All My Yesterdays

Dear readers, first I would like to take a moment to express my deepest appreciation to you for your visiting, commenting, and even supporting this blog. I welcome all of you, whether you agree with me (in whole or in part) or not. You've come from all over the globe - Italy, China, Australia, Chile, South Africa, to name a few... all to my little corner of the Internet. I am humbled, I am without the proper words to express my gratitude, I am encouraged, I am hopeful. Thank you! I mean that.

What I would like to share with you today is a letter from a couple (Bob and Connie) who were seeking many of the things I have so very recently sought (and so have many others, including many of you). This letter was written in 1974-75 and is addressed to a minister of the Worldwide Church of God by the name of Hunting. What I found most striking about the letter was the similarity between the author's own search and mine. In more than one place the author's comments were virtually identical to some I have made. The questions, the search, the frustration, the areas investigated, the order of the process, the conclusions, all eerily similar to my own... and here that was 35 years ago. It was as if this person reached forward in time into my thoughts in the present day and pulled them back to record them in his own words. I get the feeling as if this letter was written for me.

I honestly believe this one letter summarizes every COG splinter group, indeed even the entire history of what I call "Armstrongism" itself.

I am going to quote from that letter, and there are so very many things I believe must be quoted (all emphasis mine) - things that touch deep in my soul and speak immeasurably to what I felt and thought and wrestled with for the past year as I came to realize God was lifting me out of Armstrongism. Please read these along with me and share in these vital new ideas recorded so long ago.

"Both Paul and Herbert W. Armstrong have said 'Follow me as I follow Christ,' or in other words 'as I follow the Bible.' Yet these words are rendered empty and meaningless when we are told we must leave certain decisions up to 'the church,' and that if we don't think a decision constitutes 'following Christ,' we must abide by it anyway, since 'it is 'the church's' responsibility.'"

"...this attitude is a large part of what is wrong with the Worldwide Church of God. Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong (and, I think, much of the ministry) looks at the members as poor, dumb sheep; innocent, helpless, babes who must be sheltered, spoon-fed, kept in the dark, told nothing, never consulted, and guarded strictly lest they fall helplessly away or are defenselessly led astray. This is the way the Catholic Church looked at and treated its laity during the Dark Ages."

"Before an individual becomes a member of the Worldwide Church of God, he is encouraged 'to prove all things, hold fast that which is true.' The ministry tells him, 'Don't believe what we say -- check it out.' 'If we teach contrary to God's Word, do not follow us.' Etc. Unfortunately, the opposite process begins once one is in the Worldwide Church of God. The member is told that 'Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong is closer to God and has more of His Holy Spirit than anyone else, which is the reason he is the leader of the Church' or 'Since Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong is the leader of God's Church, he must be closer to God and have more of His Holy Spirit than anyone else.' Therefore his opinions (re: scriptural or non-scriptural matters) are more godly than anyone else's can be, so to do as he says must be the course of action which most pleases God. This type of circular reasoning is taught to the members, and is applied to a lesser degree to Mr. Garner Ted Armstrong, then the evangelists, then the pastors, then the preaching elders, etc., etc. By the time you get to the lowly lay member, his opinion is worthless, when compared with the hundreds of those who must be closer to God since they have higher positions, or who have higher positions since they are closer to God. In this way the member is stripped of any confidence in himself or God's Spirit in him. He places Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and the rest of the ministry in the position of defining what he must believe -- in place of Jesus Christ and the Bible. The ministry carefully shows the lay members how to prove the beliefs of the Worldwide Church of God from the Bible. The member thinks his belief is firmly grounded in the Bible, but for him to prove it he must rely heavily on the proof-texts and the explanations he has been given."

"The approach of the Worldwide Church of God indicates that the lay member needs the Holy Spirit only to help him overcome 'personal problems' and help him accept that which the ministry tells him the Bible says. The Holy Spirit isn't simply to help us agree with the way the Worldwide Church of God explains it. In this way, the 'weak of the world' are being made weaker. It doesn't take a spiritually strong person to merely accept exactly what the Worldwide Church of God teaches and to obey it strictly. But it does require strength of character and spirit to question, research, prove, and then abide by your convictions, regardless of what the Worldwide Church of God or anyone else says.

In this way I think the members of the Worldwide Church of God are not being helped. They know what they believe and how to 'prove' it. If there is a doctrinal change they are then taught what new thing they should believe and how to 'prove' it."

"[HWA] called our Divorce & Remarriage change 'new light,' 'new truth' which God has (finally) shown us. In other words, he subtly blamed our doctrinal error on God. He never once admitted that he had simply been wrong. He never apologized to all the people whose lives and marriages he had ruined. He gave God all the credit for wrecking and destroying thousands of families."

"Another quote from the [May 14, 1974 Letter to the Brethren]: "Brethren, this very experience (the Divorce & Remarriage change) ought to teach all that loyalty to God and to His Church must always be placed first, over supposed or real wrongs or personal grievances." Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong is saying loyalty to the Worldwide Church of God must be placed above loyalty to God's Word! He's saying that it was right for us to obey the Worldwide Church of God's unbiblical and anti-scriptural teaching on Divorce & Remarriage all these years, because this is what he terms "loyalty to God's Church." And he says this loyalty must "always be placed first, over supposed or real wrongs or personal grievances." In other words, loyalty to the dictates of an organization must be placed first over what the Bible really teaches..."

"Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong goes on to say...'God has given those of us who are loyal to Him and His Word the relief we relied on Him to give us.' In actual fact, the "relief" has been there for 2,000 years, but it has taken the Worldwide Church of God this long to discover and accept it. And those who were 'loyal to Him and His Word' on the subject of Divorce & Remarriage needed no relief since they refused to ever submit to the Worldwide Church of God's incorrect teaching in the first place. Yet Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong would consider those who ten years ago refused to obey the Worldwide Church of God's teachings on Divorce & Remarriage, Pentecost, etc. to be disloyal, even though they were being loyal to what God said in His Word."

"Then Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong tells how much he and the other ministers appreciate 'the faithfulness of those of you who have endured this anguish in order to be obedient to our God.' Actually, they were obedient to Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God rather than God Anytime we obey men rather than God, He is not pleased, regardless of the sincerity of the individuals involved. Mr. Hunting, is it ever right to obey Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong rather than the Eternal? Yet Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong commends the brethren for doing exactly that, and then labels it faith in and obedience to God."

"When I first began attending the Radio Church of God, I was told this was the true church because we did and taught exactly what the Bible said. Recently the Worldwide Church of God has said we're the true church because we change our teachings when they are wrong."

"...there is no such thing as one True Church the way the Worldwide Church of God believes there is -- in other words there is not one true organization."

"The one true Church of God certainly does exist, but it has no organizational boundaries. The definition of a Christian, one who is a part of the body of Christ, a member of the Church of God is one who has God's Holy Spirit in him (Rom. 8:9)."

"I came to realize that simply taking the word of Mr. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God would displease God. I would be placing them above Him and His Word as the primary molders of my beliefs."

"I perhaps reached the depth of my disappointment with the Worldwide Church of God when I read a statement written by Mr. Armstrong appearing on page 631 of the December 3, 1974, Bulletin. It's implications are horrendous. He said, 'Christ has BOUND in heaven what His Church, even in unrealized error, has bound in earth.' The statement hit me like a lightning bolt."

"The Worldwide Church of God cannot afford to openly present both sides of the story, cannot allow its members to read the opinions of those who disagree with Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and the official stand of 'the church.' ... This is why disfellowshipment is such a handy tool for them. New, unapproved, 'heretical' ideas and opinions can be stopped by kicking the trouble-maker out of 'the church' and then forbidding anyone in 'the church' from talking with him."

"...whenever someone who used to be a loyal supporter and member of the Worldwide Church of God begins to believe and teach something different, Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong declares them to be 'in the bonds of Satan.' ... the Pharisees accused Jesus of acting 'by Beelzebub the prince of the devils,' although Jesus said His actions were 'by the Spirit of God.' If God through His Holy Spirit is motivating and guiding certain individuals, He will not look lightly on accusers who claim the Spirit-led individuals are actually motivated by and in the bonds of Satan."

"I vividly remember attending, in my freshman year, Pasadena Bible Studies conducted by Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong. He was always getting upset at people who sent up questions during the Bible Study. If any question expressed even slight disagreement with him, what he had said, a belief of the Worldwide Church of God, etc., Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong became very irate. He would scold the questioner for 'his attitude,' his lack of respect, disloyalty, and so on. [Where have I seen that before?] Mr. Hunting, I'm not exaggerating. He made it quite clear he does not want to be questioned. He was very defensive and constantly felt the questions to be a challenge to his authority." [Excatly as John Keisz said!]

"Being a student at Ambassador College, and to a lesser extent a lay member in the Worldwide Church of God, is to experience a type of brainwashing. The indoctrination results in a form of mental castration; theologically the individual will not or cannot think for himself. He will blindly accept, believe, and obey whatever Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong says. He will loyally support and uphold the Worldwide Church of God's castigation of those who question, doubt, or criticize."

"I've read Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong’s booklet, What is the True Gospel.  He only quotes five or six of the New Testament scriptures which mention 'gospel.' Three or four of the quotes serve as his 'proof-texts' -- and he proceeds to draw dogmatic conclusions, ignoring both the immediate context and the rest of the New Testament. If he'd examine the other 95 places where 'gospel' is mentioned, the meaning would be quite clear, although very different. This booklet is typical of the research and 'open-mindedness' which has gone into most Worldwide Church of God publications and conclusions. Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong’s concept of the gospel is similar to the blind man who got hold of the elephant's tail and quickly concluded that an elephant resembled a piece of rope."

"I hope you will look at what Mr. Armstrong writes and says about 'the gospel,' and then contrast that to what the New Testament says. Look at the approximately 100 places in the NT where the word "gospel" is found; read the context. Please read Acts 17:3; I Cor. 1:23; 2:~2; II Cor. 4:5; Gal. 1:16 -- you will see Paul emphasized Christ, and didn't merely allude to Him in a way which would prevent embarrassment. When Paul preached Christ, the listeners knew Christ had been preached to them, whereas Mr. Armstrong prides himself in being able to preach the "gospel" in a way that no one realizes it has been preached."

"Although God has personally given Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong no commission, he nevertheless feels that virtually every commission God has ever given is his. Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong either thinks he is, or is to do the job given to: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 'watchman,' the 'inkhorn,' the one who 'cries aloud and spares not,' Elijah to come, a type of John the Baptist, either Joshua or Zerubbabel, one of the two witnesses, an apostle, a 'messenger' one who 'prepares the way,' Hosea, Malachi, Moses (anyone who disdains Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong’s authority or position is immediately compared to Korah), Daniel, Joel, Amos, etc., etc., etc. And, of course, he primarily feels he is to fulfill Matt. 24:14 -- see Rev. 14:6 for the most likely individual to take care of that job."

"When I examined Mr. Armstrong’s 'United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy' belief and found it to be not only scripturally and historically unprovable, but untrue, I realized that virtually my entire concept of Bible prophecy was built on sand; not necessarily the what, but certainly the where, when, and to whom."

"Not only has the Worldwide Church of God set specific dates and placed clear time limits on its prophecies, but time and again it has been in error -- prognosticating that a certain thing will not occur and it does, or that something else will occur which doesn't. Certainly a few of the forecasts have been correct, but when so many are made a few are bound to come to pass."

"When I graduated from Ambassador College, I had no real understanding of the old covenant, and why we kept and followed certain things, and ignored others. Much of the Bible became crystal clear when we realized and accepted that the covenant was made with Ancient Israel, and no one else. Also, we saw that God plainly states that the covenant was to be kept in its entirety, completely, and no place in either the New or Old Testaments are Christians told to keep whatever they feel like keeping. Yet, Mr. Hunting, this is what the Worldwide Church of God does!"

"Please read the covenant to which Israel agreed in Exodus 20-23. How much of that does the Worldwide Church of God obey? I don't mean partially, but exactly as God stated it. The Worldwide Church of God would say that certain portions of the covenant aren't applicable today, or can't be followed because of changed circumstances. However, there is no biblical authority for obeying only part of that covenant. Take Lev. 23 -- where in the NT does it say the Holy Days can be kept apart from the sacrifices which were an integral, if not focal, part of each holy day observance? Why does the Worldwide Church of God, completely arbitrarily, not enforce the blowing of trumpets portion of the Feast of Trumpets (Lev. 23:24), but does enforce the removal of leavening and eating of unleavened bread (Lev. 23:6) during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but does not enforce God's command to build of branches booths which are to be lived in (Lev. 23:40-42) during the Feast of Tabernacles, does enforce fasting (Lev 23:27, 29, 32) on the Day of Atonement, does not enforce the waving of a sheaf of first fruits during the Days of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:10-11), etc., etc.?

There is no biblical authority for such haphazard, fragmented, and selective obedience to God. The entire Day of Atonement observance (as commanded by God in the OT and modified nowhere in the NT) revolved around the goat ceremony, and the Worldwide Church of God is kidding (pardon the pun) itself if it thinks it can observe the Day of Atonement, almost totally disregarding God's instructions for said observance, and then claim to be uncompromising in its obedience to God.

But the problems mentioned above are unavoidable when Christians today try to put themselves in a system God never intended for them. If we offend God's laws regarding the Sabbath, Holy Days, tithing, etc., "in one point," we are "guilty of all," and that is exactly what the Worldwide Church of God is doing as long as it professes to obey portions of God’s Word which were never intended to be followed today."

"Anyway, we have come to research many of the Worldwide Church of God's doctrines, and a close examination shows most of them to be in part, if not completely incorrect."

"Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong always claimed that he 'let the Bible interpret itself.' However, the truth of the matter is that his beliefs and teachings embody a plethora of 'private interpretation.'"

"Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong has frequently quoted Gal. 1:6-9, wherein Paul warns against those who 'pervert the gospel OF CHRIST' and preach 'another gospel.' Well, Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong is a victim of his own quotation -- he indeed perverts the gospel of Christ and preaches another gospel -- the gospel of Herbert Armstrong."

Flurry's Follies

I've been poking around Gavin's (from Ambassador Watch) old website. You can find it here. I was Googling for a bit of information about one Mr. Gerald Flurry. You may never have heard that name before. He usually goes by his title, "the end-time Elisha". Now you know who I'm referring to? Yeah, him! That's the guy! Well, Gavin, having done so very much foot work for us through the years, had everything I needed right there. It was all low-hanging fruit! I just walked in, scooped up all I could stomach, and I simply had to post about it and refresh this information in everyones' minds.
What Gavin did was assemble a group of quotes from the Ambassador Report. What I am going to do is borrow a few quotes from Gavin... to whet your appetite and hopefully get you reading the rest for yourself. They are incredibly telling!

"Malachi's Message is a new vision from a mighty angel. It's a NEW REVELATION - not something somebody already knew!
This new revelation is God's way of saying that we must give the little book a special importance and the majesty it deserves. Only then can we properly respond to the great Work of God - much of which revolves around the little book."
-Gerald Flurry, "Philadelphia Trumpet", Sept./Oct. 1992, p.8

Here we have a man, Gerald Flurry, who is claiming direct divine revelation from God (through an angelic representative). Let me repeat that for emphasis: Gerald Flurry is claiming that he spoke with an angel and received prophetic revelation from God!

Flurry (ie. Elisha) is bold in his claims about the authenticity and "majesty" of "Malachi's Message" (ie. the 'little book' of Revelation 10 & 'scroll' Ezekiel 3). Does that make him the Apostle John and Ezekiel as well? He is bold before man and God that this book is divinely inspired and accurate for prophecy.

"God will look to and use THIS MAN who is childlike before His word (Matt. 18:1-3). For example, this man will read God's revealed word in Malachi's Message and act on it out of godly fear! He KNOWS that book contains God's truth. He trembles and obeys."
-Gerald Flurry, "Philadelphia Trumpet", December 1993, p.20

We ought to obey God rather than men (ACTS 5: 29). I wonder if Mr. Flurry read as far as Matthew 18: 6?
At this point, I must remind you of Deuteronomy 18:

(DEU. 18: 20-22) 20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

Blasphemy? Ehhh, close, but probably not. Let's read a little further.

"There is a colossal reason why Christ moved us [the PCG] to print both these books ["Mystery of the Ages" and "United States and Britain In Prophecy" by Herbert Armstrong]. WITHOUT THEM WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE OR GOD'S MASTER PLAN! That's how critical they are today!"
-Gerald Flurry, Co-Worker Letter, 1/21/97

The Ambassador Report paraphrases another of Flurry's comments this way:

"HWA's Mystery of the Ages and Flurry's Malachi's Message go together 'hand and glove'"
-"hand in glove" by Gerald Flurry, "Philadelphia Trumpet", April 1993, p.24

What Gerald Flurry is saying is absolutely positively no different whatsoever than what Joseph Smith of the Mormon faith claimed, that an angel delivered him a new book of the Bible. To follow the first act of Armstrongism where Herbert Armstrong stole doctrine from the Latter Day Saints church, Gerald Flurry now steals their ideas too.
If you haven't caught on yet, what Gerald Flurry is saying is that the "Mystery of the Ages", the "United States and Britain In Prophecy", and "Malachi's Message" are three new books of the Bible, without which no one can understand the rest of the Bible. If you will but read my posts on British-Israelism, you will see how these claims simply cannot be true. But the "Elisha" appears t have missed one!

"My book, The Incredible Human Potential, has appeared in bookstores all over the English-speaking world. It’s story too comprehensive to even begin to condense in this article.

Actually I feel with very deep conviction that I myself really did not author this book  — that the living Jesus Christ is its real author. I was merely like a stenographer writing it down. And with that understanding, I feel I may say that this is one of the most important — and most tremendously revealing — books since the Bible!"

-Herbert Armstrong, "Youth '86", Feb. 1986

So make that FOUR new books of the Bible between the two of them.

I find the next quote particularly disturbing. It goes very well with my earlier posts about "Following A Man"

"Of course, there are different groups of lukewarm and dead churches. But Mr. Armstrong ALWAYS PREACHED THAT GOD WORKS THROUGH ONLY ONE MAN AND ONE CHURCH! The rest are deceived....
"This leader I quoted earlier [Meredith] is teaching a satanic doctrine! IT IS VERY UNBIBLICAL TO SAY THERE ARE BRANCHES OF GOD'S TRUE CHURCH!....
"Where did I get this new revelation [Malachi's Message]? As Paul said, it was "NOT AFTER MAN." It came from God! Members of God's Church who can't see that revelation are BLIND!....
"A CHURCH COULD HOLD FAST TO EVERY DOCTRINE MR. ARMSTRONG TAUGHT AND STILL BE LAODICEAN-BLIND!"
-Gerald Flurry, "Philadelphia Trumpet", March 1993, p.28

Mr. Flurry takes it one step farther in saying that no matter what you do, no matter what you know, no matter anything whatsoever... if you do not follow him, then you are Spiritually blind. He has placed himself in the position and authority of Jesus Christ.
I am at this point ready to accept that what Mr. Flurry is doing here is blasphemous!

Finally, let's close up with this quote from the Ambassador Report from Issue 69, July 1998:

"[Randy] Schafer also doubts Flurry's claim that his book Malachi's Message was personally delivered to him by a great angel and that it was intended to be a part of the Book of Revelation. If that is the case, says Schafer, why then has Flurry revised the book a number of times since the angel originally gave it to him? Mike Okamura additionally points out that in Malachi's Message Flurry claims that WCG Pastor General Joseph Tkach Sr. is the prophetic "Joshua," but that "Joshua" is supposed to be alive at the second coming of Jesus Christ, while Tkach Sr. has been dead now for almost three years." [Better make that 13 years!]

Looks like Flurry has massaged the Message over time. Not only that, but we have our first false prophecy pointed out right there for you to read with your own eyes. Please re-read Deuteronomy 18:20-22, paying close attention to the end of verse 20. Gerald Flurry is a false prophet. I will disregard him completely. I suggest you do the very same. And may God have mercy on his soul.

Reader, please get yourself reacquainted with this eye-opening material which you can find on Gavin's site(s) and in other places so that you never forget it! For those still in Armstrongism, children of God, please allow Christ to lead you out of that sore yoke of bondage and into His New Covenant. ASK!

Gavin, There are three great mysteries in life: 1) How many licks does it take? 2) What on earth did I or anyone else ever see in Herbert Armstrong? and 3) How do you, Gavin, stomach reading so very much Armstrongist-related material? You, sir, should have literally exploded years ago. Perhaps you write from a crystalline fortress somewhere near the North Pole, and the earth's yellow sun has imbued you with an incredible constitution. At any rate, I would have given up the ghost while you carry on. Shine on you crazy diamond.

A Funny Little Story

I'm trying to space out my posts a bit to give you, the honored guest here at my humble blog, more opportunity to read without feeling pressured. I will try to post at most 1 or 2 times per week.

This week, I have a small tale to tell. 

In December 2008, I wrote a two-part post about Slandering HWA - I Think Not! In these posts, I got into a regrettable conversation with an impatient minister of Armstrongism whom I had previously held in high esteem. Well, what I did not mention is that I was a member on his website's chat forum. I logged on one day after our exchange to see if he had remembered to cut me off. He had not. So, I posted a couple mild things.

One person (an anonymous and unsuspecting third party) had a topic in there in which he was expressing shock about censorship in the media. This stroke of luck I simply could not pass up! I replied with something along the lines of "You're shocked about censorship? Censorship is a common occurrence in Armstrongism! How many times have you been warned about what you read, or how many times has a person been disfellowshipped and we were told to have nothing to do with them, or how many times had the church put out questionable material which they hid from us? Why, censorship is a staple in Armstrongism." (That is an approximation of what I said. The exact details have faded from my memory.)

To prove my point, I started my own topic. Therein I posted a chunk from Herbert Armstrong's prophecy from the June/July 1934 edition of the Plain Truth magazine where HWA stated Christ would return by 1936. I also pasted my favorite quote there, which you can see at the top of this blog whenever you wish:

"But who today understands what the prophets foretold? Why, only the ministers today whose word comes to pass!-those who are appointed and guided by God to preach the truth! Those whose utterances do not come to pass have not spoken the prophecies truly. We give you here the record of what we have been proclaiming for the past 2 years-a message which no other voices, to our knowledge, have been proclaiming.... But what we have been warning you about is happening!-precisely as we have stated.... This is how you can know that our work is not of men but of God!"

-Plain Truth magazine, DEC. 1956, p.3

You can guess what happened within two days from that time. Yes, my account was revoked. I had been censored. My point was proven.

(MATT. 23: 13-15) 13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.

15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves."

By What Measure You Use

I would like to talk frankly about the pedestal some people have placed Herbert Armstrong on.

Have you ever picked a person to be on your team simply because they were your friend? Have you ever avoided someone simply because they look a certain way? Have you ever taken sides on an issue you aren't quite familiar with simply because someone else you respect also holds that opinion? Of course you have! We all do those silly things at least once in our lives. We're human and humans do those things. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just a fact of nature.

Now, have you ever seen someone doing something and spoken out against it (in public or private)? Perhaps you've spoken out against the wealthy taking a ride on the backs of the poor. Perhaps you've spoken against sexual abuse and child molestation. Perhaps you've spoken against some televangelist for asking for money all the time. Perhaps you've spoken against the poor quality of education children get these days. 

Or... on the flip side... perhaps you've glossed over someone's indiscretions because you like them. Ever lambaste a corrupt politician from the other side of the aisle but let your own corrupt politician go free? Ever give special attention to someone because they are related to you? For example, turning a qualified stranger down for a job in order to give it to your relative?

(MATT. 7: 2) For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

(LEV. 19: 15) Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

(ROM. 2: 11) For there is no respect of persons with God. 

God desires us to use the same measuring stick across the board. Not that we are to be without mercy, but without partiality. James says, in the second chapter of his epistle, "if you show partiality, you commit sin" as well as "Mercy triumphs over judgment." Now, these are all things you well know. Let me now ask you some more pointed questions.

Have you ever called Hal Lindsey, Benny Hinn, or Marshall Applewhite & Bonnie Nettles, for example, false prophets? Or how about William Miller, Ellen G. White, or David Koresh; ever call them false prophets? Or Ron Weinland, Geral Flurry, Rod Merideth, Dave Pack, et al? Perhaps you glossed over one or more of that last bunch, eh? Are you prepared to use the identical measuring stick across the board? If one makes predictions that fail, and you apply the label "false prophet" to that one, then you should be impartial to do the same for the rest - or excuse them all. Why then do so many excuse Herbert Armstrong, who has a long history of false prophecy stretching from the very beginning of his ministry? Either Herbert W. Armstrong is a false prophet, or none of those people are.

Have you ever seen a minister or an elder or perhaps an evangelist who wasn't living up to the office to which they attained? Perhaps you were less than satisfied with Gerald Waterhouse, or Joe Tkatch Sr., or a minister who followed along with Joseph Tkatch? Have you ever said "Hey! That person doesn't meet the qualifications of I Timothy 3: 2-7 and Titus 1: 8-9?" How does politics weasel its way into church like it does? But if we label one person unqualified, we must label them all unqualified, or forgive them all. Are you prepared to use the identical measuring stick across the board? Why then do so many excuse Herbert Armstrong, who fails the qualifications of I Timothy in some 11 points? Either Herbert W. Armstrong is not qualified, or all of those people are.

(I TIM. 3: 2-7)

2 A bishop then must be blameless [FAIL!], the husband of one wife, temperate [FAIL! His temper was well known.], sober-minded [FAIL! He was not very well self-controlled. John Keisz all but called him paranoid.], of good behavior [FAIL! He flew his jet to Romania for "sex therapy". He lived as a king while others starved and went bankrupt. His wife died of an intestinal blockage while he often went to the hospital.], hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine [FAIL! He was infamous as a drunk. Garner Ted said they had to "pour him into bed"], not violent, not greedy for money [FAIL! He was indeed greedy, and the church was a cash cow. He wasted the money, constantly demanded more, ruined lives, bought influence, etc, etc], but gentle, not quarrelsome [FAIL! He was removed from the ministry of the COG7 for being impossible to work with.], not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well [FAIL! This goes without saying.], having his children in submission with all reverence [FAIL! Incestuous rape isn't the submission Paul had in mind. Need I also mention Garner Ted?] 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil [FAIL! "God's Apostle" "Elijah" "Third Angel's Messenger" "Witness" "Spiritual and temporal leader of God's Church on earth" "Zerubbabel" compared himself to King David, Paul and Peter... need I say more?]. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside [FAIL! One British newspaper called him "the Kinky Apostle". If it wasn't for the lavish gifts he gave to dignitaries, would he have been so well received?], lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Have you ever spoken against Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Mark Foley, Barney Frank, David Vitter, or the any of the rest of the immeasurably long list of government figures who were caught up in sexual scandal? What about Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Paul Crouch, Ted Haggard, certain Catholic Priests, and all of the disgusting misrepresentatives of everything that is called good - ever speak out against them? Or maybe even Garner Ted Armstrong? Why on earth do these people betray our trust like that? They are supposed to be the ones we can trust! But if we label one, then we must label all, or let all go free. Are you prepared to use the identical measuring stick across the board? Why then do so many excuse Herbert Armstrong, whose sexual exploits are so well known and so well documented ...and so disgusting that I shudder to mention them...? Either Herbert W. Armstrong is not up to snuff, or all of those people have hit the mark.

He was dishonest. He made claims that he was the first person in 1,800 years to teach "the truth"; however, the majority of what he taught came to him from A. N. Dugger and G. G. Rupert of the COG7 or from books he read (eg. "Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright" by J. H. Allen). He claimed he was never a part of any other organization; however, he was a paid minister for the COG7 and one of the preaching 70 (until he was let go). He often made fiery public announcements about not ever knowing this, that, or the other thing when the mouth of two or three witnesses verifies he most certainly did know.

He falsified history. He said the first century church practiced as he taught, when it most certainly did not. He said the move from Passover to Easter was pagan, when it most certainly was not (it was affected by paganism later). His claims about the horns (Vandals, Visigoths, and Ostrogoths) in his publication "The Beasts of Revelation Thirteen" were incorrect and even self-contradictory. He said the church had an unbroken line of history back to the Apostles. However, that is entirely false. I can personally trace his history to 1844 - there it stops with William Miller. Most of the people Hoeh named in his plagiarized history were Catholic.

Then there's the plagiary. He plagiarized all or large parts of "The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy", "The History of God's True Church", "The Proof of the Bible" booklet, "Has Time Been Lost?", several articles he allegedly authored for the magazines, and who knows what else.

The list of cherry-picked beliefs is too long to get in to. Either keep the whole law, or don't. This is what Paul says. There is no cherry-picking! I often hear "We are not justified by the law, but we have to keep it." Then why don't you keep all of it? There are 613 laws in the Torah, of which the COGs keep a small fraction. Not to mention the MANY teachings of Armstrong that are simply flat-out wrong - like tithing, for example. You know as well as I what the law says! (Tithes are for Levites.) You know as well as I what the holy day offerings were really about. (They were burnt offerings - fulfilled by Christ.) You know the holy days are not kept right! (Where is your Tabernacles booth?) You remember the rule against medicine (that killed many people, but HWA often exempted himself from). You remember (divorce and remarriage, aka. "D&R"). You remember the Pentecost controversy. People say to me "Mr. Armstrong changed the law out of necessity." Is that some small thing? He called himself Elijah, is he God now too? NO MAN CAN CHANGE THE LAW!!

Is this article angry? Is it bitter? Is there a root of bitterness in me? This is not about me. These things I report are true as testified by the mouths of many witnesses. Rather than deal with the facts, people castigate the messengers as "bitter". It's a cheap slight of hand to get your attention away from the facts. And if "bitter" isn't used, then "slander" will be, or some other phrase. And that word, slander, is tossed around by ministers who judge and condemn billions of people based on little more than prophetic speculation. When people toss around phrases like 'slander' against people, it is the equivalent of calling them liars. But we have a law, "Do not bare false witness against your neighbor." (EXO. 20: 16) We had better be sure we don't dismiss God for the sake of pride.

All of this judgment and condemnation has gotten out of hand.

(JOB 40: 8) Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?

I do not say these things in bitterness, but in warning and love to you!! I am not angry, but joyful to help those who are in bondage to a severe cult. I am not a novice or unfamiliar with the subject, but 30 years I spent following and teaching Herbert Armstrong. I am not deceived, as the information I share with you is readily available and is proven fact!

Nor either do I say this to condemn Herbert Armstrong. I try my hardest not to condemn anyone. God will judge. I merely find it necessary to make you aware of these things that are hidden from you in order to wake you up to the truth and to shake you out of the spell Armstrongism has you under. These are bitter pills to swallow for sure, but should you accept the quality of the fountain, then perhaps you can accept the quality of the water -- and stop drinking it!

I say to you "come out of her"! Jesus gave up all that exists for you - I implore you to consider what great price was paid for the New Covenant. I implore you deeply to consider what Herbert Armstrong leads people away from. Consider how you are called to be attached to the Vine, directly to Jesus Christ the Head over all things, and not to any man. Consider the price and consequences of glossing over the real HWA - for whatever reason. Don't fall for clever little sayings like, "if any man today was found to be guilty of what David did that they would be rejected as a servant of God as well." This is a diversion. David had real prophets. David was accompanied by real miracles. Most importantly, David repented. Herbert Armstrong's many "sure" prophecies have not come to pass, miracles are non-existent, and there was no repentance.

Apply evenly the measurement which you apply to others and open your eyes to what you are doing, lest you find you call God wrong to justify HWA. Remember how Waterhouse said if God doesn't return during HWA's life, then the Bible is wrong?

More Following A Man

I was looking for something on the Internet when I stumbled quite by accident across Raymond C. Cole's 'Church of God, The Eternal' website. He attempts to answer the question "By What Authority Do We Exist?" Instead, he illustrates everything I mean when I say that Armstrongists follow a man.

At first, Mr. Cole explains that a minister must be called and sent. He doesn't claim to be called or sent, he just states that one must be. He speaks about true doctrine, but does nothing to show he preaches any. He then shows how a minister has a responsibility to actually do his job. I still don't know what that has to do with proving anything about Mr. Cole's legitimacy.

After this, Mr. Cole basically says "by their fruits you shall know them." Once again, great. But so what? The question was about his legitimacy. Is he saying no one else has good fruits? Why aren't they legitimate if they do? I wonder by this point if there is going to be a response to the initial question.

"It was not until the failure of prophetic interpretations that the wholesale lowering of standards and watering-down of doctrine began," he says. So he admits Armstrong's prophecies failed? I'd hate to have to tell him, but it was the surety of those interpretations that was THE proof that the WCG was the one true church! If they've failed, where does that leave him?

Let's look into his mind a bit, "His [Jesus'] church and His people, for the most part, have forsaken Him!" I agree in part. Many people have forsaken Christ... for Armstrong. But what's more important right here is how Mr. Cole's view of Christ's Church is that of a physical organization instead of a Spiritual body. This displays a complete lack of understanding of the New Covenant.

"Christ kept His promise to preserve His Truth (Matt. 16:18), or there is no truth." Unfortunately, this contradicts the 1,900 years without truth theory. A 1,900 year prophecy is found nowhere in the Bible. It is actually a generalization built on Armstrong's 19-year time-cycles theory. Again, not Biblical, and having little to do with "the Truth". But I digress.

"The Worldwide Church of God never proclaimed ... that one is in hopeless religious confusion." Armstrong never said the Bible is fraud, even though Waterhouse said if Jesus doesn't return in Armstrong's life then the Bible is wrong. He did say the entire world was and is in hopeless confusion (except for his church).

Over and again Mr. Cole speaks of "the truth" and "the revealed truth". Let me explain what Mr. Cole is saying without the cloaked phraseology. He is saying "Contend for the faith once delivered....... by Herbert Armstrong."

   THAT is the real issue here.

He says, "Either the Worldwide Church of God taught the Truth, or we have no basis for calling ourselves Christians today."

Mr. Cole's first assumption, the one assumption that makes much of his conclusions fail, is that Herbert Armstrong was delivered a special revelation from God. From this one assumption arises all of his further conclusions, including his assumption that he is a valid minister - and hence the reason he dances around the plain answer to the original question, which answer is "I follow a man." Let me demonstrate.

In his "An Open Letter From Raymond C. Cole", Mr. Cole plainly says, "The concept of divine revelation was the bedrock factor upon which my faith and loyalty to God stood..." I believe every word of this, save one: "God". That should read "Herbert Armstrong". The divine revelation he truly refers to is that which Herbert Armstrong claimed.

Again from the Open Letter, Mr. Cole recalls, "For days Mr. Armstrong continually insisted God had revealed to him that which he was preaching. ... I was left with a single decision to make. Was I going to protect the self, or was I willing to accept in faith and absolute conviction that which had been demonstrated—divine revelation [to HWA]. One of the greatest psychological releases I have ever experienced came at the moment when I decided Mr. Armstrong was right—God reveals His Truth to a chosen servant [HWA]. It, therefore, is absolute and cannot change." 

In plain English this means, "I follow a man." His faith is so very much tied to Herbert Armstrong that if HWA was wrong, he sees clearly he is not anywhere near what the actual truth is. He must defend HWA. Everything he has depends on it. Not Christ, HWA. 

No, Mr. Cole, either Christ died for us, or we have no salvation. If HWA does not match the Bible, then choose the Bible!

Mr. Cole now begins to pressure those whose faith in men manifested differently than his.

"Those who refuse to accept the validity of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong's original commission ... and the revealed truth, are denying the validity of their baptism." 

Fear and control; typical. Keep in mind Mr. Cole means "original" when he says "original"; ie. prior to the 1970's doctrinal changes. In the Open Letter, Mr. Cole refers to 1973-1974 as "an apostasy". Need I say more?

"A true minister will never separate for anything but a departure from revealed truth. Those who have left and started their own works because of personal differences or administrative debates outside the realm of doctrinal perversion, prove by such actions, that the Word, the Truth, is not paramount in their thinking."

Mr. Cole left Armstrongism in the 1970's. This is tantamount to saying HWA departed from the truth, and that's why Mr. Cole left. This was decades before Tkach.

Take this as a whole and it means that if you deny pre-1974 Herbert Armstrong, then you are not a Christian. Now he adds to that.

"If one has accepted doctrinal changes, then he is admitting he never knew the Truth."

So, if you deny pre-1970's HWA, you're not following Christ, and if you accept post 1970's HWA, you were never following Christ. Oddly enough, in his mind, this makes perfect sense.

Now, I tell you the most ironic part of this entire page. I don't think Mr. Cole thought this through very well or he wouldn't have said it like this. He said in the previous quote that if you accept doctrinal changes then you never knew the truth. But it was Mr. Herbert Armstrong himself that approved the changes that caused Mr. Cole to leave the Worldwide Church of God. Even though Mr. Cole may with his words want us to suppose he is standing against Joseph Tkach, with his actions he shows that isn't exactly true. The stand against change that Mr. Cole took was not against Joseph W. Tkach but against Herbert W Armstrong! So this says, in effect, that Mr. Armstrong accepted changes and thus never knew the truth!! How ironic is that?? So, to say that the truth is what Mr. Armstrong taught originally, and then to make an enormous gaff like this and say Mr. Armstrong never knew the truth, why, that's just talking one's self in a circle.

Your only job as a Christian is to accept that Mr. Armstrong received pure truth at the beginning of his ministry, and all changes are of Satan. This, in my opinion, is tantamount to blasphemy. It sets Herbert Armstrong nigh equal to Jesus Christ who came to reveal God's truth. Herbert Armstrong was not the Savior of anyone. Nor was he a valid prophet as he claimed. Nor were there prophecies about him. Nor did he fulfill any prophecies (save possibly for the ones about false prophets). We can talk about Elijah all day long, but the facts remain: 1) Christ said plainly that Elijah was John the Baptist (MATT. 17: 10-13), 2) Herbert Armstrong did not live to introduce the returning Christ, 3) Herbert Armstrong did not return the hearts of the children to the fathers or vice versa. I could go on, but why?

"Now can you understand why I was so troubled by the changes which constituted the apostasy of 1972-74? Can you understand why I will not budge regarding doctrine even now? I fear to compromise. I want only that Truth which is recorded in God's Holy Word and was revealed to an end-time servant (Matthew 28:19–20)." [emphasis mine]

Here is the issue. He doesn't want Christ's version of God's word, he wants HWA's version of it.

He even gives absolutely incorrect information. "In its formative years, the Church of God was the only organization founded on divine revelation. No present religion is founded on the validity of divine revelation, not even the Worldwide Church of God, since its apostasy!" Then what are we to make of the Mormons, or the Seventh Day Adventists, among many others? Many groups claim divine inspiration. All of them are just as devoted to their "leader" as Mr. Cole is devoted to HWA. This claim by Mr. Cole is absolutely false on its face. But why make such a claim at all? He means to say that even though those other groups claim to be divinely inspired, they are not. Why not? They don't have HWA! In other words, he worships a man.

I appreciate that Mr. Cole was observant enough to see that HWA claimed to be divinely inspired, but later changed what he said God had revealed. Raymond Cole called himout on that. I don't think it was the best idea to continue believing what HWA said at first was any more valid than what he said at the end. 

Mr. Cole's authority to exist is based on what? Nothing more than Herbert Armstrong's insistence on his own office. And Mr. Cole swallowed it so hard, that he based the rest of his life on it. A Christian follows Christ; Raymond Cole follows Herbert Armstrong. I hate to be so blunt, but I'm trying to illustrate a point - that Armstrongists all say they follow Christ, but it can be demonstrated again and again that they follow a man.

On Following Men

No one has ever said to me "I follow a man". Of course most people would not consciously follow a man. It is easier to say "I follow Jesus Christ". If I ask one question here it is this: Do people, specifically the people in the COGs, really follow Jesus Christ?

Now, I want people to think about the irony of the statement "I follow Christ" from those who attend a church started by a man who described himself as "the spiritual and temporal leader of the church" and who then proceeded to change the laws of God. Is it following God to change God's laws? Did God come and change His own laws? No. Then who did? A man. When Herbert Armstrong changed his views time and time again, the Bible did not change with him. Yet people followed along before and after. So who were people following? A man. When Ron Weinland did the exact same thing, who were people following? A man. So who is being followed? Christ? That's just not possible!

I observed during my time in the COGs, and even participated in the practice, of following after my ministers in using the phrase "so called Christians". What is that? According to the COGs, that is any person who claims to be a Christian but does not follow the Old Covenant laws. Think of the irony. Think of the irony of a group of people who are not fully following the Old Covenant laws, calling people who do not follow the Old Covenant laws "so-called Christians". I recently got into a little tiff with a minister for this very thing. I attempted to show him the gap between what he says in one place and another. He basically told me I wasn't affording him the deference due him and vowed never to speak to me again. VERY Christian, that! On whose behalf was he offended?

For those who are still in Armstrongism, ask yourself, "Do I keep the law - the WHOLE law?" I understand the natural inclination to excuse yourself. Please fight that inclination and answer honestly. Understand that I don't mean to ask you if you could keep the law more perfectly. You are correct that Jesus Christ covers sins. I mean to ask you if there are portions of the law you don't keep at all. And I am not referring to third tithe. For examples of what I am talking about, do you build a sukkah (booth) at Tabernacles (LEV. 23: 42; NEH. 8: 14-17), or do you travel three times in a year to the place where the Lord places His name (EXO. 23: 14; EXO. 34: 24; DEU. 16), or do you regard a false prophet (DEU. 18: 20-22), or perhaps do you ingest animal fat (LEV. 3: 17)? 

Let's put this into a little perspective. According to James 2: 10 and Galatians 5, if you set out to keep the law but do not keep it all, if you even stumble in one point, you have nothing. Have you stumbled in even one point? Then you are guilty of all and are the same as a liar and a murderer and all other such things. Paul does one better and says clearly that if you even attempt to find your salvation through the law then Christ Himself profits you absolutely nothing (GAL. 5: 1-5)! Consider, or think deeply about, your calling!

This reminds me of Galatians 6: 13

(GAL. 6: 13) For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.

Not keeping the law while boasting in fleshly ordinances seems to be the way of Armstrong. Yet over and anon we used to say "we are God's true church because we keep His laws". But we didn't keep His laws! Oh, we said we did. And we were very confident in the law. But it goes to show that we never understood Paul or the law!

(I TIM. 1: 5-7) 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. [emphasis mine]

The law is not the proof that God is working in us. His Spirit is. His Spirit does not come from the law, nor the keeping of it. Where do you ever read that? Man's own reasoning conjured it up. I'll tell you what we can read, however:

(GAL. 3: 2-5) 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?

I've talked about this before in my post "By This All Will Know". You say the Spirit comes to those who keep the law. Paul calls it foolish to think the Spirit comes through law. So then, is the proof that God is calling you to be found in your foolishness? "Not many wise now are called," it says. Is it proof that you are poor, or in other words, not mighty nor wise? Does it make sense to say "I'm among the weak and foolish of the world, therefore I know God is working with me"? And what is it that is too hard for you to grasp? There is simplicity in Christ!

Or perhaps you view the proof that God is calling you to be found in that you are a "little flock"? As if to say, "We are part of a small church, therefore we are God's true church"? Then why boast about 33% growth each year? Why does the PCG website boast a great deal about increase in size? Why does the CGG write against using size as a measure? So both small size and large size are proof? 

Do you glory in your foolishness or your small size or your partial law keeping? In what are those who glory supposed to glory in? CHRIST! There is nothing confusing about that. It does not say to glory in the law or your understanding or your calling or that God has revealed to you some thing or anything at all to do with yourself. It says to glory in HIM. Him personally!

Christ did good for all mankind. All good flows from the Father through Christ. Christ's own faith is placed in His own people. Sin is conquered in Christ. Christ gave up all things, all things that exist. Christ inherited all things. Christ is worthy. Who is Christ? He is the Son of God, at the right hand of God, the Head over all things to His Spiritual Church. Make your boast in Him.

What good have we of ourselves done? None. What faith have we on our own? None. What sin have we personally resisted on our own according to God's standards? Not a single one. What do we deserve from God? Nothing. What have we earned from God? Nothing. Who are we? Nobody.

So why glory in "us"? Why boast in "us"? Why condemn "them"? Why say or even think such things as "God isn't working with them" or "they are as good as dead anyway"? Why sequester yourselves? Why hide what light you have? Matthew 5: 43-48 says you're no better than the tax collectors if you act this way. Why hold your head up over someone else? Why call attention to your organizations? We are all guilty of such things from time to time. But why? Are we not making ourselves wise; wise in our own eyes?! "Not many wise now are called." Put your boast in Christ, not your minister, or your responses to a magazine, or any sort or form of carnal thing. If you can clear away the "us vs. them" mentality, clear away this identification with a clique, then perhaps you will begin to see how "they" aren't one bit less important than "we". Perhaps if you see that Jesus Christ is trying to make one Spiritual man out of many physical men, then perhaps you will cease trying to divide things up again. "But they aren't called because they don't keep the law," you say. Well, you don't keep the law either! Then the rock of James 2 and Galatians 5 falls upon you and it will crush you.

Have we forgotten Philippians?

(PHP. 3: 7-11) 7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. [emphasis mine]

Notice how many times Paul mentions Christ. It is obvious where his focus is. Let's contrast that.

On the Philadelphia Church of God website is a section on their history. There you will find this statement,"The PCG broke away from the Worldwide Church of God in order to preserve the teachings and legacy of its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong". Oh really? Not Jesus Christ? In all actuality, the words 'Jesus' and 'Christ' do not appear anywhere on that page. On the other hand, the word 'Armstrong' appears at least 13 times. A rich tale of HWA's past is told, there is even a link to another article all about Herbert Armstrong... again, no mention of Jesus Christ. Not one word. 

In the "About Us" section on the Living Church of God website, we see this "The Presiding Evangelist, Dr. Roderick C. Meredith, was one of the original evangelists ordained by the late Herbert W. Armstrong in December 1952." Notice carefully where Rod Merideth believes he derives his authority. Once again, Jesus Christ is absent. 

The Restored Church of God mentions Christ 3 times, Armstrong 4 times. Not a bad start, until you notice the link to the eight chapter 'book' (complete with preface, introduction, and epilogue) about Herbert Armstrong's life. A glance into their uncompromising and unapologetic self-promotion left me queasy. Take for example this sentence "While many groups arose from the WCG, we are the only true extension of Mr. Armstrong's ministry—the Church in which Christ is now working!" In the RCG mentality that I see on display, if you aren't "us" then you are nobody.

Where is the focus? Why, "we" are the focus, of course! Complete and utter "us vs. them" mentality. Competition. Strife. Envy. Pride. Godly? No!

Time would fail before I investigate with you all of the various groups who make Herbert W. Armstrong into an idol and a requirement for salvation.

This kind of thing is par for the course with Armstrongism. For more of this exact same thing, please read my earlier posts "What Do You Mean, One True Church" parts 1 and 2.

What have we seen so far? As a general rule, the boast of the COGs is in Herbert Armstrong. The authority is from HWA. The focus is often on HWA. The teachings came from HWA. And even though many will like to say "but from Christ through HWA", this is clearly not the case since HWA clearly changed the laws of God. So, when given the choice between the version of the law in the Bible and the version given by HWA, the COGs choose HWA. Is HWA greater than God? Where, then, is the focus? And not only did HWA change things, but he contradicts the clear words of the Bible! When HWA says "The Spirit comes to those who keep the law", the COGs eat that up! Yet when Paul says "The Spirit does not come by law but by faith, grace, and promise" and again "the law brings condemnation", the COGs say NO! NO! So, where is your focus? The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them." When scores and scores of primary and secondary witnesses come forward to tell about the kind of fruits HWA had (and his ministers after him), the COGs say "if any man today was found to be guilty of what David did that they would be rejected as a servant of God as well." And after such an avalanche of confirmable, demonstrable, falsifiable evidence the COGs cover their ears and bury their heads and say, "Slander!" Where then is the focus? All of this for a man?

Please understand my motives are not to attack you! I do not confront you with this for your harm. Quite the opposite! I care about you, and I want you to see the distance between yourself and Christ so you will take the steps to close that gap! There were barriers in my way when I was in Armstrongism, and I know those barriers are before you. To see those barriers, you need to accept a few things. 

First of all is that God loves you so much He died for you. But not just for you - for all mankind! God is love. Love comes first. 

Second, I hope beyond hope that I can get you to see how judgmental and condemnatory the belief system is. The condemnation has got to stop. I think one of the greatest obstacles to my own personal happiness while I was in my former association was the condemnation. No one can be truly happy while condemning others. 

Thirdly, and the focus of this post, is I pray you see, by the grace of God, where your focus lies. Is it with Christ? Because I'll tell ya, from the evidence, it does not look good. Or is it with a man or the ministries of men? If that is so, that has got to change immediately. 

I want you to ask yourself a question: "Who is the leader of your church?" If you didn't immediately respond, "Jesus Christ", then please allow me to suggest you have much work to do. I would like you to ask yourself another question: "What is my church?" If you didn't respond, "It is the Spiritual body of Christ, composed of everyone with God's Spirit, regardless of all man-made organizations" (or some such thing along that vein), then may I please suggest you have much work to do. How will you know these people? The Bible tells us without doubt "by their fruits." I have looked at the fruits of the COGs and asked, "Do people, specifically the people in the COGs, really follow Jesus Christ?" And from what I see, the answer is a resounding NO!

What Do You Mean, One True Church - part 2

Here is the addendum to the first part of this post which you can find here.

The United Church of God has responded to my inquiry!

Here is the majority of their response to me (I've omitted the parts linking to their publications).

"Thank you for writing to us. I have to admit that I'm not exactly sure how to interpret your question.

If you're asking what sets the Church of God apart from other churches, I think the answer is clear. The doctrines of God's Church are quite different than mainstream Christian beliefs and include our understanding of the nature of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit; our reliance on the inerrancy of Scripture; the purpose for which mankind was created; the observance of the weekly Sabbath and annual Holy Days; the purpose and role of the Church, etc. If you would like an overview of the teachings of the United Church of God, I suggest you read our booklet "Fundamental Beliefs of the United Church of God."

If you're asking what the United Church of God teaches that is different than what is taught by other "Churches of God," that's another question. Because many of us come from the same roots, many of the Church of God groups naturally have much in common with each other. We do not consider ourselves in competition with any other group, nor do we seek to compare ourselves with any. We regard those who believe and practice as we do to be our spiritual brothers and sisters. [empasis mine]

The following statement was issued by the United Church of God Council of Elders in May 2000:

"The Church of God is a spiritual body of which Jesus Christ is the head. Members are called into the Church, and God is preparing them for the Kingdom of God through the work of the Church. As the head of the Church, Christ has placed some in positions of leadership for the edification and unity of the Church. The United Church of God, an International Association, is a continuation of that body Jesus Christ founded. We, in the United Church of God, an International Association, do not claim that all Christians are among our fellowship. Neither do we claim to be the only organization through which God may be working. However, we have a distinct identity and endeavor to function according to the principles of unity and organization found in the Scriptures."

As a church, we remain dedicated to our stated purpose of "teaching the gospel and preparing a people." Article 1.0 in the United Church of God Constitution says, "The mission of the Church of God is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God in all the world, make disciples in all nations and care for those disciples." 

Thank you again for writing to us." --end quote

As you can see, the UCG excells their sibling churches by directly stating they are not in competition with anyone else.  I see that they are the only group to mention Jesus by name; another bonus!

On the down side, once again we see reliance on human understanding over the saving work of Jesus Christ.  The word "grace" is not found in this response.  (Keep in mind, this is but a brief summary of their positions).  Even so, I would have liked to see it prominantly displayed and at the forefront of the response.

Though I can hardly sum things up perfectly, I would love to see a COG tell me something like this:

"Jesus as 'the Word' was God and with God from eternity.  Having bound Himself to a perfectly sinless standard, a way had to be made for the redemption of mankind.  To that end, the Word became flesh, lived as a man, and died for the ransom of all mankind.  We now have, through His selfless sacrifice, unwarranted grace from God through faith in Jesus Christ.  God sends His Spirit to those who accept His calling in order to help us and to teach us in this life.  Though man is not saved by any personal work or understanding, the presence of the Spirit will be manifest in good works and a repentant heart.  One with God in spirit, we are all equals and brothers in the spiritual body of Christ, growing in the mind and ways of God throughout our lifetime.  The examples of both the Old and New Testaments are a guide and lesson for us in our journey.  And we await that day when we are called out of our graves to join Him in eternity - the assurance of which we have in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from His grave."

Something like that would be terrific.  I didn't see that, though.

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.