Thursday, July 9, 2009

Error and Condemnation

Lately (for about a year now) I have been struggling with ideas and concepts and various other intangibles. For anyone who reads my posts, you already know the outline of what I've been going through. For those who are unfamiliar with me, in August 2008 my family and I made the life-changing escape from Armstrongism. I left behind dear friends as close as family, people we called "gramma and grampa", and certainly others who are always in some form or the other traumatized by a loss in the group.

I know there are, and have had the privilege of talking with, many people out there who have shared a similar experience. You all know how difficult a thing this can be. For some of you it has been decades and you're still dealing with ripples in your life from this one event. Like a cosmic background radiation after a big bang or some such event, the effects of leaving never quite seem to go away. Well, God bless you and guide you and strengthen you. I am supremely confident that in the end this will all work out.

What concerns me in this post is not those who have left, but those whom we have left behind - those still in Armstrongism.

It is a tenant of Armstrongism that those who do not do four main things (according Herbert Armstrong's interpretation of them) will possibly suffer through a hellish Great Tribulation, will awaken in a second, lesser resurrection, and will then be given the opportunity to learn these four things; the refusal to adopt them will lead to permanent death. Those four things are: keep the weekly seventh-day Sabbath, keep 7 annual Holy Days, pay various tithes and offerings, and observe certain meats laws.
Other practices are required, of course, and vary by organization, but these are the main 4.

Chief among the 4 is the weekly Sabbath. This can be demonstrated since the one qualification Armstrongism used in which to claim a church was a direct ancestor of the Worldwide Church of God, or even a distant relation, was observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. Many times I heard the tale about an isolated Russian church discovered in the wilderness who kept the seventh-day Sabbath. Even though there is no proof of this group's existence, for the Armstrongist this tale is enough to both prove the validity of the seventh-day Sabbath as well as make this church a relative.

As an aside, I have never understood why the same is not so for the SDA Church, or the Jehovah's Witnesses for that matter. Especially given the easily verifiable fact that Armstrongism derives from the COG7 which itself split from the very same Ellen G. White group that became the SDA - thus making the SDA Church a literal ancestor of Armstrongism (a thing that was vehemently denied within Armstrongism). And if that isn't strange enough, HWA embraced a group of Seventh Day Baptists (out of which came William Miller's weekly Sabbath beliefs) even though the only resemblance they bore to Armstrongism was the keeping of a seventh-day Sabbath.
I know that some Armstrongists will say, "Those groups do not bear the name 'Church of God', so they are not from God." But I would like all who believe this to read this post on my old blog titled "The Name 'Worldwide Church of God'"

But I'm getting off topic. My point was to show that according to Armstrongism certain practices (chief among them being the seventh-day Sabbath) gain you entrance into the Bride of Christ or refusal will bring you to eternal death.

On the other hand, I have been reading the beliefs of several Protestant groups and many have various similar yet opposite beliefs. For example, I have read in one group that legalism is not just an error, but a sin.
It is no secret that in the past many people were persecuted for not keeping a special observance of Sunday. Persecution isn't what I'm trying to emphasize, but rather that the persecutors clearly thought that any other practice besides their observance is worthy of persecution.
I have read where many groups emphasize the heresy of not accepting a Trinity.
I've even read one group recently who appeared to say that failure to believe in eternal punishment in hell is a sin.
As an example of these opinions, John Ankerberg's website says this (emphasis mine):

"But there will come a point when certain issues can no longer be avoided [by the Grace Communion International, formerly Worldwide Church of God], such as the full truth about its own history and Herbert W. Armstrong’s status as a heretic. Armstrong was never a "minister of the gospel" and the old WCG was never a Christian church, although statements by the new WCG in 1996-1998 have allegedly said that the old WCG was Christian."

I've bandied about the idea of whether or not I was ever a Christian as well.
Did I really believe in Jesus Christ? Most definitely I did not believe in the full glory and power of His saving grace! A good friend of mine, when running out of avenues to defend Armstrongism, said to me something like, "But Jesus' sacrifice isn't the end of it. It's a part of it, but not all of it." I agree! It's only like maybe 99% at best. But there is more, and that is for us to accept it, and allow it to change our hearts.

All Protestant groups seem to agree that salvation by works is clearly against Paul's writings. This is true even from the earliest Christian authors. Mathetes, in his Epistle to Diognetus, chapter 4, verse 1, says this:

"But again [the Jews'] scruples concerning meats, and their superstition relating to the sabbath and the vanity of their circumcision and the dissimulation of their fasting and new moons, I do [not] suppose you need to learn from me, are ridiculous and unworthy of any consideration."

Ignatius (lived 50-98 or 117 AD; disciple of John), in his Epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 8, verse 1, takes the idea even farther:

"For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace"

I wholly agree that attempting to keep a cherry-picked version of the Old Covenant law is utterly fruitless. But is it a sin to keep a seventh-day Sabbath or avoid pork? Was I really not a Christian? As sure as night turns to day, Herbert Armstrong did preach another gospel other than the one Paul taught. That has been clearly demonstrated. And we all know Paul's warning on that topic.

(GAL. 1: 6-9) 6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

This appears to me to say that accepting another gospel turns one away from God and the grace of Christ (v. 6), and thus it appears to agree with Ignatius. It also carries a heavy curse for the one who presents the false gospel (v. 8-9)! [Why can't I help but think of Ron Weinland at this point?]
But are the people who unwittingly accept that error going to be lost forever? Many, but not all, Armstrongists are genuinely people whose one desire is to obey God and who love Jesus Christ (according to their understanding) more than self. They are just confused on the details.

Yes there are errors, but aren't there errors in us all? The case against them is that they don't accept the grace of Jesus Christ. In addition, they place a man between themselves and the true Vine. I know that in many instances that is somewhat true! I only need to present myself as evidence. But it's not entirely true, not in all cases.
Most Armstrongists accept that grace saves, but they also believe that sin can negate grace and one will find themselves worse off than they were originally. In other words, they disagree with Calvinistic "once saved, always saved." The difference between Armstrongists and non-Calvinist Protestants and Catholics appears to me to be in what the two sides define as "sin". HWA defines it as not keeping certain select the tenants of the Old Covenant; mainstream Christianity defines it as not believing in the Trinity or whatever else.

To play devil's advocate and take the Protestants to task, where is it written that "grace and belief in the Trinity saves"? Where is it written "thou shalt not keep a seventh-day Sabbath any longer or else thou shalt surely burn in hell"?

Paul says,

(COL. 2: 16-17) 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

But Paul also says,

(RM. 14: 5-6) 5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

What I take away from this is that if you observe a seventh-day Sabbath or not, or if you observe meats or not, whatsoever you do, do that to the Lord with thanks. I quote Byker Bob, "There appears to be a great amount of freedom in the New Covenant." At least until we all come to the full maturity and understanding of Jesus Christ.

That being said, we now come to my main point in this entire post. One thing that is never given an ounce of freedom in the New Covenant is condemnation.

(ROM. 2: 1) Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge [condemn], for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
(ROM. 14: 3-4) 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
(ROM. 14: 7-13) 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written: “As I live, says the LORD, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God." 12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.
(MATT. 7: 1-5) 1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

I take from this that there is no reason for us to declare who will - or, more importantly, who will not - be in God's Kingdom. God will decide. Certain things are obvious that they should not be done, nor should they be tolerated in our lives (ROM. 16: 17; II JOHN 1: 10-11). But rather than emitting a steady stream of condemnation, one should pray to God for a righteous change of heart in whomever it is that sins.

Clearly we are to make a distinction between what is right and wrong!

(JOH. 7: 24) Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.

But the trap of condemnation, playing the "who will be in the second resurrection" or "who will go to hell" game, is ungodly. It puts the self up and the other down. This comes from pride, not love. This creates an artificial distinction in our minds that did not come from God who judges righteously and who sees no distinction between men; He is not a respecter of any person (ROM. 2: 11; COL. 3: 25). Once we've set ourselves up, the other becomes lesser and eventually of little use and ultimately of no value at all.

(MATT. 5: 21-22) 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ [worthless] shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

Let's read this again from the Message Bible:

(MATT. 5: 21-22) [MSG] "You're familiar with the command to the ancients, 'Do not murder.' I'm telling you that anyone who is so much as angry with a brother or sister is guilty of murder. Carelessly call a brother 'idiot!' and you just might find yourself hauled into court. Thoughtlessly yell 'stupid!' at a sister and you are on the brink of hellfire. The simple moral fact is that words kill."

Makes it quite plain there, doesn't it? And here we sit, the Armstrongists waiting for the Tribulation to scorch mainstream Christianity to ash and blow them away while using phrases like "harlot", "so-called Christian", "lost", and "worldly". I was an Armstrongist. During my time I used to imagine the day after the Millennium when people would kneel before me and confess how right I was and how wrong they were. That is precisely what Herbert Armstrong taught! Seeker points out to me that this teaching comes from HWA's desire to be worshipped. I would tend to agree.

Buuuuuuuuuutttt.... On the other hand we have the mainstream Christians contemplating eternal painful damnation in hell for every error of the Armstrongists. How many have been impatient for hell and burned "heretics" at the stake? Even Martin Luther and John Calvin both did as much while clearly knowing and teaching that murderers do not deserve the Kingdom. Will they escape God's judgment just because they are who they are?

Dear reader judge righteously, which camp seems to be right in the eyes of God given the words of Matthew 5 above?

So, as a Protestant, what will I do?
I will refuse to believe that the innocent followers of Herbert Armstrong are lost (certain ones are not so innocent).
There is yet hope! And what will I say if I condemn a person now who later comes to glory? What will be my excuse, or what will remove that shame from me? So I will love them as God commanded me to. As they say, "Love the sinner but hate the sin." I will have hope in Christ that He knows how to save them too.

We have ALL sinned. We have all fallen short! One day we will all stand before God. As He lives, every knee will bend and every mouth confess that He is Lord. And in that day will all know that He is Lord.

(ISA. 45: 22-25) 22 “Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. 23 I have sworn by Myself; the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath. 24 He shall say, ‘Surely in the LORD I have righteousness and strength. To Him men shall come, and all shall be ashamed who are incensed against Him. 25 In the LORD all the descendants of Israel shall be justified, and shall glory.’”

Yes, there are errors on both sides. But are all things equal? I do not think they are. There are very grave dangers lurking about that must be warned against. Pursuing a cherry-picked set of Old Covenant laws places one precariously between the two Covenants and not firmly participating in either. Preaching another gospel is clearly a deadly pursuit. But what does that mean for me? Does it give me the right to condemn? NO! I have errors too.
Even so, I see a great deal of difference between "Look out! That way has these errors which will lead away from Christ!" and "Those people are going to hell when they die. They deserve no accommodation from God."

The peace I seek is something that I know will not come in this lifetime. I've tried with many men that I believe to be open-minded. 'Us vs. Them' is just too strong a motivator for some people to overcome. The Sabbath is too large of a stumbling block in many people's minds, even with sabbatarians outside of Armstrongism. Then there are issues of pride, issues of fear, issues of following a man rather than Christ, issues of being too invested in a certain way to change it, issues of specific teachings which promote condemnation, issues of fallen human nature, issues of legitimate theological disagreements - it just goes on and on. My desire to put Armstrongism in the past keeps me at arm's length. But I believe this peace will come. I see hints of it here and there. And I look forward with great anticipation for that time.

I've just heard about a minister who recently gave a message in one of the smaller splinter groups where he identified several errors taught by Herbert Armstrong. He admitted his list was not comprehensive, and invited people to discuss their own findings. I have yet to listen to this message, but it gives me clear hope. One person described it as "the ice is broken .... for the future ....." I rejoice in praise to God for that!

To my old friends, I still love you and miss you deeply; you don't know how very much. I don't long for any day to come when I am shown to be right and you wrong, but only that we can be together again in the peace and unity of Christ's love (even better than before). May God be right and every man a liar (ROM. 3: 4).
And to my new friends, every one of you have been a blessing to me beyond what I can possibly articulate. I am filled with joy to know you. Thank you. And thank God for you.
And to the reader, I pray we can agree on these two things: 1) that faith in Jesus Christ alone brings salvation (ROM. 9: 16), and 2) that we should put away all condemnation.


************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom.

Acts 17:11

************

18 comments:

Bill said...

Where to start...

There is indeed a curse for having accepted a false gospel, even though out of ignorance. It's sort of like the policeman who pulls you over for speeding, and you didn't see the sign where the speed limit changed. The signs were there for us to see and read; we just didn't truly comprehend them, and there are a lot of "serpents" out there who, through crafty arguments and teachings, snag the innocent.

When Jesus said that the deceptions would be so good that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived, He was not kidding. The deceptions are VERY believable and convincing, and it takes a careful examination of Scripture in order to separate fact from fiction.

The gospel is simple enough to understand though; salvation to those who believe, have faith in, and trust Jesus Christ to do what we can never do based on our own efforts; have eternal life and salvation.

Then the "serpents" come on the scene and innocently enough declare, "you need to do this also" or "you need to believe this also" where it is put forth in such a manner that it is difficult to discern the deception.

"God is not going to have sinners in the Kingdom of God, and if you are breaking that law, you are sinning; you are a sinner, therefore you must keep the law."

This is, in essence, the claim made by the Pharisee Christians in Acts 15. To them, it was soundly logical. It was also wrong, and extremely difficult to convince the modern Pharisees this is so.

And yet, these Pharisees were Christians and in the early Church, and if they believed the Gentiles had to keep the law in order to be saved, then they believed they had to keep the law in order to be saved. So did they really believe the gospel? Were they under this curse Paul wrote of? I wonder...

Perhaps the dynamic for them was in their being eye witnesses to the resurrection. Seeing is believing, and this was still early on in Christianity.

They were dead wrong though in this belief, and this belief compromises the gospel and falsifies the gospel. They had to be "reminded" all are saved by grace through faith.

Peter effectively put the sign up alongside the road of life for us.

xHWA said...

Hi there, Bill!

"There is indeed a curse for having accepted a false gospel, even though out of ignorance."

I don't disagree with that.
I'm living proof of it.
But I refuse to be the agent that declares that curse, or doles out condemnation for it.

"hen Jesus said that the deceptions would be so good that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived, He was not kidding. The deceptions are VERY believable and convincing, and it takes a careful examination of Scripture in order to separate fact from fiction."

Don't disagree with that either.
It is a deception. And deceptions are both clever and effective.
But I refuse to declare anyone "lost". I hold out hope that God will open the eyes some day. Until that day, I hold out hope rather than condemnation.
Like I said, hate the sin, not the sinner.

"This is, in essence, the claim made by the Pharisee Christians in Acts 15. To them, it was soundly logical. It was also wrong, and extremely difficult to convince the modern Pharisees this is so."

Yes it was. But with one catch -- it was wrong that they were trying to teach the Gentiles to keep the law.
It was obviously incorrect for them to teach this to the Gentiles, but when we read James' words, it was obviously correct for those of a Jewish background to keep certain laws and traditions of their ancestry (at least at the time BEFORE the destruction of the temple). If that were not so, then James was wrong in ACTS 21: 20, he was wrong to ask Paul to go through the purification ritual, and for the first several years (about 3 to 7 years) before Peter was sent to Cornelius, no one went to the Gentiles at all and all kept the law - thus they were all of them under that curse you mention. But they were all Jews during the temple period.
details.. details....

I'm really not understanding if in your comment you're agreeing with me, just adding to what I wrote, or disagreeing with me.

xHWA said...

It appears to me that Paul allows for a person to come out of this sort of thing in stages, too. A little here, a little there .. as we grow and mature in the knowledge and grace of Jesus Christ.

Questeruk said...

Hi xHWA,

Great post, and one which I can identify with almost completely.

It’s a dilemma really isn’t it? I can see some ideas and attitudes in ‘Armstrongism’ which I cannot agree with, particularly in the area of condemnation, which some (but certainly not all) have.

But equally, (in fact I find very much MORE than equally), I find this condemnation in most of mainstream Christianity. Almost rejoicing at the ‘suffering in hell’ which the vast majority of mankind will suffer – there seems to be great rejoicing that, be they ‘Armstrongists’ or the other way atheists, or, (even worse IMO), those that never even heard of Jesus Christ. They are all condemned, and great seems to be the rejoicing that all these ‘categories’ will be in eternal hell-fire.

Such an attitude I find reprehensible and appalling. How, or why, would I want to join such an approach?

You say ‘I pray we can agree on these two things: 1) that faith in Jesus Christ alone brings salvation (ROM. 9: 16), and 2) that we should put away all condemnation.’

Certainly you have my personal agreement on this 100%.

I think it’s probably condemnation, more than any other single thing, which keeps me right where I am now.

Most of ‘mainstream Christianity’ I would not touch with the proverbial bargepole, for this very reason.

xHWA said...

Hi Quest!

Great to hear from you again.

"It’s a dilemma really isn’t it?"
Friend, yes it is!
It really is.

I can understand how an idea of hell or second death needs to have a place. There are certain things that people do which earn that end.

But we forget that we have all sinned. We don't deserve our own forgiveness. I just think we should not spoil the place with tossing condemnation around. It loses its meaning. And we just end up at the worst earning our own condemnation again, or at the very best we're acting like fools.

I'm so glad you're with me on this. We have a small group of people who agree. Maybe in time we'll have a large group! :)

Seeker Of Truth said...

xHWA,

very good post. My thoughts:

And if that isn't strange enough, HWA embraced a group of Seventh Day Baptists (out of which came William Miller's weekly Sabbath beliefs) even though the only resemblance they bore to Armstrongism was the keeping of a seventh-day Sabbath.

Did HWA also set more than one date for the return of Christ, as Miller and Weinland did?

But I'm getting off topic. My point was to show that according to Armstrongism certain practices (chief among them being the seventh-day Sabbath) gain you entrance into the Bride of Christ or refusal will bring you to eternal death.

How can you get eternal death for doing something on one day that is okay to do the other six days of the week, when morally, work is not a sin, as stealing, adultery and murder?

Armstrong was never a "minister of the gospel" and the old WCG was never a Christian church...

Armstrongism is the Gospel of the Sabbath.

"For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace"

That's what it comes down to, because by doing so, you alienate yourself from Christ.

As sure as night turns to day, Herbert Armstrong did preach another gospel other than the one Paul taught.

Again, he preached the Gospel of the Sabbath, as does Ron Weinland.
However, RW also teaches a different gospel in that he teaches, contrary to the Bible, that a god was created. That being, Jesus.
Is 43:10b - Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

The problem?...

Matt 15:9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.

Rom 10:2-3 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.



The difference between Armstrongists and non-Calvinist Protestants and Catholics appears to me to be in what the two sides define as "sin". HWA defines it as not keeping certain select the tenants of the Old Covenant; mainstream Christianity defines it as not believing in the Trinity or whatever else.

The short of it: Sin is that which is not love.

(COL. 2: 16-17) 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

So, then Armstrongism preaches 'the Gospel of a shadow', not 'the Gospel of Christ'. The shadow rather than the substance/reality.

And here we sit, the Armstrongists waiting for the Tribulation to scorch mainstream Christianity to ash and blow them away while using phrases like "harlot", "so-called Christian", "lost", and "worldly".

Doesn't that sound so much like mercy, love and forgiveness?... or not!

...Then there are issues of pride, issues of fear, issues of following a man rather than Christ, issues of being too invested in a certain way to change it...

This, I find so sad, and yet I'm confused at how investment can keep one from choosing truth. It's the difference between life and death or Bride and eternal apart from the Bride.

And to my new friends, every one of you have been a blessing to me beyond what I can possibly articulate. I am filled with joy to know you. Thank you. And thank God for you.

Ditto.

xHWA said...

Hi Seeker,

"Did HWA also set more than one date for the return of Christ, as Miller and Weinland did?"

Yes. I am aware of at least three different times where HWA set a specific date for the return of Christ. My favorite is 1936.
If you would like more on that date, please read the Plain Truth, June-July 1934, page 3. It's very interesting!
I know that I'm missing some. If anyone has a comprehensive list of HWA's specific dates for the return, PLEASE post it here!!

"However, RW also teaches a different gospel in that he teaches, contrary to the Bible, that a god was created."

I totally agree! RW's message is based on HWA's, but it certainly is altered in some fundamental ways.
I believe emphatically that if HWA were alive, he would disfellowship and condemn RW.
Not saying I approve of that, but just saying I believe that would happen.

"The short of it: Sin is that which is not love."

I would add to that, this verse:
(ROM. 14: 23) ...for whatever is not from faith is sin

"This, I find so sad, and yet I'm confused at how investment can keep one from choosing truth."

It is sad!
I'm not saying that I understand it, but there is a point where we've invested so much for a certain way that for pride's sake we won't let ourselves turn back. The humiliation is too overwhelming. At least two people have told me "I can't accept what you say because that would mean God isn't leading me." [But God IS leading them!! Just not where they think.] Clearly that is pride.
Paul showed a better example in (PHP. 3: 1-11).

Glad to hear your comments. You always add a needed perspective to the debate.

Seeker Of Truth said...

"[But God IS leading them!! Just not where they think.]"

Would you elaborate on each of the above sentences?

xHWA said...

"[But God IS leading them!! Just not where they think.]"

Would you elaborate on each of the above sentences?

Certainly!

"But God IS leading them":

I believe that it is self-evident that we are called while we are still in some situation that we need to come out of. I was called and had understanding given to me while I was still in Armstrongism. God led me while I was still in.

In what way did that come?
I talked with other people, I read studies and articles written by other people, and I did my own Bible study. So, you could say, other people were instrumental in bringing me a better understanding. Or, even more plainly, God worked through them.
So, once a person is exposed to the correct gospel, the errors of Armstrong, the truth about legalism, the awesome gift of grace, or what have you, I feel that God is gently trying to get through to them. You could say, God is leading them.

"Just not where they think":

Where does He lead?
I know that God led me out. I wouldn't accept that at first. Once I understood that God was leading me out, I then had to go out. Looking back, I know it was the right thing to do.
God was leading me, just not where I thought. I was taught that this sort of thing was only from Satan, it was a deception, it led to death, etc. etc. etc. I was full of fear and doubt and pride in my legalist understanding. God had to really work with me!
NO WAY would I have thought, at this time last year, that I would be gone from the church. NO WAY would I have thought my life would change so much in one year. I didn't think God was leading me out. Out = WRONG! (in the mind of an Armstrongist.)

There are people who cannot bring themselves to accept that certain truths are true for whatever reason. There are many! But for whatever reason, when these people receive the same information I was exposed to, which was God leading me out, they do not want to go out, because they thing out=WRONG!
They have the same info I had. They know it means out. They won't accept that. God IS leading them (through exposure to the gospel of Jesus Christ), but not to where they think (out). So, they don't go. They bury their heads.

I had written a couple posts on the old blog that give examples of what I mean.

Those who go:
Welcome To Escaping Armstrongism

those who stay:
Rationalizing Armstrongism

Byker Bob said...

How would you handle all of this if you were a loving God? There are many church groups, and a wide diversity of doctrine. It can be very confusing. Would you select one particular church group, and base salvation on one's being led to that group and into hyper-faithful compliance with its doctrines and authority structure? Couldn't that be interpreted as fomenting idolatry?

Or, would you look to the people who had sincerely asked you to walk with them, who trusted you implicitly, and whose hearts were receptive to fruits which you could cause to grow?

I believe that God wants to have a personal relationship with each one of us, much as would an exemplary human parent. If we look through the Bible at those whom God has used, and who were pleasing to Him, it is based on that personal relationship and trust, not allegiance to a physical corporate structure. In fact, such relationships often transcended established structure. There was a great deal of selflessness and faith involved in all of their lives, and periods where they had to deal with temptation and human flaw. It's much harder to lead such an open existence than to simply let a church do your thinking, and adhere to its doctrinal approach. And, of course, you can't just throw out the Bible, and imagine or concoct such a relationship. One must be counter-checked by the other!

Having noted all of that, I do believe that there are individuals in various churches whose desire is for precisely the type of direct connection with God that Jesus Christ, our High Priest, made possible through His work on the cross. That's probably the attitude which led to your Eureka moment with regard to WCG!

Whether one believes in eternal hellfire, or annihilation in the Lake of Fire, a true Christian is not going to take any joy in the punishment of his fellow humans. I often wonder if this really is a common attitude, or if it's a stereotype foisted upon us by non-believers to discredit the humanity of our beliefs.

BB

Seeker Of Truth said...

Hi Bob!

I agree with you completely.

Besides, I don't think it's possible for us to have the complete truth, and nowhere do I see where we must in order receive salvation.

What I do see is that God wants to see a changed heart in us, and that we must realize that there is nothing we can do to earn it, but that we must receive that gift from Christ.

The way I see it is it's not about rules, but about God wanting children who won't, as eternal beings, contemplate doing that which is not love, as happened with the fallen angels.

I know that needs elaboration and I will do so in a short article I hope to post on the 30TH.

xHWA said...

I also agree.

....with Bob and Seeker.

xHWA said...

I want to posit this idea to the readers:

We know we are saved by God's grace alone and not at all by what we do. When we accept salvation, God's Spirit lives in us. Our hearts are changing. The Spirit teaches us a better way. The joy of His grace compels us to act differently, even to our enemies.
Paul says that another law of sin always lives in our flesh. It wars against what God is teaching. So in that way, we find it difficult to do what we know is right. And many Christians, although they are saved, do what is not right, and must repent.
Since that's the case, knowing there is a better way, and finding it hard to follow, I conclude that the primary thing God's Spirit does is teaches us why evil is so evil - why sin is so sinful - why we MUST choose to do right even when we find it difficult.
Now we have what we need to choose the right.

What say you?

Seeker Of Truth said...

Well, I say that it's like a disease and a vaccine; We have the disease (sin), and God's Holy Spirit is the vaccine that battles the disease within us.

He offers us the vaccine and it's up to us to accept the offer. Jesus sacrificed Himself to make that vaccine available to us.

The cure is Spirit based, not flesh based, so it's impossible for us to kill the disease, ONLY God can do that. The healing process begins but, complete healing only comes once we're changed from flesh to spirit.


I know, I know. I didn't address you conclusion. :-)
IIiiiee think that living in a world badly infected with sin teaches us why sin is so sinful, why evil is so evil, why we MUST choose to do right even when we find it difficult. I think that His Spirit in us helps us to battle it.

So, that is what I say (think).

Byker Bob said...

Interesting. I think we're all on the same wavelength and on a roll here, as I've also used the disease model for the human mind. I've also borrowed from the computer industry, and have invoked the model of corrupt data.

The good news is that God can work with us in spite of this disease or corruption. That may be why we have human examples such as those who suffer from mental illness or retardation. If God can rehabillitate their minds, He can certainly do the same for the rest of us.

Lately, I've been acknowledging this to God in my prayers. I freely admit to Him that I know my mind has been corrupted and polluted by many years of living the wrong ways, and ask His help in combatting that. I am sure that the final corrections will need to be made supernaturally prior to my beginning eternal life.

Some of our non-believer friends have posited that in their cases, they were born or made right the first time (to combat the concept of needing to be "born again"). Since many religions and philosophies have been dedicated to getting man up to peak operating speed, I don't know how anyone could honestly make such a statement. You'd need to get into Orwellian spirituality, reclassifying bad or defective areas as being good or productive.

We also run into those with New Age ideas, who believe the original Serpent's Lie from the Garden of Eden, the lie that all humans are in reality gods.

BB

xHWA said...

Wow, Bob. That's a neat way to view things that my technical mind can really relate to.

It's awesome to think that God can work with my flawed code. And not only that, but fix it!

Byker Bob said...

This flawed code originated back in the Garden of Eden. Many things happened during the encounter with the serpent, but the chief event was that that was the point at which Satan infected mankind with his own primary character flaw.

BB

xHWA said...

So, Genesis 1:1 is actually the very first "Hello World"?