Some Background On Hislop

I do apologize that today's post will be academic and boring. I never enjoy boring, but sometimes I find it useful.

Last year, I purchased a couple books by historian Ronald Hutton. I wanted to learn more about Halloween and Christmas, mistletoe and druids, and other such homely things long condemned in the extreme by Armstrongism. Turns out, as usual, we have been lied to by those busybody purveyors of paganism in the Church of God splinters (for example, read the posts "Samhain Was Not On October 31" and "Misinformed on Mistletoe").
Lately, I have been reading Hutton's "Blood and Mistletoe: The History of Druids in Britain". It is a difficult book, with long, tedious tracts of background information about authors since the 1600s who contributed to our [mis]understanding of Druids. It is packed with information. It was intentionally thorough, but its thorough nature makes it dry and laborious. By sheer force of will and natural stubbornness I am determined to finish it. I am only halfway through. Pray for me.
But it is not a bad book so far as it goes. Actually, it has some fantastic insights.

A curious thing occurred to me as I read it - this material applies to Alexander Hislop.

You might remember Alexander Hislop from such things as "The Two Babylons: Papal Worship Proved To Be the Worship of Nimrod And His Wife" - one of the most ridiculous pieces of anti-historical nonsense ever to waste paper and ink. A good amount of the garbage that came from Herbert Armstrong and "the most accurately informed historian in the world" Herman Hoeh was predicated on the toxic sludge left for us by Hislop.

Hislop was a Presbyterian minister who joined the Free Church of Scotland in 1843. Presbyterians and all Protestants are considered "daughters of the harlot church" (re. REV. 17: 5) by Armstrongism, and condemned. This one man gets a pass for purely utilitarian reasons. Notice that date there - 1843. What else was happening then? Why William Miller's Great Disappointment, of course. The 1800s were bad years for Christendom.
Hislop did consider the Catholic Church a harlot, but did not associate himself with being a daughter of it. His entire book was a condemnation of the Roman Catholic system. This was par for the course in the early 1800s. Hislop was not by any means alone. He was a product of his time. That is what Ronald Hutton's book makes clear.

In Hutton's book, he reviews several historians beginning in the 1600s who were instrumental in the study of the Druids of the British Isles. Hutton walks us through who these authors were, what their lives were like, who they knew, who inspired them, and other such details so that we can understand why they wrote what they did. Patterns emerge.

The authors of the 1600s were like babes in the woods. They had nothing to go on but ancient writers like Pliny and Julius Caesar, a scant few stone henges sticking out of the ground, some folklore, and the Bible. Every missing detail was filled in by pure imagination. But that wasn't abnormal in those days. That's how most everyone did most everything. It's not like the science of archeology was there to guide them.
The authors of the 1700s had the exact same resources, now colored by the fancies of earlier writers. Their main take was that the Druids were isolated and therefore kept a more pure form of the one true ancient religion of Noah's day. They lacked the divine revelation given to the Hebrews, but otherwise kept Noah's religion better than anyone else had. There was a sense of national pride here. That Britannia could be the home of such noble savages was uplifting to the national spirit. It was a tool to unify the United Kingdom yet provide a way to remain attached to old customs of Saxony, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales before they disappeared. It was also a poke in the eye of the Catholics. After Queen Elizabeth I solidified England as Protestant, and after the civil war "of three nations", the divide between Protestants and Catholics was growing. Anything and everything was fair game to use against Catholicism.
The authors of the 1800s yet had the same resources, yet again colored by earlier writers, but the Industrial Revolution and contact with the Far East afforded by the British Empire was changing their view of the Druids. In Wales and Ireland, the Druids maintained their positive perception, but in England, rather than a pure and proud people, the Druids were seen as murderous and thoroughly corrupt. The Druids were no better than the easterners who practiced head hunting, human sacrifice, and other various cruelties of rank paganism. These points were all used against Catholicism, but they had now begun to be used against Protestantism as well. Any organized and influential ministry was becoming fair game.

Bear in mind, none of these people knew what the Druids actually did outside of the details left by the Romans. Few of them actually trusted the Romans. Roman renditions were more likely propaganda than they were honest telling of wrote fact. We still today know barely more than they did and we still use mostly the same resources. We might know the stone henges predated the Druids by quite some time, but we don't know what the Druids did with them, if anything. We still have people who fill in the blanks with wild imagination. And we still use what we find in games of religious one-upmanship.
The more things change....

But here is what I've been driving at --
You might see in here the seeds of Alexander Hislop's approach. For example, Catholic bashing, an ancient single religion, beliefs and practices from the Middle East coming to Britain, precise details conjured from imagination built upon scant facts, and etc. You might also see in here the seeds of ideas such as we find in "The United States and Britain In Propehcy" - a book Herbert Armstrong plagiarized from J. H. Allen's "Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright". (We have articles on this. Go to the Categories page and look for British-Israelism.)

The notion that Alexander Hislop knew what he was talking is laughable. Babylon wasn't even unearthed yet and the language barely translated by the time he finished his book. Serious scholars were calling him out from the very beginning. He had very little facts to rely on and none of his claims line up with what we have learned since. Why would he do this? Why would he make things up whole cloth like this? Why would he fill entire books with little other than fanciful imaginations?
Because that's what most people did back then! They filled in details with imagination and attacked the Catholics with it. Hislop is a product of his time.

And why would Armstrongism give him a pass to this day; to this very minute ignoring everything that has been proven over and over and over again to be false? Because it's convenient.
God's truth? Not even close.

Let this be a lesson to use only the most reliable sources and to employ older material only with utmost caution.

I don't condemn Hislop. If we were born then and there, we'd probably be doing much the same things. I don't like this silly notion of moral superiority based on what time we live in. He wasn't evil. He did what he thought was right given what resources he had. It's just that the result of his works are entirely destructive. It's the works, not the man, that I criticize here. He is almost as much a victim of this as we are. His works should have been forgotten but they were abused by charlatans and false prophets.
Herbert Armstrong, on the other hand, knew good and well what he was doing and was a liar and a thief on purpose. Knowingly. Willfully. I will not extend him this same courtesy. To him, or to the present-day leadership in the COGs who have every resource at their fingertips to right past wrongs but refuse because it's too convenient to their bank accounts.

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

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

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

Where Do We Draw The Line?

Greetings, dear readers. It's your punctilious proliferator of peeves and profundities, presenting a post about paganism and principles. Today, I would like to talk about where to draw the line with people of weak conscience who take issue with holidays and birthdays. Also, there is something you should know about the people who peddle these message about holidays being evil.
Yes, it is that time of year.

I was reading through my old 2018 article "Three Reasons Why I Stopped Keeping Christmas - Part II", because I honestly could not remember what it was about, and in the comments I noticed a small mention of scruples. To refresh your memory, scruples are, "An uneasy feeling arising from conscience or principle that tends to hinder action" (from the American Heritage Dictionary).
I said in a comment:

"I can promise you that once you start down that road to scrupulosity, there is virtually no end to that road. There is practically no limit to the things a person can question and worry about. You can become a slave to it. Trust me on this one, I have seen some seriously enslaved people who worry about the smallest little things and constantly need reassurance. Their lives are beset by it."
-Me, back then.

Nothing has changed my mind about that statement.
But the reason I said that was in response to a request for more holiday articles on things even like the Fourth of July or Thanksgiving. I never did write those articles. It's not that I thought it was an unreasonable request. I thought at the time it would be more efficient to get directly to the heart of the matter - which I think is scrupulosity.

Scruples are good. Scrupulosity is not. Scrupulosity takes our good conscience and twists it into fear and doubt. It can paralyze us with questions and worries. It can take over our lives. It can negatively affect our relationship with our Savior. Not good!

It can be beneficial to go away from your own posts for a while then visit back again after forgetting all about them. When I am thinking about what to write, I know just what I mean. When I write, that doesn't always come across as I'd thought. Coming back later erases all those thoughts and gives me the perspective of a first-time reader. Many times I say to myself, "I think I know what I was getting at, but it could have been stated so much clearer." This is one of those times.

I had hoped it would be more efficient to comment on scrupulosity rather than write more articles. But I never really explained what I meant by scrupulosity nor gave any advice at all on what to do about it. I was asked about holidays and responded with scrupulosity, and that was that. It all made sense to me back then, but now it seems I sidestepped the request without heeding it at all. Not what I intended!
You know what they say about good intentions.
Maybe I can make amends six years later?

As I discussed in my post "Peddlers of Paganism", there are people out there who make their living off exploiting people's fears and scrupulosity. They twist good things, things created to be received with thanksgiving, into doubtful things. They tell you God cannot save you if you enjoy pine trees or lights or candy or various mundane things, even when God Himself used these items in His worship in the Bible. They use shifting definitions they themselves don't meet. They tell you once a thing is tinged with paganism it remains pagan forever. They tell you that you can secretly contract paganism without even being aware of it. They tell you that you are headed for condemnation if you celebrate God's own miracles. And it doesn't matter at all how terribly false their claims are, so long as the end result affirms what they want to hear. How preposterous!
I disagree with all of these things, and ABD has several articles that explain why.

I also said in that same post:

"The question is - how far do we take this? Do we let people of weak conscience control our lives and our homes and our churches? No. Their weak conscience is not a license for manipulation."

Much of this discussion on drawing a line rests on good taste and Christian charity. Paul is clear, in I Corinthians 8 and 10, that a good Christian bears those of weak conscience with patience and charity. Sometimes, doing the right thing means avoiding what we fully believe is perfectly acceptable if that thing upsets our brethren of weak conscience. We bear it until they mature in the faith.
But that has to have its limits.

We cannot let people of scrupulosity and superstition take over our churches, our faith, and our good conscience. To bear with a brother or sister in Christ with patience and understanding is good! It's the loving thing. It's the Christian thing. But not when it ends up making people feel terrible about themselves and causes division.

The anonymous commentor on my Christmas post said:

"If there is truly a pagan holiday out there then I'll give it up for God. No pagan holiday is worth participating in if it risks our relationship with God."

That is noble! There is a very commendable spirit at work in this heart. Look at how they are willing to repent and change anything they feel comes between them and their Savior. Well done!

But!

That good intention is easily taken advantage of by people of weak conscience and ignoble motives who peddle paganism. The comment started, "If there is truly a pagan holiday..." Therein lies the rub. The holidays are most often not pagan. The claims most often false.
The good intention of avoiding paganism is taken advantage of. That particular commentor might not be easily taken advantage of, but I have had several other readers over the years who were/are.

Do pay attention to your conscience. Do not violate it! But at the same time, do not base your conscience and decisions on the questionable information you get from peddlers of paganism. Test the spirits!

I want you to know something else, most esteemed reader. The story you are being told about pagan holidays, from many sources but not all, is not really about informing you. What it is really about is uplifting themselves in their own eyes by putting you down.
Those are not informative messages you are reading. Those are accusations.

In Armstrongism, the system the As Bereans Did blog is mainly about, my former church system, we did not tell people about their pagan ways to educate and reform them. That would be a misunderstanding. We were told the rest of the world is not being called by God right now. We literally were told that to help the world is to fight against God. We were even discouraged from giving to charity because of this. Those messages about paganism were never intended to bring the world to repentance. Then why did we put out so much material about pagan holidays and etc? We did it for us! We preached about the world's pagan ways so we could feel superior! That message isn't for you, it's for them. And it goes far beyond holidays.

Herbert Armstrong's Church of God movement is a branch of Seventh Day Adventism. They preach seventh-day Sabbath, Old Covenant holy days, meats laws, tithing, and various other Old Covenant traditions. They are anti-Trinitarian, and believe the Holy Spirit is not a person. They are iconoclasts, and believe the image of the Cross of Christ is a pagan symbol of Tammuz. They used to believe (and some still do) whites are a superior race descended from Noah's son Shem, and other races are cursed. They believe British-Israelism (aka. Anglo-Israelism) which says God secretly preserved people of Israelite descent who populate western Europe, America, and Australia in this modern day, to be His only called people. They believe all Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and almost every other Christian tradition besides (sometimes including other Armstrongist churches) are all condemned, deceived followers of Satan the devil, who have all been purposefully relegated by God Himself into the system of "Babylon the Great and her Harlot daughters". They believe that grace is a very different thing than how mainstream Christians understand it, and grace is only for those who keep the things they keep and don't keep the things they don't keep. They believe if you do not join them in ALL of their beliefs, then you are doomed in this life, and only in your next life will you be given an opportunity to repent, and then you will live in eternity under their rulership and benevolent guidance.

This is not just about holidays, dear reader. Not by a long shot.

These people who accuse you of paganism are not calling you pagan just because of holidays, and they are not going to stop calling you a pagan just because you stop keeping holidays. Holidays are but the tip of the iceberg. This was never really about Christmas or Easter or birthdays. You don't keep Christmas? OK. But you're still a pagan to them for so many other reasons.
None of their annual messages about pagan holidays are to help you stop being a pagan. There are two very real reasons for it: 1) to accuse you of being a pagan, and 2) to reassure themselves of their superiority. They put you down to lift themselves up.

You cannot challenge them. You cannot reason with them. You cannot plead. This isn't about facts and truth, it's about reaffirmation. Do you understand now why the accuracy of their source material does not matter to them? Do you understand now why they will not listen to anyone no matter what evidence is offered? It was never about accuracy. It was always about affirmation. You need to be aware of this so you can truly be informed about what this message about pagan holidays really is. 

They might not post their content for your good, but I hope As Bereans Did does. That is my sincere hope in every post. That you are helped, and God is glorified.

Now, we go back to Paul's advice.

In I Corinthians, Paul said to be aware of your fellow Christian's weak conscience. But Paul also said to Timothy (in the context of bondservants, but I believe the lesson applies here):

(I TIM. 6: 3-5) 3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.

This very same Paul who was very conciliatory in I Corinthians has clearly drawn a line in I Timothy. A line must be drawn at some point. We cannot infinitely give way to our brethren of weak conscience. We cannot treat them poorly, because that is uncharitable and un-Christian, but we cannot allow people of weak conscience to stay immature in the faith forever, and we cannot allow ourselves to be led by those who are immature in the faith.

If people will not listen to what the Bible unambiguously says in Esther and John, that celebrating man-made holidays is completely acceptable - something even Jesus Himself participated in - but instead continue to dispute and argue and accuse, from such withdraw yourself.
If people will not listen to what history says, that Saturnalia and Brumalia were not on December 25th - to name just one of many examples where the claims are false - but instead continue to intentionally promote incorrect information, from such withdraw yourself.
If people will not listen to Ralph Woodrow or countless other researches besides, that Alexander Hislop was wrong and his claims were unfounded and conjured from his own imagination, but instead falsely accuse their fellow Christians of Nimrod worship and paganism based on known lies, from such withdraw yourself.
If people will not learn what makes for good research even though the Internet has made good research not only possible but easily obtainable, but instead persist in quoting nonsense, misrepresenting their sources, and presenting confirmation bias and century-old encyclopedias as "God's truth", from such withdraw yourself.
If people are "Refusing To Understand", but are willfully ignorant, from such turn away.

Before you who are new to this blog get too upset with me, I wrote this post assuming most people who will read it are already familiar with this ABD's extensive catalog of material on holidays, "once pagan, always pagan", and etc. Please do read our posts. I cannot expand on them all here.

If you want to know what my own personal line is, knowing what I know and having experienced what I have experienced, I draw the line at well-informed conscience. Not scrupulosity, but scruples. If I feel guilty about it, I don't do it. Easy peasy.
But then I research it. I need to know if I feel guilty reasonably or unreasonably; rightfully or mistakenly.

Scrupulosity. Superstition. Bad information. Hidden motives. Fear. Pride. Willful ignorance. Legalism. I definitely feel guilty about those things, and I won't have anything to do with them.

I also said in my Peddlers of Paganism post:

"If you really feel that badly about a holiday or a decoration, don't do it!! There is freedom in Christ. Do, or do not - it's the same. So long as it is to Christ that you do or do not do. I am not here to convince you to keep holidays. I am merely telling you that you are being falsely accused and there is no valid reason for you to feel like a pagan. Yet, if you do feel badly about something, then don't violate your conscience.
But ask yourself - do you feel badly because it is bad, or because peddlers of paganism made you think it is bad, falsely? Our articles are here to help you decide that. Test the spirits."

So, where are you going to draw the line?

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

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

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

Just What Do You Mean ... Gospel?

Euangelizo. It's Greek. Sound strangely familiar? It is a verb, a conjugation of euangelion. Euangelion is a message or an announcement of something positive. Good news. From the Greek eu, meaning good, and angellein, meaning message. The Hebrew equivalent is the word bawsar. Euangelion in Greek becomes evangelion in Latin. It takes a turn when translated into English. In Old English, it is god, meaning good, and spel, meaning story. The -d was dropped in the 13th century. You know where I am going with this. Euangelion is Greek for gospel.

An evangelist is a person who spreads the gospel. Why we have evangelist instead of gospelist is a mystery to me.
On a related note, angellein is the act of delivering an announcement (just like euangelizo is the act of delivering good news), but angelos is a messenger that does the delivering. That's angelos, as in angel. Angels deliver messages.

Enough with the interesting trivia. But I've done that for a reason.

Today's post is about gospel. I want to explore what an euangelion is. What does the word mean? I think knowing what a gospel is will help us better know what the Gospel is.

THE GOOD NEWS ACCORDING TO HERBERT

There are lots of messages of good news in the world, but only one we call "the Gospel", with a capital G. People think all sorts of things about what the Gospel is. The Gospel usually contains these three elements:

1. A message about who Jesus is. He is the promised Messiah; the Son of God made flesh.
2. The message Jesus preached. He preached the Kingdom of God and forgiveness of sins.
3. A message about what Jesus accomplished. On the cross He atoned for our sins, saved us all from death, ushered in the New Covenant. By His resurrection He was shown to be who He claimed to be.

That isn't a comprehensive list, but it seems reasonable enough.

In Armstrongism, however, the Gospel is not about Jesus, and has little if anything to do with what He accomplished at His first coming, but is ultimately about prophecy and law (especially the Sabbath) via the "soon-coming Kingdom of God". Being an Adventist off-shoot, it is no great surprise Armstrongism spends quite a bit of time on Sabbath and prophecy. That is the Adventist way. The Gospel, they say, is a message Jesus preached, not a message about Jesus.

"The Gospel of Jesus Christ is NOT man's gospel ABOUT THE PERSON of Christ. It is CHRIST'S Gospel - the Gospel Jesus PREACHED - the Gospel God SENT by Him, and therefore it is also called, in Scripture, the Gospel of God. The Gospel of God is God's GOSPEL - His Message - His Good News which He sent by Jesus."
-Herbert Armstrong, "What Is The True Gospel?", p. 6, 1972

Jesus is not the good news (euangelion), only the bringer of good news (angelos). The good news (euangelion) is the future Kingdom of God. In other words, prophecy and law. 

To spell this out so unfamiliar people can understand - the good news is that Jesus will return at some unknown point in the far future, bringing to the whole world the Old Covenant law that the Jews already had for thousands of years, and those conditions will usher in an eternity of peace.

An eternity of peace is good news! I wouldn't argue against that.
It's the rest of it that I have trouble with. 

There are at least two instances of sleight of hand going on with Armstrong's version of the Gospel. 

In the first, what Armstrong did was he claimed the Gospel is only what Jesus said, not what anyone or anything else said. What anyone else said is "man's gospel".
In this, Armstrong split the Gospel from having all three parts that I mentioned at the start of this article into a message of one of those parts only. There is only one Gospel, the Kingdom is the part Jesus gave, and the rest are man's false gospel, so just ignore those other parts. I disagree.

When the Apostles preached the Gospel, they did not preach solely on what was going to happen in their far future, they primarily focused on what Jesus did and how it affected the people alive in their own time. Were the Apostles and Prophets "mere men"? Is Jesus the only one who preached the Gospel? Did the Apostles and Prophets preach a different Gospel? Were those things they wrote not inspired by God? Right on page 5 of the booklet it admits the Gospel came from God the Father through men. Is their message really just "man's gospel" then?  When Paul described the Gospel he preached, he didn't use the phrase "Kingdom of God" at all, so was Paul's message from "mere men"? When Jesus preached, He said the Kingdom of God was at hand (MAR. 1: 14), effectively making it one of His own accomplishments, so was He preaching a false Gospel because even He didn't limit the Kingdom to His second coming?

We will get to man's gospel later, but I cannot accept that unless it came from Jesus' mouth, and it was about the future and the law, then it's man's gospel. It genuinely sounds contrived to me, like this claim was specifically crafted to get a predetermined conclusion out of the text. Prophecy and law were Armstrong's message. Therefore, we see it's God's word when Armstrong thinks he can benefit from it, but it's man's word when he doesn't. He wants to have it both ways.

The second sleight of hand is that all those different messages are really just the Kingdom of God anyway. So, it's not that you ignore them, you just blend them into the one and only true message.

Jesus preached grace and peace and healing and salvation to the people of His day and to us. Notice closely, on page 3, Armstrong says people who bring those messages are false preachers. Yet, on page 8 of his book, Armstrong quotes the phrase "Gospel of GRACE" as if it is legitimate, and even refers to the New Covenant as a time of grace. He even has grace in all caps. On page 5, he quotes Peter as saying Jesus preached peace. On page 11, he quotes Jesus commanding His disciples to heal the sick. On page 8, he calls it the "Gospel of SALVATION". Again in all caps. So, which is it, really? Here it's false; there it's true. Are they false gospels, man's gospels, or part of the one true Gospel of the Kingdom?
It's all of the above! ...depending on what he wants to get from it.

In Armstrong's booklet on the true Gospel, there is no mention of the cross. At all. The words cross and crucifixion do not appear once. No mention of how Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets at that time. And the only resurrection mentioned is man's. So, not a word about Jesus' death and resurrection. The single most important event in the history of creation, central to the Gospel, the central thing Paul preached, merits no mention whatsoever.
It does mention Covenant, and how Jesus was Malachi's messenger of the Covenant, but nothing about how Jesus accomplished that at His first coming. We know the New Covenant is now. Jesus initiated that at His death. So, if Malachi says Jesus was the messenger of the Covenant, then Jesus was not exclusively a messenger of the far future Kingdom. Is the message of the Covenant a true Gospel, then? Oh, that would be an accomplishment and we can't have that, plus it's now rather than at His second coming, so it's doubly verboten. Instead, he immediately takes that ball and runs it in the direction of ... prophecy and law. Indeed, the underlying theme of the entire booklet is prophecy and law. Because of course it is. Prophecy and law were Armstrong's message, so he made the Gospel to be prophecy and law, even when it wasn't.

In your mind's eye, imagine yourself a faithful Jew in the first century. You are a child of Abraham, inheritor of the Covenant, keeper of the Commandments, oppressed by Rome, waiting for the re-gathering of the diaspora. You can almost imagine yourself transported back to that ancient place and time, listening intently to the fantastic message:

"Good news, everyone! I will be back in a few thousand years. In the meantime, practice your Sabbath-ing just like you have been since Sinai."

Somewhat less inspiring "news" than advertised.
I don't see a message like that inspiring many Jews to convert. Although, a message like that would explain why Armstrongists believe their ideological ancestors spent the past 2,000 years as tiny groups holed up in the Alps (which didn't really happen).

Fore more on how there is another Gospel in Armstrongism, I recommend Martha's article "A Different Gospel".

Speaking of imagining yourself as an ancient citizen of Jesus' day, what would the people in that place and time understand the word "euangelion" to mean? I want to inspect what the word euangelion (gospel) would have meant to the original audience of the message. It wasn't some made up nonsense word that the Apostles invented to describe this new thing they preached. The word already existed. But what did euangelion mean? Maybe if we investigate what a gospel even is, we will see if the Armstrongist view holds up.

GOOD OLD NEWS

A common misconception is that the first time you are going to find euangelion in the Bible is in Matthew. But did you know that euangelion is found in the Old Testament, too? If you read the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, you will see euangelion in some telling places. Or bawsar, if you read the Masoretic in Hebrew.

For example, you remember in Luke 4: 16-19, when Jesus read Isaiah 61: 1-2a in the synagogue. "Good tidings" in Isaiah is translated from euangelion/bawsar. Some translations even render it "gospel" in Luke 4. It is a very interesting list of things Jesus came to preach. Gospel, healing, liberty (mentioned twice).

Here is another one:

(ISA. 40: 9) O Zion, you who bring good tidings [euangelizo], get up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, you who bring good tidings [euangelizo], lift up your voice with strength, lift it up, be not afraid; say to the cities of Judah, “Behold your God!”

"Behold your God," it says. That is the good news this verse had for Israel. That is the gospel.
Reminds me so much of another verse:

(LUK. 2: 10-11) 10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings [euangelizo] of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Behold your God. Jesus' birth is the good news of great joy for all people. This gospel is about Jesus.

Are we really sure the Gospel isn't about Jesus? Not even a little?

"The Gospel of Jesus Christ is NOT man's gospel ABOUT THE PERSON of Christ", Armstrong said. When we look at euangelion in the Old Testament, we see Armstrong may have missed the mark.

Earlier, I said I would get to man's gospel. I think it's important we do, or else we might miss the meaning in the word. Let's look at some history and see an important detail or two.

MAN'S GOOD NEWS

Another common misconception is that the only place you are going to find euangelion is in the Bible. As if the Bible invented good news, or that the Gospel is the only gospel there is. Oh, the Bible is the place to go to find the Gospel, sure enough. But other good news existed. We should look for how euangelion was used outside of the Bible. I believe it is critical to do this particularly so we can understand how the first century readers of the Bible would have understood that concept of an euangelion. "Gospel" wasn't a thing the Apostles invented. It was already a thing. But what kind of thing was it? How would the people the Apostles preached to understand the concept of gospel?

Why should we ignore the definition and use of a word? Why should we ignore what the audience would have understood a gospel to be? We shouldn't.

So, what did the audience understand?

Want to know what I find interesting? Euangelion was a political thing.

I don't mean political modernly. This isn't a right vs left post. I mean political anciently. I try to never do politics here, but this is the kind of political message that needs to be told.

From ancient Israel to ancient Greece to the Roman Empire, the evangelion message was about:

1. Military victories.
2. The birth of kings.
3. The great accomplishments of kings.

Sounds like the same list I started this post with. I believe that's no coincidence. Why wouldn't the Gospel match the components in the accepted definition of the word gospel?

Let's start with those victories. Here we see an example in the Bible:

(II SAM. 18: 19) Then Ahimaaz the son of Zadok said, “Let me run now and take the news [euangelizo] to the king, how the Lord has avenged him of his enemies.”

You won the war and lots of people are dead or severely injured. That's great news!
I joke, but it's relevant to understanding euangelion. It has a victory component.
Now, let's see one from outside of the Bible.

Perhaps you've heard of a sporting competition called the marathon? When Greece defeated Persia at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC, they sent a man named Pheidippides to run the news from the battle site at Marathon to Athens 25 miles away. Pheidippides made the run and successfully delivered the euangelion, "Nike!" (That means victory.) Which was fantastic news for the Athenians, because they were severely outnumbered.   ...And then he died.
Running marathons began in honor of this event.
You should know, the rest of the story is that Pheidippides had run about 300 miles already that week. He made a trip from Marathon to Sparta and back, on foot, in less than five days. The combined runs were just too much for him. He should have stopped for some gyro or something. Poor guy.
Mental note - the limit is 324 miles.

Note that Pheidippides did not run to Athens to proclaim, "In about 150 years, after you're all long dead, a great king of Greece will rise up and rule a great kingdom! Isn't that fantastic news?" Notice how these examples of gospel are quite immediate, quite applicable in the day of the audience.

Another famous example of man's evangelion is the birth and accomplishments of Caesar Augustus. The following is taken from a Calendar Inscription which was found in the ruins of Priene in western Turkey:

"It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: “Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] for the world that came by reason of him,” which Asia resolved in Smyrna."
-"Priene Calendar Inscription", Wikipedia, accessed 9-15-2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priene_calendar_inscription

Notice all the uncanny similarities between this citation and what you are familiar with in the New Testament. We have an appearance, a savior, ending war, peace, order (law and government), and good tidings for the world. Striking similarities! I mean, just look:

     "....the beginning of the gospel [of the god Augustus]..." (Priene calendar inscription)
     "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (MAR. 1: 1)

Euangelion about great kings starts with a gospel message about their birth. Same with Jesus. Birth and accomplishments, that is what people in that day and area expected from an euangelion. It was political. When the Apostles wrote a Gospel, this is what the concept meant to them.

It's as if Mark wrote his Gospel specifically to behave like a polemical response to other gospels his culture already had. It is reasonable to believe he did. He took some wording from an existing gospel about Caesar and used it to promote Jesus. 

As an aside, that kind of thing happens throughout the Bible. It's not cheating or copying, it's polemics. People say the Bible copies other ancient material. It does! But it does so in polemical response to those other materials. Baal isn't God, Yahweh is. Augustus isn't the savior, Jesus is. If the Apostles were doing that here, they would only be directly in line with longstanding Hebrew tradition. Paul used the Athenian inscription of the unknown god to preach Jesus. It's a perfectly valid move. I do the same thing here all the time. I am contemplating whether or not to title this post "Just What Do You Mean ... Gospel?" Why would I do that? Because "what do you mean" was in the title of several old Worldwide Church of God booklets. That's the entire point of it. But, I admit, it is a particularly fitting title for this topic. It is about the meaning of gospel after all.

The message in the inscription reminds me of the Triumphal Entry, and the cries of "Hosanna!" (MAT. 21: 9) The people were crying for salvation, and here was the bringer of that help, now, in their presence immediately, not at some point in the far future. This was a fully and purposefully provocative, political move on Jesus' part. It was intended to be a challenge to the Sanhedrin. You don't need me to tell you whether or not the Sanhedrin appreciated it.

(MAT. 21: 15-16) 15 But when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that He did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant 16 and said to Him, “Do You hear what these are saying?”

It was a direct challenge, and it brought His swift death. As it was meant to.

Euangelion is inherently political. It's important to put yourself into that time and place, to understand events as the people of that time would have understood them, or you might miss something important.

War and politics and the Gospel, Jesus and Augustus and the Sanhedrin, strange bedfellows indeed. That's because the Gospel is a highly political message. Euangelion is about births and victories and kings. The Gospel is about a birth and victories and a King. It was an immediate message for the people of that day and for all time, not just the future only.

Are we really sure the Gospel isn't about Jesus? Not even a little?

CONCLUSION

Today, we explored the meaning of euangelion to get a better idea on what the concept even is.

Euangelion. It's good news. It's political. It's powerful. It's the Gospel.
It's about kings and what they accomplished. And it's a polemic response to them.
It's about Jesus, and about what He accomplished, and about the Kingdom message He preached.

Herbert Armstrong taught a small fraction of what the Gospel really is. He ignored what euangelion meant in the first century. He ignored what gospel meant to the people who were receiving it. He took the Biblical words inspired by God, called it "man's gospel" (lower case g), and then, just like the law, threw most of it out. But it wasn't man's gospel, as if it were written recently and is the fault of those tricky Catholics. The good news about who Jesus was and what He accomplished was the very Gospel the Apostles preached. Look in their writings. Why do you suppose your Minister always goes to Revelation or a few scattered verses in Paul's epistles to find a message about the second coming? Because a message about the second coming was not what the Apostles mainly preached. If the Kingdom of God is defined as what happens after the second coming, most of the New Testament would be about it. That just isn't what we see. We see the Apostles preaching Christ being who He said He was and doing what He said He would do - which precisely matches euangelion. The Apostles did not ignore what euangelion means.

We have quite a bit more on what we think the Gospel is over in our FAQ page. I also recommend Bill's article "The Gospel In Detail".

If you really think about it - the one singular Gospel isn't one monolithic thing, it's a multifaceted thing. There are several parts. Sort of like the law, it isn't just the moral parts, or the Bible, it isn't just Deuteronomy. The message Jesus preached, the Kingdom of God, yes, that's undeniably a part of it, but that's not all of it. "Good News, everyone! I will be back in a few thousand years with more of the same," just isn't euangalizo, within the Bible or without.

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

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

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

What Will It Take?

Hello, dear reader. Today, I would like to do a short fireside chat. You see, one cannot read the articles at Banned and not get the impression that this has all happened before. (Because it has.) And I have something on my mind. I am wondering how long you intend to let this go on in your life?

You have leaders of almost every COG splinter group out there acting as a reincarnation of Herbert Armstrong. This guy over here wants to recreate the old Worldwide Church of God. That guy over there is on his 503rd sermon about how Jesus will return next month, for real this time. Half of them say they are the end-time [insert Old Testament title here]. The other half you can practically see the dollar signs where their pupils ought to be. And here we are, those of us still in the former COG blogosphere, writing practically the same articles over and over to cover it all.

Since As Bereans Did started in 2008, we have written countless articles detailing this theater of the absurd that we call Armstrongism and, frankly, it's getting tiresome.

How many times do you have to be lied to, fleeced, stepped on, and taken for a fool before you say "enough already"? How many times will Jesus not return next month before you say, "Huh, maybe this guy isn't a prophet after all, and I might do well to question other things he says,"? A 504th sermon? A 900th? How many more duplications of Ambassador College or the Plain Truth magazine or the World Tomorrow television program will it take before you say, "Huh, maybe that wasn't the best use of millions of dollars the first time, even less so now, and I might do well to question if this organization is really being led by the Spirit,"? How many self-aggrandizing leaders need to rise up, with their petty in-fighting and their posturing, before you say, "Huh, these people aren't any different than that Herbert Armstrong guy, and none of this looks like what I see in the New Testament,"?

I know a man who is going into the ministry right now. He has witnessed this same song and dance his entire life and still he is choosing to go into the ministry. He looked around at all this and said, "Huh, I want to be a part of that."
o_O

How???

If you're staying because of the Sabbath, I've written articles since day 1 recommending you try it over at the Church of God - Seventh Day. See for yourself that they aren't like this. They did the right thing and fired Herbert Armstrong in the 1930s. Here we are almost 100 years later and many still haven't learned that one simple lesson.

What became of these men? What became of Herbert Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong, Rod Meredith, Gerald Waterhouse, Herman Hoeh, Gerald Flurry, Ron Weinland, Dave Pack, etc etc etc etc? Did their work pass through the fire or did it burn up? Do you suppose those wells gave fresh water or bitter?

I know this sounds like I'm coming down on you. That isn't my intention at all. This is just a hard topic.

I want you to take an inventory of the past 100 years, an honest inventory, and ask if these are the fingerprints of Jesus you see. Was it Christ who got the prophecies wrong so many, many times? Was it Christ who caused church leaders to struggle for power and influence? Was it Christ causing these men to say "I am Elijah", "I am the Inkhorn", "I am the Two Witnesses"? Was it Christ who caused so many divisions? Was it Christ who misrepresented the facts of history and scripture over and over again? Was it Christ who ruined families financially?

Or maybe was it not Christ at all. Maybe, just maybe, is Jesus Christ to be found elsewhere?

Just ponder that to yourself for a while. Honestly ponder.
If those aren't the fingerprints of Jesus, I think it is fair of you to ask yourself, "What will it take to get my love of God to overcome my fear of men?"

What would it take to get me to finally leave?

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

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

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

Is Ceremonial Law Removed?

Something has been on my mind. It regards how Armstrongism treats the Old Covenant law. The way it binds itself to some parts of the law and excuses itself from all other parts. It has never sat right with me how things are had both ways.

We would regularly quote Matthew 5: 18 when referring to holy days or the other laws we wanted to keep. "Not one jot or tittle," we would exclaim! That was our proof-text. The law is eternal. But did we keep the whole law? No. We only kept a small percentage. When we did not want to keep a law, like travelling to Jerusalem three times a year (EXO. 23: 14-17, 34: 23-24; DEU. 16: 16), or building booths at the Feast of Booths, we would say those laws were gone. "Ceremonial laws are done away," we would state. Well, isn't that convenient! The law is eternal ... except the parts we don't like. And thus we had things both ways.

That is what I would like to write about today. Ceremonies and standards. Is the ceremonial law really as "done away with" as we said?

WHAT IS CEREMONIAL LAW?

The laws in the Old Covenant seem to fit into one of three groups: moral laws, national laws, and ceremonial laws. In Armstrongism, two of those groups are discarded - the national and the ceremonial. They are considered to be removed, abrogated, abolished.

Where does the Bible define what is a moral law versus a ceremonial law and a national law? The Bible does not tell us because these are divisions realized after the fact. The divisions are manmade. Some astute person was reading and realized, hey, it seems the law has three groupings. This dividing the law into three groups is not something specific to Armstrongism. It is a very old idea. And it's not just Protestant, either, as the Catholics also write about it in the Catechism.

Where is it stated the moral law remains but the ceremonial and national laws are gone? Nowhere. That is also manmade. It is simply part of the Armstrongist doctrine that certain terms of the Old Covenant come forward into the New Covenant. That's how we could make claims like, "Jeremiah 31: 33 says, 'I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts,' therefore the law cannot be gone," and yet turn right around and claim two of three groups of law were gone. Completely contradictory, yet we held both as true, depending on which we wanted at the time.

Have you ever said these words: "I only believe what the Bible says, I don't hold the traditions of men"? Yes? Except that you do hold some traditions of men. This is one of them.

So, what are the divisions? Very (actually overly) simply put --
Moral law: those laws which distinguish righteousness from evil (e.g., you shall not murder).
National law: those laws which were specific to the functioning of the nation of Israel (e.g., sanctuary cities).
Ceremonial law: those laws which prescribe the rituals of worship (e.g., animal sacrifices).

Simple. Right?

GREY AREAS

Now we get to the hard part. Things that don't cleanly fit the categories. Grey areas. An example would be the Ten Commandments.

Just about everyone believes the Ten Commandments are moral law. Hard to argue with "you shall not commit adultery" (even when someone is trying to excuse away their adultery). But then we have that weekly Sabbath. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." What really is moral about that? To rest is beneficial, but is it morally beneficial?

Let's compare the weekly Sabbath and see which one fits better.

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy" is:
A) Morally good versus evil.
B) Part of the rituals of worship.

Option B fits much better. So, why is it not gone?

Someone out there is thinking the day is holy, therefore it is moral. I want to remind you that holy usually means sacred, consecrated, set apart for a special ceremonial use. It is not exactly the same as morally good. Unholiness can be contracted through physical touch (LEV. 5: 3). Immorality cannot. Inanimate objects can be holy (EXO. 35: 19). Days can be holy (LEV. 23: 4). They cannot be moral. Almost everything that was called holy was part of the ceremonial law (holy place, holy oil, holy garments, holy sacrifices, holy altar, Holy of Holies, etc).

Is it true, then, that the Sabbath is somehow moral just because it is in the Ten Commandments? That's not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read. "Distinguishes righteousness from evil, or is one of the Ten Commandments."

What if there is a ceremonial law dropped in the middle of a list of moral laws? What then? Why do we see the Ten as one single unit? Why aren't the individual commandments categorized based on their own characteristics? They are the Ten Commandments, after all, not the One Commandments. Seems the only thing causing us to refuse to accept the Sabbath is ceremonial is ... tradition.

For the sake of argument, let's move forward granting that the weekly Sabbath is a moral law only because it is in the Ten Commandments. I grant that so we can complicate matters even further.

MORAL BY ASSOCIATION?

The weekly Sabbath is in the Ten Commandments, but only the weekly. What then of the annual sabbaths? Why are they not gone?

Does the supposed moral goodness of the weekly Sabbath bleed out into the annual sabbaths? How? If the weekly day of rest is only said to be morally good because it is in the Ten Commandments, then how can other days escape their ceremonial nature? Days cannot be morally good, so how can moral goodness extend to the annual days?

You will be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with Herbert Armstrong on the holy days. Just about every other church, including nearly every flavor of Adventism that existed prior to Herbert Armstrong, considers the annual holy days to be ceremonial. The Adventists don't keep "biblical days". The only thing that saves the weekly Sabbath from the same fate is its part in the Ten Commandments. Why mention the Adventists? Because Armstrongism is a branch of Adventism. Herbert Armstrong's ideas about the Sabbath come directly from the Seventh Day Adventists. Yet, they disagree with him on annual days. One of the reasons Herbert Armstrong was fired from the Church of God (Seventh Day) was for teaching the annual days are required. But where did he get that idea? Armstrong took his ideas from one G. G. Rupert. Rupert supposedly got his ideas from a small fringe-group that mixed Judaism and Mormonism.
Traditions of men?

So, the weekly Sabbath is only morally good because it is one of the Ten Commandments, but the holy days are also morally good because ...they are associated with the word Sabbath?? They are moral by association?

Again, that's not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read. "Distinguishes righteousness from evil, or is one of the Ten Commandments, OR has the word Sabbath associated with it."

Then what do we do with the holy days that are not annual sabbaths? The day of Passover is not, five of the Days of Unleavened Bread are not, the Day of Firstfruits is not, and six of the days of the Feast of Tabernacles are not. Why are those not abandoned as parts of ceremonial law? They aren't Sabbaths and they aren't in the Ten Commandments. So, they are moral by association with something that is moral by association?

Yet again, that's not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read. "Distinguishes righteousness from evil, or is one of the Ten Commandments, or has the word Sabbath associated with it, OR is associated with something that is associated with the word Sabbath."

Perhaps you think you can't just do away with any annual day once you start keeping annual days. You keep them all or nothing. Or perhaps you think you must keep Passover because it has significance with Jesus. Alright. But then, what of the Day of Firstfruits?

Armstrongism completely ignores Firstfruits. This day is every bit as annual as the others. And it has significance with Jesus. Passover is the day Jesus died; Firstfruits is the day Jesus was resurrected. Herbert Armstrong didn't believe Jesus was resurrected on Firstfruits, but even he taught the rituals of Firstfruits pointed to Jesus. According to the standard set above, does this not make Firstfruits a moral law? So, why is this day ignored while Passover is observed?

And don't get me started on the "Night To Be Much Observed" which is entirely made up. It is made up because Herbert Armstrong misread Exodus 12: 42. Passover is the Night to be Remembered. A made up day is observed, but a legitimate day is ignored?

So, Armstrongism does not teach the keeping of all annual days, or keeping all annual days that have significance with Jesus, but they do keep an invented day. Consistency, anyone?

And not just that, but as we saw in my last article, "Why Not Keep Biblical Days?", even when people say they're keeping a biblical day, they're not keeping it the way the law said to. The name of the day is kept, but nearly everything was removed that made the day what it was. How can the days themselves be moral, but all the things that made the days what they were are ceremonial? Can a day be both moral and ceremonial - at the same time? Parts are moral, like the obligation to "keep" it, but parts are ceremonial, like exactly what you were supposed to do to keep it. How on earth does that work?
And if a single day can be both, why can't the Ten Commandments?

I am at a complete loss. What is the standard here?

Can we get some form of consistency in here, please!

ARE TITHES CEREMONIAL?

There are some other issues besides days that fit this same pattern of being ceremonial but not gone. Take tithes, for instance. Why are tithes not gone?

The Levitical priesthood was entirely ceremonial. The whole Levitical priesthood is gone, the Temple is gone, and the system is gone - replaced entirely by Jesus and the church. In the Armstrongist system, can something that was replaced be moral law? No.
Tithes existed to support the Levitical priesthood because they had no other means. If the priesthood was not moral, why would the system initiated to fund the priesthood be moral? It is not. So why is it not gone? How do we justify saying the priesthood and everything associated with it was ceremonial, except the system for funding it?

Tithes were for Levites (NUM. 18: 21). If tithes remain, who can receive them? Where is the law that says churches can now accept tithes? I can't find that law anywhere. To make that adjustment, the unchanging law had to change. Are ministers Levites, then? I thought the priesthood was gone!

What is so moral about tithing, anyway? The amount? Nine percent is evil, eleven percent is neither here nor there, but ten percent - righteous! How does that make sense?

Are we to believe that being required to hand over money is moral? Then explain Paul's statement in II Corinthians 9: 7, "So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver." It says not out of necessity. A tithe is definitely by necessity. One does not "give" tithes and more or less than one "gives" taxes. Tithes are a requirement, not a gift. Charity and tithes are not synonyms.

Tithes were an offering (NUM. 18: 24). Tithes are closely associated with offerings in multiple verses. Almost all verses where tithes are discussed there is the connotation of an offering.

(DEU. 12: 6) There you shall take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. 

Offerings are ceremonial and gone. Why not tithes?

And what of second tithe? Armstrongism teaches not one but three tithes. The second tithe, we believed, was for funding one of the annual days - the Feast of Tabernacles. We had to travel and do activities, so we needed funding. Second tithe only exists because the annual days exist ...and we still don't quite know why the annual days still exist.

Yet again, that's not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read. "Distinguishes righteousness from evil, or is one of the Ten Commandments, or has the word Sabbath associated with it, or is associated with something that is associated with the word Sabbath, OR it is associated with something that is associated with something that is associated with the word Sabbath."

What's more, why was second tithe only associated with the Feast of Tabernacles? Because that was the one time per year church members were required to travel. Is that what the law says, though? No. The law required travel three times a year, not one.
Armstrong started out requiring travel three times per year, but it was too expensive, so he took that down to once per year. What then? Two of the three travel requirements were ceremonial? How does that make any sense? How is that justified? I was once told, "Herbert Armstrong changed the law out of necessity." Changed the law!??
The law is eternal ...except the parts that are gone, or that we've changed.

Hopefully by this point you see the absurdity of the standard here. Or, rather, the complete lack thereof.

Oh, but there's more!

ARE MEATS LAWS CEREMONIAL?

What about clean / unclean meats laws?

In the Old Testament, clean and unclean pertain to ritual purity. From the first mention, clean and unclean animals references ceremonial cleanliness for the purposes of sacrifice.

(GEN. 7: 1-2) 1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean [ceremonially pure; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean [not clean; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate.

CLEAN [Strong’s 2889, Heb. Tahor, from 2891]: pure (in a physical, chemical, ceremonial, or moral sense):- clean, fair, pure (-ness).

Do you think the animals were morally pure or impure? No. They are animals. By their nature, they cannot be held accountable for the morality of their actions. No, they were ceremonially pure or impure. This is entirely ceremonial. This can be confirmed by observing what Noah did with those animals.

(GEN. 8: 20) Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

He sacrificed them! They were clean for sacrifice. That is entirely ceremonial. And that is precisely their use throughout the Old Covenant.

For more, see our article "Clean and Unclean for Noah".

In Acts 10, God sends Peter the infamous Sheet Vision. God lets down a large sheet, filled with all sorts of unclean animals, and says, "Go, Peter, kill and eat." What did Peter take from that? Here was his conclusion:

(ACT. 10: 28) 28 Then he said to [Cornelius and his family], “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

There were a series of laws to keep the Jews separate from the Gentiles: meats laws, marriage laws, circumcision laws, and etc. God revealed a second purpose of the meats laws was to separate Jew from Gentile.
These are the two parts of meats laws: sacrifice and separation. Every separation in the church between Jew and Gentile is removed. Every animal sacrifice is removed. So why would meats laws remain? There is no purpose for it to remain.

For more, see our articles on the Sheet Vision.

God goes out of his way to get rid of meats laws and people cry, "No! No! I need to observe meats laws!" Why? It has been gutted. What purpose is left? Certainly not because they are moral laws. So why? I can't even repeat my "not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read" line here because meats have nothing to do with anything moral at all (MAR. 7: 18-23).

And before you say it - no, meats laws are not health issues, either. There is nothing in the Bible to substantiate that. There is nothing in the Bible about meats laws being about health or dirt or anything like that. The only thing you'll find are the two things I mentioned.

Do you want to know why Armstrongism teaches clean/unclean meats laws? The real reason? Its roots in Adventism. Ellen G. White was big on foods, and that came down to Herbert Armstrong. That is the reason. Traditions of men.

Can we get some form of consistency in here, please!

CONCLUSION

Today, we have seen the three divisions of the law, of which two are supposedly gone. Yet, we have seen several examples of ceremonial items that are not gone, according to Armstrongism. And so, we have asked -- is the ceremonial law removed or isn't it?

It seems the answer is no.
But why not?

In my experience, I have most often had people answer these questions with statements like, "Until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle will pass from the law." But two complete sections have passed from the law. Or, "God changes not, therefore the law changes not". But the law has changed (HEB. 7: 12). Or, "Why would God initiate the law only to get rid of it?" But He did get rid of two full sections of it. Or, "The law will be written on our hearts." But which laws? The laws that are gone?

The point of those statements is to say the law will never be done away. But that offends reason and denies reality. Not a single person who says those things intends to keep the whole law. Every single person who says those things knows they are only referring to certain laws. So, those statements are absurd. Do those responses explain why one law is kept and another discarded? No. Do those responses explain why the examples we reviewed today are not ceremonial? No. Do you know what those statements will do? They show that we talked out both sides of our mouths.

Since those things we reviewed today are ceremonial, tell your Minister you're not going to do them anymore.
What? That makes you uncomfortable? Why? Are the ceremonial laws removed or aren't they?
Fine. Tell your minister the ceremonial laws are not removed.
What? That makes you uncomfortable?

There are more examples than this. I could go on about things like circumcision, the gateway to the law. But I think we've seen enough. I think the point is sufficiently made.

My point is really about the standard - the shifting standard -- the lack of standard. One standard is used here, another standard is used there. Keep this part of the law here, don't keep that part of the law there. Demand the law will never change here, demand the law has changed there. Say we don't like traditions of men here, keep traditions of men there.

Standards and ceremonies and traditions of men. It's a double-standard. And that has always bothered me.

I don't want to go without leaving you a solution to this dilemma. Dear reader, beloved by God, I pray God guides you to step into the New Covenant in faith.

p.s.
I suppose you could consider this part 1 in a series. Try out the next post: "Are the Ten Commandments Removed?"

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

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

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

Why Pleas for COG Unity Will Always Fail

This week, a letter titled “An Open Letter to Leaders in the Church of God” started traveling the Internet. The letter’s anonymous author originally posted it on the social media web site Tumblr, but it has made the rounds on other social media sites as well. 

It is an intelligent, well-written letter, and I agree with it, (obviously aside from its doctrinal stance). Generally, the letter laments that the splintered Churches of God share so many core beliefs; yet are divided into scores of competing, conflicting corporate organizations. That leaders from these fractious groups act like they are God’s only true church and disparage those with nearly identical beliefs in other COG groups, often from the pulpit. That such behavior is NOT relegated only to the few “extremist” groups in the community; and that it is unacceptable and displeasing to God. 

I sympathize whole-heartedly with the author and with others who support it. I’ve made pleas like this myself in the past. You see, most of our leaders and older brethren had all the things you guys seem to be seeking – big, active congregations with physical support and meaningful relationships – at the phase of life they needed it. They don’t like the splits, but they’re used to them, and they still have enough folks left that started this journey with them 30-plus years ago to make their church life somewhat meaningful for their remaining years. 

But you, you’re just starting out in life. Years of failed COG prophecy has taught you Jesus might not be coming as quickly as Rod Meredith tells you. You want the things your older brethren had back in WCG – larger, vibrant congregations; social opportunities for you and your children; and lifelong friendships with people upon whom you can rely.  Instead, you are forced to drive at least an hour to to church each week to watch a video sermon with 23 other people. While people you know and love are meeting 20 minutes away. But they're meeting with THAT group of Laodiceans. Or at least that’s how your pastor explains it. 

Don’t let anyone tell you that you are shallow or weak in the faith because you want those things. The folks minimizing your needs obviously thought they were important when THEY were in your shoes, because went to great efforts to create them. And don’t forget that The New Testament – especially Ephesians – makes it clear that the Christian life should be lived in a community so that believers can support, encourage and help one another. That 23-member congregation of people you see maybe three times a month qualifies as a community only in the strictest definition of the word. Remote, infrequent contact does little to create and cement the kind of relationships you will need to weather life’s toughest storms. 

So I get it. But I’m sorry to say, it’s not going to happen. And not just because of the egos and pride of your leaders, although the author is correct that it’s the major cause of the splintering. But even if Rod Meredith, Victor Kubik, Jim Franks, Gerald Flurry and the like set aside years of pride and infighting, repented in ashes and started working together next week, it wouldn't be enough. The problem is, the doctrinal foundation upon which the COGs are based can’t help but cause division

On the whole, the COGs teach that salvation is a gift from God, but that we must perform works of obedience in order to maintain our relationship with God.  Failure to obey can jeopardize our salvation, although no minister I know has ever been able to quantify what percentage of obedience I must maintain in order to enter the Kingdom of God. But that a minor point in this discussion. The bigger issue is that if our right standing before God is maintained through works of obedience, then we better make sure we have the correct list of works. 

The author of the Open Letter lists a number of core beliefs and signs of the “true church” – things like the name “Church of God,” keeps the Sabbath, keeps the Holy Days on the “proper days,” has a “correct” understanding of the nature of God and several others. The author then asserts that any church who stays true to these beliefs is a true Church of God. The author describes other beliefs over which some COG groups have separated “non core issues” that are nothing more than “political footballs” used to cover up their own agendas. 

I understand the sentiment. But even defining "core" and "non-core" issues is polarizing. And could be viewed as spiritually reckless by some within the very community the author is trying to unite. If the COG’s teachings on maintaining one’s justification through obedience are correct, then these “non core issues” matter. Then EVERY issue matters. Then all the “non core issues” that vary from church to church must matter, and members are right to take a stand for what they believe God requires of them.  James 2:10 tells us that if we’ve broken one portion, we’re guilty of breaking the whole thing. If we break just one “jot” or “tittle,” then we’re guilty. Slip-ups are one thing. But if every word spoken at Sinai is binding upon us (a considerably larger list than just the ones “God’s true apostle” Herbert W Armstrong cherry-picked) and we regularly ignore New Moons or many other points that most of today’s COGs consider minutia, then we are ignoring the word of God and risk of failing our Christian obligations. Man does not have the authority to parse the Sinai Covenant into manageable, modern bites.   

It’s true that power and pride are at the root of most COG splits. But there are ministers who honestly believe they are condemning their brethren to Gehenna fire when they endorse eating in a restaurant on the Sabbath or celebrating Passover on the “wrong” day. Whatever is not of faith is sin, right? How can they sleep at night if they are leading their brethren astray? They are supposed to be protecting their flock. And this is how the division will persist. If salvation is at stake, there is no room for each to be convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5). There is no such thing as foolish disputes about geneology or striving about the law (Titus 3:9). It all matters.

So the Living Church of God and others will claim that proper church government is a matter of salvation, the United Church of God will disagree, and neither will accept each other as Christians. Those in UCG will eye ministers from the Church of God, a Worldwide Association as the “spiritual wolves” UCG leadership described them, and never trust them enough to be under their authority. COGWA members will both continue to disparage their former UCG pastors and try desperately to contact their children in the Philadelphia Church of God. Who will keep pretending that they and the rest of you don’t exist.  Pride, fear and grace-less legalism will continue to feed the splintering machine. And those scattered in the COG community, increasingly disgusted with what they see, will stay scattered.

Deep down, you know what I'm saying is true.  Or else you wouldn’t be trying to fight it. You can see your future in the COGs, and it isn’t pretty. I understand. I'm not writing these things to mock anyone or to cast stones - I'm reaching out because many of you are my friends and my family. I suffered through these same feelings. My suffering is done now, but yours isn't. Still, it wasn’t so many years ago that I was locked in my own bathroom, praying, so that no one else in my family would see my tears. So that no one would see me doubting and questioning what we had been taught about God since childhood. My prayer was simple: God, lead me where you want me to go, and show me what you want me to see. Over the coming months, He helped me see that there were only three choices when it came to salvation: 

A). God requires you to find which COG group has the correct list of doctrines and then “keep” them to maintain your relationship with Him.

B). God will examine you and find you have met the “good enough,” threshold, wink at any remaining sin or doctrinal misunderstanding in your life, and usher you into His Kingdom.

C). God promises salvation to those who place their faith for salvation in Jesus Christ, not in their own efforts or record of obedience. 

I know it's hard to believe, but C really is what the Bible teaches about how we receive eternal life. It was hard for me to believe, too. In spite of what your COG leaders have taught you, believing C doesn’t mean I am anomian or antinomian. It doesn’t mean that I believe I can live my life any old way I want. It means that I no longer try to live with a foot in each covenant and that I thank God that my salvation depends upon the work and strength of the one who offers it, not the work and the strength of the person who needs it.

Until your leaders accept that they are saved by grace through faith in Jesus and nothing else, nothing additional, they will fight and divide over what needs to be done to attain salvation. Until they properly understand the doctrine of regeneration, they will keep struggling and striving to make sure they are in the Kingdom. And you, your friends, family and brethren can't help but suffer the fallout. 

God knew exactly what He was doing when He established salvation by grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It was His perfect solution, and it short-circuits the lamentable, destructive religious environment in which the COGs now find themselves.  The only remaining question is, do your leaders know what they're doing? 

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

Armstrong the Merciful

"Whereas, if MAN, composed of matter, sinned and refused to repent and turn from sin, he will die the second death - he shall utterly perish (John 3: 16) - he will be as though he had not been (OBE. 16). This reflects God's mercy."
-Herbert W Armstrong, "Incredible Human Potential", 1978, p. 84

Some years ago I sat talking with a close friend of mine and trying to explain what Armstrongism believed about the afterlife. This was back when I was a believing member of the church. I was explaining to my friend who didn’t know the doctrines, and in my heart of hearts I was trying to defend the doctrine to myself. I thought I was right in what I believed, but at the same time I sensed the weakness of the argument.
It seems to be universal that when you are defending a weak position, you bluff and don't give away too much information. Even animals do it. Well, I knew my position was weak, so I reached for a fairly standard claim to reinforce my position: Armstrongism’s view of eternity is far more merciful than mainstream Christianity’s, vis a vis:
“Why would a merciful God send people to Hell? In our version, most everyone will find salvation.”

Well, I was quite happy at the time to see that it worked. My friend hadn’t ever heard anyone say anything like that before, was therefore unprepared, and didn’t know how to respond. Quite frankly, if it didn't work, I was unprepared to take it much further. Sometimes bluffing pays off.

I wondered to myself, what if my friend had challenged me? So, to answer that question, I have decided to argue against my earlier position. I will take the position of my friend and explore what they did not. I have to say, I learned a lot going through this! I write about it today so that you can see what I saw.

Bear in mind that my goal is not to insult, disparage, castigate, or in any wise belittle anyone in Armstrongism or God or anyone else. God loves you, and I'm not here to mistreat those He died for. No doubt some people are going to feel that way as they read this, but that's only because I'm not affirming your beliefs in this post. If I affirmed your beliefs, you would love me ...and be bored reading this. I'm not going to be unfair. Fairness is one of my motivations here, but I am also not going to affirm the COG view. I spent 30 years on one side, and now I'm going to explore the other side. I don't know of a way that I can do this and offend no one in the process. I have to do this so that we can ask "Is the COG view as merciful as it claims to be?" I have to accept that someone will take this the wrong way. I am just going to admit this up front and state that it's not my intent to be insulting to anyone, and leave it at that.
Also, bear in mind that my goal is not to defend or argue for Hell. If at any point you misinterpret what I'm saying as a defense of or argument for the doctrine of Hell, then you've missed my point. The entire post is about mercy, not Hell. As I said, we are asking, "Is the COG view as merciful as it claims to be?"

Are you brave enough to challenge your own views in an ABD deep inspection with me today? Come and let’s take a critical look at the entire flow of the history of mankind as seen by the Church of God (COG) splinter churches ...starting at the start.

IN THE BEGINNING

"God is reproducing Himself", say the Armstrongist Church of God (COG) groups. According to the founder of the COG movement, Herbert W Armstrong, perhaps billions of years before Adam, God's first "children" where the angels.

"This earth, originally, was intended to be the abode of a third of all the angels."
-HWA, "Incredible Human Potential", 1978, p. 54

Did it work? No. After countless ages, Satan rebels, he deceives one third of all of the angels, all creation decays, horrific wars ensue in the heavens where the angels prove themselves unworthy to rule over what God has made. This apparently catches God off guard.

"As God surveyed this cataclysm, He must have realized it left Himself as the ONLY BEING who will not and CANNOT SIN! The only possible ASSURANCE of accomplishing His great PURPOSE was for Him now to reproduce Himself!"
-Herbert Armstrong, "Incredible Human Potential", 1978, p. 59 [emphasis mine]

Must have realized?? So, he didn't realize this before?
As a plan B, the Godhead creates mankind with the intent of transforming them into God-beings like Himself so we can rule creation in place of the angels.

"God saw that no being less than God, in the God Family, could be certainly relied on to never sin - to be like God - who cannot sin. To fulfill His purpose for the entire vast universe, God saw that nothing less than Himself (as the God Family) could be absolutely relied upon to carry out that supreme purpose in the entire universe.
God then purposed to reproduce Himself, through the humans, made in His image and likeness, but made first from material flesh and blood, subject to death if there is in unrepented of - yet with the possibility of being born into the Divine Family begotten by God the Father.
And that is why God put man on earth!"
-Herbert Armstrong, "Incredible Human Potential", 1978, p. 51

God does this, knowing that humans can and will sin and go astray without His direct participation, just like some of the angels did. God must infuse the Holy Spirit with our spirits or there is no hope.

"The spirit of man was in him [Adam] - but not the Spirit of God. God offered him freely the fruit of the TREE OF LIFE - which symbolized the HOLY SPIRIT. Taking of the tree of LIFE would have done two things: (1) opened his MIND to comprehend spiritual knowledge, and (2) imparted within him the GIFT of God's Holy SPirit, leading to ETERNAL LIFE."
-Herbert Armstrong, "Incredible Human Potential", 1978, p.76

Does God work closely with mankind as is necessary? Yes!
Did it work? No. Adam and Eve soon sin anyway. The solution? Cut mankind off from the only thing that could have helped them.

"God made the needed second spirit - the HOLY SPIRIT - available to Adam. But on Adam's rebellion and taking the forbidden fruit, God had driven Adam out and closed all access to the tree of LIFE - symbolic of His Holy Spirit."
p.78

Rather than His direct involvement, which is the only possible way to achieve the goal of avoiding sin, God establishes a set of laws to give mankind direction.
Does it work? No.
To the COG groups, the law as defined in the Old Covenant is what God expects of mankind. Not just the Jews, but all mankind. They do not accept that the law was first given at Sinai; they believe it to have been there since creation (DEU. 5: 3). To the COG's it is mankind's means of growing in Godly character (ROM. 3: 21; 4: 13; GAL. 2: 21; PHP. 3: 9). They teach that Godly character is the result of law-keeping. Not the whole law, just some of it (it varies from church to church).
But there's the rub. The Holy Spirit is necessary before people can even so much as recognize that they so much as ought to keep the law in the first place, and is mandatory in order to have the ability to actually put the law into practice once it is known. The knowledge itself is spiritual knowledge, you see. Spiritual knowledge cannot be received without the Holy Spirit to complete our minds and make this possible (I COR. 2: 13-14). All Christians believe this to be true to some degree, but the COGs believe it in the most extreme sense.
So what do we see here? The COGs believe God put a law in place that mankind cannot hope to realize, thus God condemns mankind to a futile system of unguided "trial and error" as they hopelessly try and figure out on their own what is good and evil.
Mercifully hopeless and futile, that is.

Thus we have an enigma. The result of which is that now man can't even plead ignorance in their ignorance (ROM. 7: 7) because they had the law there ...which they couldn't understand to begin with without the Holy Spirit.

It gets worse! God leaves Satan here to broadcast sin into our heads against our will!
You read that right. The COGs teach that Satan doesn't just tempt us, he actually radiates harmful sinfulness like uranium radiates harmful energy. Satan can affect us without our knowledge just by being there.

So, mankind cannot know that we should keep the law, we can’t keep the law even if we did know, we are influenced by Satan to break the law even if we don't want to, and we can’t even plead ignorance because the law witnesses against us.
How's that for mercy?

I want you to notice something here. It is very subtle, but very important. First, a summary then I’ll get to what I want you to notice.

According to the COGs, Adam and Eve chose the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God had been helping them, but they chose poorly. Now God refuses to give us the Holy Spirit as punishment. This teaching is necessary! Without this teaching, how can anyone in the COG churches be “called" and "elect” by God? The “calling” and “election” is the giving of the Holy Spirit so that they can know and attempt to keep the law. The mystery revealed to them which makes them "God’s Church" is law-keeping (with the help of the Holy Spirit). Not all of the law, not all 613, but a cherry-picked and highly modified subset  – especially the weekly Sabbath and annual holy days. And not perfect law-keeping, because they fail too, just like Adam and Eve and Lucifer, so it's just the attempt at law-keeping that they receive. Otherwise, if mankind *can* know that they should keep the law all on their own without the Holy Spirit, then there is nothing at all different between the members of the COG churches and anyone else and no reason for a special calling. There is no calling; there is no election. So you see the teaching that God revoked His Holy Spirit, even though it was absolutely critical for the success of the goal, is necessary to establish identity for the COG group.

But! Here comes two things that I wanted you to notice.

Baptism is where one receives the Holy Spirit. The COG initiate must know and keep the law before they are baptized and receive the Holy Spirit. One must prove one's worthiness and loyalty. But how? One must be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit in order to attempt to keep the law, but one must already be attempting to keep the law in order to be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit. A contradiction?
Next, regardless of the law, without the Holy Spirit how can mankind be held accountable and punished terribly for something they could not possibly have understood? Why give a law if we are incapable of understanding it? Indeed we are prevented from understanding! But then how can God make any exception for ignorance (LUK. 23: 34, ACT. 17: 30)? Another contradiction?
Something is seriously flawed here!

And not just this, but there is another related issue to discuss: angelic beings.

ANGELS AND DEMONS

The COG narrative both says that God blinds the hearts of mankind and that Satan blinds the hearts of mankind. God gives mankind over to blindness by withholding the Holy Spirit because of our wickedness, but we cannot know our wickedness unless the Holy Spirit works in us in the first place. So it is God’s doing. At the same time, Satan broadcasts evil like a radio station broadcasts music, and God gives mankind over to Satan who deceives us and darkens our understanding. So it is Satan’s doing.
As much as it pains me to even consider such a thing, there very much appears to be a tag-team in the COG doctrines of God and Satan against mankind.

Continuing on.

God, knowing the potential for our failure ahead of time, was prepared with a plan to save us. ...but not save the angels.
You see, the COGs do believe in a Hell. Oh, they most certainly do! They just prefer to believe the only ones that will be there are Satan and his demons. Here are some proof-texts often used to demonstrate this eternal fate:

(II PET. 2: 4) For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment
(JUD 6) And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day
(II PET. 2: 17) These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.
(REV. 20: 10) The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

"Angels, being spirit, are immortal. Those who sinned shall go on bearing their punishment forever. Their punishment is NOT death. Their punishment is loss of the glorious opportunity God gave them to accomplish His purpose on earth, and to live forever in the resentment, bitterness, attitude of rebellion, and utter hopelessness and frustration of mind their own sins brought upon them. Once they perverted their own minds, they can never regain balance. Happiness and joy has left them forever."
-Herbert Armstrong, "Incredible Human Potential", 1978, p. 84

So this far more merciful Armstrongism isn't really more merciful at all. There is a Hell. There is an eternal, conscious punishment for created beings. Just not for humans. That's not mercy; that sounds a lot more like opportunism to me.

You might say, "But the demons deserve it!". OK. You'll get no argument from me. But so do any humans who sin! In all fairness, any mainstream Christian should be able to tell you that God didn't create Hell for humans; some humans simply insist on going there and God refuses to force them to remain in His presence against their will. Yet consider this - it's not just the fallen angels who are punished. No! If you want to talk about something being unmerciful, consider the poor holy angels!

Two thirds of the angels have never sinned, yet they are punished eternally too, only because Lucifer sinned. According to COG documents, Lucifer was such a magnificent creation that when he sinned it was proof to God that no angel was capable.

"As God surveyed this cataclysmic tragedy, He must have realized that since the highest, most perfect being within His almighty power to create, had turned to rebellion, it left God Himself as the only being who would not and cannot sin."
-Herbert Armstrong, "Incredible Human Potential", 1978, p. 51

In other words, Michael and Gabriel might be superb holy angelic beings now, but some day they'll fall too. It's inevitable. This is the logical conclusion of what the COGs believe.
And what was the punishment for angels? The COGs believe that angels are immortal and cannot die. So what punishment can you give an eternal being?

 "Their penalty (they are still awaiting final judgment up to now) was disqualification - forfeiture of their grand opportunity, perversion of minds, and a colossal earthwide CATACLYSM of destruction wreaked upon this earth."
-Herbert Armstrong, "Incredible Human Potential", 1978, p. 57

Stop and consider, though, that this "disqualification - forfeiture of their grand opportunity" is also born by the holy angels! The holy angels have to live forever, rejected by God because of what Lucifer did, and ruled over by the humans who replaced them - yet they didn't ever do anything to deserve it.
Consider further, the angels who never sinned are not to be redeemed even though they are eternal while mankind who sins continually is to be redeemed even though he is temporary. If anyone should have been redeemed it should be the immortal beings. But no.

THE HIDDEN GOSPEL

How is mankind redeemed? The Word of God becomes a man in order to die so that with His own blood the sins of man can be forgiven. Now, if you can live a life of attempted law-keeping until death, you might qualify for a promotion to godhood when Jesus returns. You would think "in two millennia I'll return and I might even call on you" would be at least mildly encouraging news to people. But then God does something unexpected - He hides the Gospel …for 1,900 years!

Herbert Armstrong’s primary claim to authority was that he was an Apostle as great as Paul...

"And I can say now, with the apostle Paul, 'that the gospel which [is] preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. . . . But when it pleased God . . . to reveal his Son in me . . . immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I [to a theological seminary, but I was taught by Jesus Christ, the Word of God (in writing)]' (Gal. 1:11-12, 15-17)."
-Herbert Armstrong, "Mystery of the Ages", p. 29

...who was chosen in the sunset days of mankind to bring us a final warning. The gist of the warning he supposedly was tasked to deliver was that we need to attempt to keep the law.

But wait. Wasn't this the same message given to Israel? Yes. So for 4,000 years the same warning supposedly went out? Yes. Hold on here! Wasn't this the same message that was supposedly given to Adam? Yes. So it's really 6,000 years the same warning supposedly went out? Yes.

Does it work? No. Did it ever work? No.

Recall you cannot keep the law, or even accept that you should keep it, without the Holy Spirit. What good is a warning to attempt to obey the law going to do people who cannot understand? It does no good. Why send a warning without sending the ability to heed it? It does no good. And why warn people at all if they aren't really "called" at this time anyway? None of this makes any sense!

Herbert Armstrong said over and over and over again that one of the proofs of his authority was that he was the first person in 1,900 years to teach the Gospel.
--If one rejects this critical claim, then one rejects all of the COGs and everything about them - because one rejects what the COGs are founded upon. You've rejected the Apostle and the Gospel he taught. If you reject Herbert Armstrong (as some say they do), then why follow someone who does not reject him? If you reject Herbert Armstrong, then why not attend at the COG7 church instead? Or become an SDA? Or a Seventh-Day Baptist? Or --

Consequently, this claim means that for 1,900 years the “Church of God” had no solid knowledge of the Gospel, ergo the Gospel is absolutely unnecessary for “calling” and “election” and salvation.

What is necessary? No one ever really defined that. In one place Herbert Armstrong says the entire duty of a lay Christian is to pay money and pray in support of the ministry of the Church of God.

“But this giving of their prayers, encouragement and financial support was God's assignment as the very means of developing in them God's holy, righteous character.”
-Herbert Armstrong, “The Incredible Human Potential”, p. 111 

“...as the very means for the general body of lay members to develop God's own holy, righteous character – by means of giving – giving their continuous prayers for the apostle, giving their encouragement, tithes and offerings.”
-Herbert Armstrong, “The Incredible Human Potential”, p. 112

But in other publications we see that the qualifications for being the “Church of God” included such things as Sabbath observance, or having the right name [Church of God], or full-immersion baptism, and etc. (See our study "True History of the True Church" for details.) Oh, not that you needed all of them at once! No. You really only needed one from this list in order to be identifiable as a Church of God. If you have more, great! But you only need one.

God kept His church technically alive for 2,000 years so long as they observed at least one thing from a list. So... one would think God could have just taught all mankind to keep that one thing and it would have sufficed. But He apparently didn't do that either.

Just so you know, when other non-COG churches keep at least one thing from the same list (like Baptists and full-immersion baptism or the SDA church and Sabbath-keeping) it doesn't count.

We touched on something a few paragraphs back that I want to dive more deeply into for a minute. The “true Gospel” is hidden for 1,900 years. Not accidentally lost. No. Hidden! Purposefully.
First God revokes the Holy Spirit, then God hides the Gospel.

What this implies is that mankind didn't "turn from the truth" on their own, they were driven there! We would often say "God has blinded the minds of the world." We would say that God did this because of the sins of the world. But if you define sin as breaking the law, and God revoked the Holy Spirit and then hid the Gospel, what possible chance did the world have against sin? No chance! So in response God piles on a third layer of guaranteed failure - the blinding of their minds?

That's merciful?

As for this end-time warning, recall that the last generation has no hope of accepting the warning because they don’t have the Holy Spirit. So why warn them? God hid the Gospel purposefully. So why reveal it now? God blinded their minds purposefully. So why call now? He isn't calling the world now. So why warn if you're not really calling? We were told time and again that God doesn't want these people in His church right now; He wants them in later on. So why punish them? And why wait until the last minute? God does almost everything possible to remove our ability to obey, then punishes us for not obeying. Not just punish, cataclysmically punish, to the verge of cosmocide! We're talking end of the universe here. But not all people are slated to be punished so hideously. He singles out a late generation to punish them unspeakably for the sins of all people throughout time. Sins which they themselves did not commit.

That's MERCIFUL???

A SECRET SECT

According to the COGs, the Word of God puts off being God completely and becomes fully man (this is akin to Kenosis and of it we must ask what happens to the spiritual component of the Word of God when He "puts it off"?). He then dies completely to wipe away our guilt (so the self-existent I AM can cease to be??). He is resurrected again so that He can lead us to the Father.
Does it work? No.

 
The forgiveness is only for past sins. Your guilt for past sins is forgiven but you better not sin again. By the end of the first century, all of Christianity en masse have supposedly gone right back into rank paganism. (This claim is accompanied by some pretty questionable scholarship, but it is what it is.) Only a tiny remnant remained.
   Cross = nullified!
In response, just as He once revoked the Holy Spirit, He now revokes the Gospel and blinds the minds of the world.

Wow! In the Armstrongist narrative, God is really having a hard time. Nothing He has done so far has been very successful.

Hope would be completely lost for us all, they teach, had it not been for the glorified Christ selecting a painfully small group of people to hide out in mountainous and far-away regions through the ages, observing at least one thing from the list of laws, and thus keeping the church technically alive. This secret church progresses through several "eras". Most of the COGs teach that the seven letters to the seven churches in Asia, found in Revelation 3 and 4, are actually Jesus prophesying to these church eras across time. 

So, the church actually ends up failing not just once at the start but over and over and over again.

At last, in the 1930’s, Jesus sends Herbert W Armstrong - a down on his luck detergent sales and advertising man from a Quaker family - to find the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel, preach the Gospel to them for the first time in 1,900 years, establish the Philidelphia Era of the church, and to deliver a warning for the final generation that they should attempt to keep the law before it's too late. A warning God apparently doesn't actually want the world to heed and has prevented them from heeding anyway.

To make it just that much more odd...
Throughout time God had been clandestinely selecting 144,000 people to become His "true church", who will rule with Him for a final 1,000 year period of post-apocalyptic paradise known as “the Millennium”. God “calls” and “elects” what amounts to 24 people each year over 6,000 years, and gives them His Holy Spirit, un-blinds their minds, and works with them so that they can attempt to keep the law (note, the Gospel is still not needed here). Why? The unofficial official answer is because He wants to have these people train others during a 1,000 year period of paradise. These "chosen" and "elect" people who form the "true church" will train anyone lucky enough to survive the Apocalypse.
People who until then were purposefully kept from the "true church".

Now I must ask the obvious questions. 

If He can make this special exemption for 144,000 people, why not just do this for all people? Why not do this from the start with everyone?
During this Millennium, God does give the Holy Spirit to everyone born, and gives them His Gospel, and is literally present with them, and gives them training, and gives them good examples, and gives them a perfect planet with no competition for resources, and even keeps Satan locked away. Thus proving He could have done this all along ...but refused to. Why?

What happens after this 1,00 years is over? After the Millennial period is over, all of the people who have lived and died prior to this Millennial period, who were not part of the secret church, will then be resurrected and given a second chance to get it right.
But... most of them only sinned in the first place because they were all but caused to sin. So why put most people through it twice, some people once, and some people not at all?

The non-official answer to "why" is, "because God wanted to teach everyone what life would be like if we disobey Him". Which, on the surface, sounds like a good idea and everything, but on closer inspection we see it has issues. Not the least of which is ... life cannot ever be without Him.
God is necessary. Nothing exists without Him. Why teach people so harshly what life would be without Him if that is utterly impossible?

Or, did they mean "without Him" in a spiritual sense? In other words, He wanted you to experience what life would be like if He exists, but isn't available to you. To put that another way -- He wanted you to experience Hell.
Being so far removed from God, His love, His forgiveness, His goodness, His mercy, His hope, as to practically exist without Him, IS THE PRIMARY ATTRIBUTE OF HELL!
So, the COG's teach there is no Hell, except the one we've been in these 6,000 years.

What the COG view inadvertently demonstrate here is that if God had only lived with us and given us His Holy Spirit and sent Satan away from the start, everything would have worked perfectly from the start and into eternity. For a 1,000 year Millennial period, God proves this. Thus conclusively demonstrating that there is a far better way to have gone about things this entire time. He just chose not to!

And that's by far more merciful than the mainstream view??

A BRIEF COMPARISON

At this point you might say to me, “Hey! Some of those things are what I read in the Bible. Prophecy talks of a 1,000 year reign and Satan being let out at the end. You are arguing against the Bible here. You go too far!”
Bear with me, dear reader, if you think this of me. As I said at the outset, it’s not at all my point to disparage God or the COG groups. In my defense, I am just doing what I said I would do - arguing against my past self. I am merely explaining things that the COG churches teach, only without the sugar coat. You might misunderstand what I'm doing as speaking out against God, but I do no such thing. I am merely explaining the unintended consequences of a particular worldview held by the COGs. I am looking critically at what I refused to look at critically for most of my life, and what most COG members refuse to look at. These same verses are a completely different story when seen through a different lens. I am not against the verses at all. I am against the COG interpretation of the verses.

If we take for example a Protestant view, we have humanity who is inherently flawed in their relationship with God from birth, their nature is fallen, but they can yet throw themselves at the mercy of Jesus Christ, their Savior and defense attorney, who accomplished what neither Adam nor they could.
In the extreme Protestant view, everyone is going to be saved. Everyone! God will work on them with His love and given enough time they will all choose Him. You want mercy, well you cannot beat that mercy right there.
Even in the Roman Catholic view, the only ones who end up in Hell are the ones who choose it. Look at Michaelangelo's famous "Creation of Adam" on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, for example. God is stretching out, straining to reach a 'ho hum' Adam. All Adam has to do is extend his arm and he has God in his grasp!

In the mainstream view, God runs across the finish line and pleads with us just to believe He's really done it. Jesus constantly reaches down to us here below to help us up.
But in the COG view, God abandons the angels to their fate, all but walks off with the finish line, and only shows it to a handful of people. God has made the target extremely hard to hit and missing the mark is called "sin". The only ones who succeed are the ones He drags across the finish line.

CONCLUSION

So, what have we seen today? According to the COGs:

God creates the earth for the angels but this fails when Lucifer unexpectedly sins. God abandons this plan. All angels are disqualified though most of them are perfect to this day. But if the best of them failed then it proves they all will fail, so abandoning them is the safe bet. Instead, God creates mankind, but this fails when they sin too. In response God withholds His Holy Spirit from man, which is a missing component in mankind's very design without which we can neither know nor perform God's will. Failure is guaranteed. God gives a law but this fails because we cannot keep it or know we should keep it without the Holy Spirit. The result is the law removes our ability to at least plead ignorance. God leaves Satan here on earth with the power to broadcast sin into our minds. The eternally self-existant Word somehow ceases to be eternal or self-existent and becomes a man. He dies for mankind to forgive our sins - not not the angels sins - and is resurrected to lead a new church. This fails when His church soon abandons Him en masse. In response, He hides the Gospel for 1,900 years - even from His own church. God keeps a tiny remnant of the church hidden away but technically alive through the ages by making sure they at least attempt to keep part of a list of laws. The church doesn't have to make many disciples because God isn't calling the world at this time anyway. At the last moment, God sends Herbert Armstrong to preach the Gospel and warn the purposefully blinded world with a warning they can't understand to keep a law they can't keep, right before God unspeakably punishes the last generation for the sins of all time. All of this is to teach the world a lesson of what it would be like if they sin. The next 1,000 years are a veritable paradise completely devoid of this lesson. It goes perfectly ... until Satan is released. After that it all goes wrong again. Finally, the incorrigible among men are annihilated, and Satan and the demons are sent to eternal damnation in conscious torment in a condition exactly matching Hell but care is taken to never referred to as Hell. The holy angels spend eternity as servants to the humans, now made into gods, who replaced them, through no fault of their own.

And this is supposedly far more merciful than the mainstream Christian scenario.
I find "God won't send humans to Hell" to be a candy-coated and grossly oversimplified version of the real Armstrongist position. This isn't nearly the whole story! This is in reality comparing a stylized and abbreviated version of what the COGs teach to a caricaturized and abbreviated version of what mainstream Christianity teaches.

No doubt many are going to dismiss what I say because they "do not worship Herbert Armstrong and never did". A valid point. No one should worship any man. But this article isn't about Herbert Armstrong. Neither is this blog. We aren't confronting Herbert Armstrong; we are investigating his doctrines. We talk a lot about him so that you can know where your beliefs come from. That's the real elephant in the room - you may ignore the man, but which of his doctrines do you reject? You can look in the Bible and see the law for yourself? Good! But you cannot attend a Church of God group and get from "I see the law" to "the law applies to me" without Herbert Armstrong. Reject the man all you like but you can't simply erase him from the church he founded. The fact that you feel defensive when you read our articles is PROOF of this. If we were only about the man, and if you rejected him completely as you say you do, then you'd have nothing to be defensive about, and then you could just walk off and attend any of a number of different churches.

Let's just admit straight out that all scenarios are going to run into issues with mercy eventually, because mercy is a highly subjective word. Mercy is always going to be in the eye of the beholder.

In either scenario, COG or mainstream, no one can succeed without God.
But in the COG version it really seems like God is small and contrary, angry and fickle. It doesn't matter what you do, it doesn't matter how badly you want it, it doesn't matter how much faith you have, it doesn't matter how often you call on Him, and it doesn’t matter what charitable works you spend your life doing. Even if your name is Mother Theresa, it doesn't matter. Unless! Unless you sit idle every 7th day - during the proper hours or it doesn't count (which are nigh impossible to determine on a round earth). He died for you, but if you don’t recall that during the proper hours after sunset on Friday, the deal’s off! Yet, at the same time, it didn’t have to be that way!

In either scenario, COG or mainstream, there is a Hell.
It doesn't matter if you call it "Hell" or not, the ideas are nearly identical in all respects. The complaint that COGs don't want to worship a God that sends His creation to punishment for all eternity is moot as even in the COG view God will send His creation to punishment for all eternity. Only, in the COG version it is just demons who will spend eternity in conscious punishment. Any human will get burned up and that's "merciful". Meanwhile the holy angels bear an eternal burden for Lucifer's failure. But there will be a Hell, so to speak.
As far as the claim that the COG view is more merciful in this point, I have to say in all honesty, I do not believe the COG view is more merciful. If anything it seems like the two views are even.

Now it occurs to me, this isn't really about mercy at all. At the heart of this is the debate about immortal soul versus Annihilationism. In the COG view, God sends anything incorrigible to punishment. If that being is immortal then that punishment is eternal torment, and if not then it's eternal death. There is every reason to believe He would have sent humans to eternal torment too, but the COGs teach that humans don't have an immortal soul. The COG teachings do have eternal conscious torment, so eternal conscious torment is not really the problem. The COG teachings do have a hell, so this isn't about Hell, it's about humans in Hell. So it's not really about mercy after all, but about the nature of the soul. The COGs don't want a God who makes man immortal; they want a God who makes mankind disposable.
Mercifully disposable.

At the end of the matter, I'm not convinced this is a winning strategy after all. This doesn't seem as merciful to me as it is opportunistic. I admit someone has to be right, but I don't see how a bluffing contest of "who is more merciful" is going to decide the point.

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