uncovered II Cor. 3:18
Brings bondage Gal. 4:24-25	Brings liberty II Cor. 3:17
Cannot justify Gal. 2:16	Does justify Acts 13:38-39
Brings a curse Gal. 3:10	Redeems from the curse Gal. 3:13
Live by works Gal 3:10	Live by faith Gal. 3:11
Cannot give life Gal. 3:21	Does give life John 6:63-68
Exposes sin Gal 3:19	Covers sin Rom. 4:1-8
Under law Rom 6:14-15	Under grace Gal. 3:22-25
Done away II Cor. 3:7-14	Not done away II Cor. 3:11
Abolished II Cor. 3:13	Continues glorious II Cor. 3:11
Ministry of death II Cor. 3:7	Reconciliation ministry II Cor. 5:18
For Israel only Dt. 4:7-8, 5:3	For all men Luke 22:20, Mark 14:24

By This All Will Know

As a member of the COGs, I believed that God had revealed certain knowledge to me. This is pretty much the case for all religions. But I felt God had specifically opened my mind to receive certain hidden and encoded knowledge which no man can naturally accept because God is not opening their minds to accept it at this time. It was this knowledge (gnosis) that we believed set us apart. The understanding of this special, secret knowledge is what made us unique and proved God is in us. I felt that I had won the universe's greatest lotto!

An unusual thing occurred to me one day while listening to a message about exactly what it is that God had revealed to the COGs which He had not revealed to anyone else. So many people have been trying to pin it down. It had never occurred to me that rarely would two people agree, nor would those things mentioned be unique to the COGs. So I asked, how on earth could special knowledge set us apart if we didn't even know exactly what that knowledge was? And how on earth could anything be specially revealed and make make us unique if other churches also knew?

In one of my last conversations with my former minister (who I love and respect even now), he mentioned to me that what we were right - meaning other religions had missed the mark. I replied, "That's not proof. EVERYONE thinks they're right. Or else they wouldn't be doing what they do." Can everyone be right? Of course not. Not when so many people believe so many things that are completely at odds. Who is right? I think all Christians would agree God is right. So the question becomes 'what does the God of the Bible have to say about this?' I would like to investigate what the Bible says that sets a person apart and what is real proof of the in-dwelling of the Spirit.

Let's look in to what the situation is. 

Truths had been hidden by God since the fall of Adam that needed to be revealed to mankind (I COR. 2: 7; EPH. 3: 9; COL. 1: 26). Jesus came with the task of doing that (MATT. 13: 10-17) This privilege was given mainly to the 12 Apostles, and they were commanded to go into all the world and spread this message (MARK 16: 15). They did not fail at that. 

God gives us now what He gave them then, and He did not give to either of us what He did not give to the other. The faith was delivered once, and for all time (JUDE 1: 3). All of those who claim God is giving them special knowledge that He did not give to the Apostles are certainly greatly suspect of being false prophets, hungry wolves, roaring lions, and deceivers. God has revealed these same truths continually from the time of the Apostles to those who reciprocate to His calling. If the gates of death will not prevail over His Church, then there was no time when that truth was not being made continually available to men. Specifically it says that those who believe Jesus is coming [continually coming; present tense] in the flesh, are of God (I JOHN 4: 2-3).

No man can find word one in the Bible of a predicted 1,900 year gap in God's work as Herbert Armstrong has claimed in his book 'Mystery of the Ages' (and indeed in many other places). Even so, there is certainly predicted by God to be those who do not receive the message. Take for example the prophecies of deceivers existing at the return of Christ. When Christ returns, He will call the Jews to Himself, so there will yet be Jews. And there is certainly predicted to be a time where there is a famine of the word. When that is, how long, who is involved, and other such questions cannot be answered with confidence because the details are not there. It could already be past for all we know.

I find it an odd thing that the Churches of God claim mankind lost God's truth in a 1,900 year famine and this is the time when God is re-revealing His truth in full again to a select group of mankind before the return of Christ. We know what is believed and taught in the COGs, and we know nothing in 1,900 years exactly matches it, so it is indeed unique (although not nearly as unique as people would like to believe), therefore it is reasoned God must have specially re-revealed it to HWA at this time. It's the only thing that makes sense to a faithful member. The alternative is to see the uniqueness as evidence of error. But if the vast majority of those things were not kept by what the COGs claim are their ancestor churches, then how can those things be that important to salvation?

As far as errors go, they are not unique to any group. No one has the whole truth. Is the whole of what Christ gave not made available to us? Sure it is. However, we are human and have our own weaknesses to deal with. We have pride, prejudice, tradition, laziness, assumptions, conformity, complacency, stubbornness, respect of persons, fear, etc that distracts us from the whole of what Christ gave. Not to mention the revealed secrets were only partially revealed. (I COR. 13: 9-10) "For we know in part and we prophesy in part." It would appear that many groups have varying degrees of the revealed message. Is it then the possession of the 'whole truth' that sets a person apart? How can it be? The whole truth is not given. Nor would I believe a human being can accept the whole truth were it given. OK then, is what sets a person apart the acceptance of the whole of what Christ did reveal? How can it be? Even the COGs commonly say 'no one has the whole truth'. Who among the COGs would be so bold as to say you understand entirely what Christ was given to reveal? *chirping crickets* That settles that.

We've looked in to what it isn't. Any idea on what it is?

**I am going to post a LOT of Bible verses here, so please either follow along with a Bible, or follow along with Bible Gateway. Actually, I highly recommend downloading e-sword, the add-ons are fantastic.

Short answer: sanctification is by the Spirit and belief in the truth (2 THS. 2: 13). Even some in the Churches of God readily admit that "the truth" consists of who Jesus Christ is and what He is doing. So what is this truth?

It is Jesus who saves, and everyone that faithfully believes in the Son and acknowledges their belief to others will be saved (JOHN 6: 47; ROM. 10: 9-13; JOHN 3: 16-17; JOHN 10: 9, ACTS 4: 12; ACTS 16: 31; I THS. 5: 9); such faith comes by exposure to the word of God (ROM. 10: 14-16); it involves knowing He died and has risen (I COR. 15: 1-8); it involves God's grace through Christ (ACTS 15: 11; EPH. 2: 5, 8; TIT. 2: 11; 2 PET. 3: 15); along with that comes baptism (MARK 16: 16). Certainly there is more to being a Christian than this, like holding fast to the end, but we have to stop somewhere.

It IS a calling. 

(JOHN 6: 44-45) "44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."

It doesn't say "will come to Herbert Armstrong", but to Christ. It doesn't say "will come to the Old Covenant", but to Christ, along with His gospel (ROM. 1: 6; EPH. 1: 13), and the New Covenant (JER. 31: 31; MATT. 26: 28). After hearing the word of truth, and believing in Christ Jesus, then a person is sealed with the Holy Spirit (EPH. 1: 13).

By the very nature of that, it is not in Herbert Armstrong  or any man (I COR. 1: 12; I COR. 3: 4), and not in the Old Covenant law. But the COGs counter "I need the law and holy days to understand what Christ is doing." I partly disagree with that. Take for example the sacrifices and offerings that we know pictured Christ. Do we need to do those things in order to understand them? No. But they indeed hold much value if we do look into them. 

The difference is in keeping the Old Covenant (more importantly, keeping it partially). Many in the COGs read Romans 8: 14 "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.", but they skip the next verse "For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption". Do those who aspire to keep the Old Covenant understand this? Galatians 4: 21-31 clearly represents those who attempt to keep the Old Covenant laws as being in bondage, and those who attempt to keep the New Covenant as being sons. The COGs believe one of the signs of the Spirit working in a person's life is that they will keep the Old Covenant laws. I could not disagree more! I think one of the main failings of Armstrongism is that it gets tripped up with the Old Covenant.  (GAL 5: 8) "This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you."

The Old Covenant is profitable only to those who keep it in its entirety (GAL. 5: 3; JAS. 2: 10). Keeping the laws of Moses is NOT necessary in order to be saved (ACTS 15: 1-2; 2 TIM. 1: 9; TIT. 3: 5). To say such a thing means it is no longer by grace. And not just no longer by grace, but to say so means one has fallen from grace (GAL. 5: 4). The Old Covenant is the Ten Commandments (EXO. 34: 28). And the Ten Commandments are NOT Spirit and they are NOT life, they are quite the opposite (2 COR. 3: 6-7). It is not by anything that we do that we are saved. God is not looking for us to have our own righteousness, which is from the law (PHP. 3: 9). It must be His righteousness (JOHN 6: 63). It MUST be by faith, and cannot be by the Old Covenant law (ROM. 3: 21; ROM. 4: 13; ROM. 9: 30-31; GAL. 2: 16). 

(GAL. 2: 21) "for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." 

Am I saying the Old Testament is useless? Certainly not (2 TIM. 3: 15; I PET. 1: 10)! They are two parts of one book, and both very good for us to read and know (2 TIM. 3: 16-17; I COR. 10: 11). 

We've looked at what it is. Now, is there anything, any indicator, which may help us know who is being saved?

Yes. That indicator is our conduct (PHP. 1: 27-28; PHP 2: 12-13; HEB. 5: 9). I do not say that you must have works of faith and righteousness and therefore you will be saved. I say that if you have heard the truth, believed, and received the Spirit, then by that Spirit in you there will be works of faith and righteousness. It can be no other way. Works do not produce salvation, but they are evidence of it (JAS. 2: 17-18). Do not confuse "works" with "law"; they most certainly are not the same! We've already discussed the works of law. These are the works of faith James is talking about here. James is talking about the result of the faith, hope, and love inside you, through which you fulfill the whole law if you do these things (ROM. 13: 8-10; GAL. 5: 14; JAS 2: 8). Just as you will know a false prophet by his fruits (MATT. 7: 16, 20), those who have God's Spirit will be known by their fruits (MATT. 21: 43; PHP. 1: 11; JAS. 3: 17)

So it is not just in what you know. It is not in what man you follow. It's not in what law you keep, or Sabbath, or Holy Day. It's not in your flesh at all - but it is entirely about God and Christ (I COR. 12: 6; I COR. 15: 28; EPH. 1: 22-23; EPH. 4: 15-16; COL. 1: 18). These things are straight from the Bible and true, and need no speculation.

But if you really want a summation of the entire matter, here it is:

(JOHN 13: 35) By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.