Tuesday, August 4, 2009

The Function of the Law

Back in the good ol’ days I was taking a biology class that was rather intense. There was a method of study we were taught that was designed to get us to understand everything we needed to know about a particular subject so that there would be little, if any, misunderstanding in regards to the subject being studied.

First and foremost was the requirement to answer the question, what is the function of what was being studied? For instance, if you were studying neurons, you need to understand what function neurons serve; what they do.

Taking this methodology over to theology, let’s ask ourselves, what function did the law serve? What was its purpose?

In biology, one goes to the various text books and journals in order to study the function of a biological object. In theology, not all rely on the “text book” for their answers. Like the dark ages of chemistry and biology where popular opinion provided the answers (leaves that fall into water turn into fish) those who insist on the interpretations of others outside the context of the “text book” demonstrate that some are still in the dark ages when it comes to theology.

As background to understanding the function of the law, we need to understand who was given the law, and why, for the law had its function in relation to the people to whom it was given.

The context of the Bible plainly states that the law was given to the Israelites who had been removed by God from the bondage of Egypt. I shouldn’t have to cite references, but if someone objects, I can provide some later in the comments section. I will make one citation in regards to that most “sacred” requirement of the law to so many: the sabbath.

Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. 13Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: 14But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. 15And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. — Deuteronomy 5:12-15

One explanation of the why is found here:

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. 6Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. 7For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? 8And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? 9Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons; 10Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children. 11And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness. 12And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. 13And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. — Deuteronomy 4:5-13

Did Israel keep this law? No, they abandoned the law constantly. This which was to be their “wisdom and understanding” ended up exposing their lack of wisdom and lack of understanding (Hosea 4:6). And what was the result of the other nations who looked upon Israel and their law? They may well have recognized the righteousness inherent in this law, seeing as all under the law were treated equally, without anyone being above or exempt from that law as contrasted to the laws of other nations where one’s status in a society could dictate how they were treated by their laws.

This law then was without equal as the nations were concerned at that time. To keep this in proper perspective though, we should look at what the apostle Paul had to say in this regard. He related in II Corinthians chapter 3 that this law was a glorious law. Nonetheless, this glory was fading, and in comparison to the new covenant law of the spirit that replaced it (whose glory does not fade) it had no glory by comparison.

As an aside, it is established here that God refers to the ten commandments specifically with God’s covenant with Israel. The significance? The narrative found in Galatians 4:21-5:1 where those of the old covenant are contrasted with those of the new covenant. Which covenant are you following? The old one that contains the requirement to keep the sabbath, or the new covenant, spirit of the law that does not contain the old covenant letter of the law, such as the sabbath?

Is this all however the stated purpose of the law? Not entirely.

Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. 27For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death? 28Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. 29For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands. — Deuteronomy 31:26-29

One might be tempted to claim this was the book of the law, and not the old covenant, but the book of the law is where our Bibles originated in relation to the first 5 books of the Bible, and this book of the law tells us about the ten commandments. It is this book of the law that was ratified and sprinkled with blood. This book of the law is the totality of the old covenant, of which the ten commandments are core.

This then reveals a purpose of the law as being a witness against the Israelites. They were, by nature, rebellious and stiff-necked. Elsewhere they are described as being faithless. They did not have the heart to follow God, even after the grand display where God spoke the ten commandments and the people heard God. This law exposed their collective hearts. This law prevented their denial in regards to their hearts. Yet they denied their hearts anyway, blinding themselves to the fact that they did not keep this law, all the while believing they were keeping the law! Psalms 44 demonstrates this denial.

In God we boast all the day long, and praise thy name for ever. Selah. But thou hast cast off, and put us to shame; and goest not forth with our armies. Thou makest us to turn back from the enemy: and they which hate us spoil for themselves. Thou hast given us like sheep appointed for meat; and hast scattered us among the heathen. Thou sellest thy people for nought, and dost not increase thy wealth by their price. Thou makest us a reproach to our neighbours, a scorn and a derision to them that are round about us. Thou makest us a byword among the heathen, a shaking of the head among the people. My confusion is continually before me, and the shame of my face hath covered me, For the voice of him that reproacheth and blasphemeth; by reason of the enemy and avenger. All this is come upon us; yet have we not forgotten thee, neither have we dealt falsely in thy covenant. Our heart is not turned back, neither have our steps declined from thy way; Though thou hast sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the shadow of death. If we have forgotten the name of our God, or stretched out our hands to a strange god; Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart. Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter. Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever. Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and forgettest our affliction and our oppression? For our soul is bowed down to the dust: our belly cleaveth unto the earth. Arise for our help, and redeem us for thy mercies' sake. — Psalms 44:8-26

Do we see this sort of behavior with those who insist on keeping this law today? If you are one who has had your epiphany in this regard, you see this to be true. If you have not, and are one who continues to believe in keeping that law, and the sign of that covenant law, the sabbath, you do not see this truth. You think you are keeping the law when in fact you are not even close.

How often did we see people in the COG’s contract cancer or some other fatal disease, and refuse medical treatment, believing God was going to heal them, only to die as a result of their disease? How many other things based in that law were seen as being related to faith, only to see the “faithful” not be in receipt of the blessings that were promised in that covenant? Did the people conclude that there was something wrong in keeping that law, or did they conclude the problem lay with their faith? Why would Paul say the law was not of faith (Galatians 3:12), and that the law was for the wicked, and not the righteous (I Tim 1:9-10)?

It was never the function of the law to prove anyone righteous. The function of the law was to expose sin and bring men under sin.

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. – Romans 3:19

So another purpose and function of the law was to bring all under sin and stand guilty before God and be without excuse.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. – Romans 7:7

The law also served the purpose of teaching the people a knowledge of good and evil.

Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. – Romans 7:13

The law served the purpose of making sin exceeding or utterly sinful. The law provided the understanding of just how serious sin was in the sight of God.

Wherefore then serveth the law? [ what was its purpose?] It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. – Galatians 3:19-25

What did Paul write here? The law had a purpose, and this purpose we found elsewhere. The primary purpose was to bring all under sin. Those under the law were kept under the law until this faith that was to be revealed. The law was to be a guide until, and not after, one was “mature” (having God’s Spirit).

Why would being under the law result in the people believing and receive this promise by faith? Because the law results in condemnation that creates despair. It is the realization that one cannot measure up to this standard set by God. The law was to lead those under the law to Christ and justification through faith and not law. There is no justification through law, for no one is like God is God. It is emphatically understood that no one, ever, will be like God is God. Satan thought he could be like the God Most High. This lesson will be learned, and until some learn this lesson, they will continue to be led to believe they have to keep that law. If you insist on banging your head against a wall, sooner or later you will come to the conclusion, “this hurts!”

Those who believe they have to keep the law invariably chop up the law, keeping some while dismissing others based upon arbitrary divisions of that law, overlooking the fact that the entire corpus of law makes up that old covenant to which James declared that to break even one point in that “whole” law was to be guilty of the entirety of that covenant law. The Scriptures do not support these artificial divisions, commonly referred to as “moral” versus “ceremonial” laws, but the apostle Paul does provide a division of sorts regarding that law that is much more applicable.

Paul speaks of that law in relation to the pulls of the flesh; those sins that are based upon behaviours that are self serving and destructive to others; behaviours that are the antithesis of having love for one another.

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. — Galatians 5:16-21

The sabbath does not fit into this “category” covered by Paul in regards to human sinful behaviour, the Adamic nature, any more than circumcision or any other work or deed required by that old covenant law.

Does this Adamic nature ever attempt to deceive itself into thinking itself good? Sure. Have you ever heard the stories that boil down to this concept: He who seeks to destroy the monster becomes the monster? In one’s zeal to do good, all too often evil results. All too often the self; the ego, gets a boost when it thinks it is doing good when the exact opposite results.

Some religious leaders brought a woman before Jesus who was caught in the act of adultery. The law called for the stoning of those caught under those circumstances. They confronted Jesus over this issue by asking him if she should be stoned, according to the law. If he were to anser yes, then they had him advocating an action that was illegal under the Roman occupation. If he said no, then they had him speaking against the law of Moses. What he did was to expose their evil hearts, and they wasted no time in vacating the premises. Like turning on the lights in a room full of roaches, they scattered away from that light.

Just as important as knowing the function of the law is to understand what is not the function of that law. It was not the function of that law to prove one righteous. One could comply with points of law despite having a heart of stone; a stiff-necked and rebellious spirit.

To the religious leaders of Jesus’ time, the law had become a cloak to cover their evil hearts. Their devotion to the minutia of law was a smokescreen that served to deceive others as well as themselves in regards to their stony hearts.

The purpose of the law was to condemn people, bringing them under the power of sin and death.

The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. – 1 Corinthians 15:56

One of the most common reasons people give for “keeping” the law is so that they do not sin. To their understanding, grace does not give one license to sin, and they define sin as being the transgression of that old covenant law, citing I John 3:4. Only the Authorized (KJV) translation contains this construct unsupported by the Greek. It needs to be understood that the translation and translators within the Church of England were heavily influenced by the Puritans within the church who had a very legalistic view of Scripture, and this translation was to reflect their theological outlook. These are the same ones who translated the Greek word pasha (passover) into Easter. It seems strange to me that people would accept the one interpretation because it agrees with them, and reject the other because it does not agree with them. There is no true scholarship involved. It is purely by whim.

I’ve now covered the purpose or function of the law and touched on what is not the function of the law. Another area that needs to be studied carefully are the results of keeping or living by that law. Just as important as understanding the function of something like a kidney, we need to understand the end results in relation to the whole organism. A kidney filters the blood and removes impurities or waste products. The result is a healthier body where toxins do not build up with disastrous results.

The results of living by that law is to be placed under the death sentence of sin. The “fruit” of that law was death, and not life:

And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. – Romans 7:10

The law is represented by that tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whose fruit was death, yet appealed as something to make one wise, and there is a wisdom to be gained by and through that law; a wisdom developed through experience, seeing the fruits of living by the flesh. We can either learn through the experiences of others, or lean “the hard way” by experiencing things ourselves. We have Israel’s experience to learn from, if we are willing to do so.

What is the end result in regards to those who insist on keeping that law? Paul answers this question in II Corinthians chapter 3. A veil results that covers the eyes of the individual, blinding them from seeing the true Christ. Verses 14 and 15 relate this blindness is in relation to the mind and heart in regards to those who remain in the old testament/covenant. The irony here is that those who insist on keeping that law do not even perceive this veil to be in relation to them, despite the plain language here.

Verse 16 relates that once one turns to Christ, the veil is removed. The issue here is that those who believe they have to keep the law have turned to the law, and not Christ. Christ and the law are different entities and not the same. One does not turn to Christ by turning to the law. The function of the law is to bring people under sin; condemn people, showing them to be sinners. The function of Christ is to save people through His Perfect Sacrifice. Christ and the law are at odds with each other in this regard. Christ came to save men from sin, from death, and from that law!

That law is defined even by Paul as being holy, righteous, and good. It brutally and efficiently exposes the one under the law as being sinful, and worthy of condemnation, and rightly so.

Jesus warned his listeners that there would come false representatives teaching falsehoods that would be so convincing that, if it were possible, even the elect would believe them.

It is documented in Scriptures though that Paul had the most trouble with those of the circumcision. They were going into areas after Paul, and telling the Gentile Christians what? That they had to be circumcised and keep the law. HWA and others came along and also said we had to keep the law; the only difference being, he and others took circumcision out of the equation. The end result is the same; people keeping the old covenant law; a covenant they were never a party to, and a law you could not keep unless and until you underwent circumcision. They bring people back under the law, and as a result, under the condemnation of that law. And let’s not forget they were sure to warn their followers to ignore anyone that would dare tell them otherwise, especially those that would leave their fellowship! That pretty well eliminates all possibilities of a person ever discovering they are living a lie, and feeding a wolf.

Paul further defines the law as being for those who are evil; the unrighteous in I Timothy 1:9-10:

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; . . .

Are Christians righteous? If so, then that law was not made for them.

Romans 5:19

2 Timothy 4:8

1 Peter 3:12

Romans 4:13

Romans 9:30

Galatians 5:5

Philippians 3:9

Hebrews 11:7




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

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

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

Monday, August 3, 2009

All Systems Are 'Go'!

I have just gone through the booklet "1975 In Prophecy" and here I have some things to say about that. Since this booklet was brought up on another blog, and quickly dismissed by ardent admirers, I thought it best to review it again. Here are my thoughts on what I have found.

Please come with me as I would like to take you on a tour. We will start with a few select quotes from "1975 In Prophecy". Our next stop will be Herbert Armstrong's redaction letter after the hype about 1972 failed to materialize. Finally, we will travel back to 1953 (and even as far back as 1934) in order to see how 1972 became a target date in the first place, and hopefully we will get a good look into whether or not HWA, the "Elijah", was acting like a prophet (even though he emphatically states he was not a prophet). As a free bonus for participating, we will get what I feel is an interesting glance into the workings of Ronald Weinland.

Let's get started with some choice quotes from "1975 In Prophecy" to set the mood.

ABIANCE 
"While modern science and industry strive to prepare for us a push-button leisure-luxury-world by 1975, United States Assistant Weather Chirf I. R. Tannahill warns us unofficially to really fear 'the big drought of 1975.' But indications of prophecy are that this drought will be even more devastating than he foresees, and that it will strike sooner than 1975 – probably between 1965 and 1972."
-Herbert Armstrong, "1975 In Prophecy", 1956, p. 10 (bolding mine)
"And, knowing that such an unbelievable catastrophe is soon to strike, I HAVE TO WARN YOU!! You can read what God says to me in Ezekiel 33: 1-6. THINK OF IT! Unbelievable? Preposterous? No, IT’S REAL — very soon, — of this present generation – of all people you know now – ONLY ONE THIRD of them will be left alive!"
-Herbert Armstrong, "1975 In Prophecy", 1956, p. 20 (bolding mine)
"Yes, millions of lukewarm inactive professing Christians will suffer MARTYRDOM – and that before the anticipated push-button leisure-year of 1975 dawns upon us! You’ll read of this martyrdom – the Great Tribulation – in ..." [some verses cited]
-Herbert Armstrong, "1975 In Prophecy", 1956, p. 20 (bolding mine)
"At that mighty moment of earth’s history, hundreds of thousands will remember the TRUE MESSAGE FROM GOD that they had heard going out freely to the world at THIS time, on The WORLD TOMORROW program."
-Herbert Armstrong, "1975 In Prophecy", 1956, p. 24 (bolding mine)
"A fraction of today's population will survive."
-Herbert Armstrong, "1975 In Prophecy", 1956, p. 28
"Your immediate future is of your own choosing. ... you have now read YOUR FATE - and I say to you on authority of God Almighty that it is absolutely SURE!"
-Herbert Armstrong, "1975 In Prophecy", 1956, p. 31 (bolding mine)

Is it not obvious in these quotes that Herbert Armstrong is passing his message off as authoritative from God? Phrases like "absolutely SURE!" and "REAL" truth given "on authority of God Almighty" are not ambiguous phrases. These do not indicate speculation nor opinion.
I point this out because of the many times I have heard people claim that Herbert Armstrong did not prophesy rather he only predicted. Is this so? Nay nay, my friends. It is not so. These phrases put the lie to that claim.
This clearly was intended to convey the unmistakable notion that the claims of the booklet originated at the very throne of none other than God Almighty Himself, that they delivered in trust to Herbert Armstrong personally, and that they were transmitted in authority to the reader to be heeded with utmost urgency and sincerity. This is the very definition of prophecy in the Biblical sense! And if you want more evidence, simply ask anyone who was of age in the late 1960's and early 1970's what their reaction to this booklet was. They were told it was solid prophecy, they took it as solid prophecy, and they reacted in their lives as if it was solid prophecy.

But 1972-75 was doomed to come and go. Just like William Miller's Great Disappointment. Just like the Watchtower Society's many predicted dates. Just like Ronald Weinland's first timeline ...and soon, his second timeline.
Were they of God, then?

THE REDACTION LETTER

We now come to our next stop on the tour - a follow-up from Herbert Armstrong concerning what did and did not happen in 1972 from Herbert W. Armstrong, Tomorrows World, February 1972.

When the "absolutely SURE!" and "REAL" truth given "on authority of God Almighty" failed to materialize on January 7, 1972 (January 7 is key and we'll see why before the end of this article), a hasty retreat from the claims he had been making for almost 20 years. The initial redaction came in the form of an article in the Tomorrow's World magazine. This was a less-popular magazine produced by the Church and read mainly by practicing members of the church. The retreat would thus be public, but far less public and embarrassing than if it were placed in the flagship publication, the Plain Truth Magazine.

I must warn you, this redaction is one of the best examples of how NOT to apologize or back peddle for bungling your prophecies.

Herbert Armstrong is staunchly defended ever and anon regardless of what he has done. Regardless which gospel he preached. Regardless how many Biblical laws he "changed out of necessity". The claim that he was not a prophet was planted by Armstrong himself. And it's that very claim that motivates me to write this post.
(All of the following quotes were taken from Herbert Armstrong's aforementioned redaction.)

------
"Now a word about what my Commission is NOT. It is NOT to become an infallible expert on, or to preach, chronology."
-HWA
"But we are only human, and it is natural that we should have been curious to know, as far as possible, how much time we had to GET THE JOB DONE"
-HWA
To be curious is fine, to want to know is fine, to speculate is fine. But to make "SURE!" claims "on authority of God Almighty", well, that's another thing entirely!
"Let me say here in regard to this booklet, the title date, "1975" had NOTHING to do with any prophecy, or fulfillment of any prophesied event whatsoever. It was a date set by certain scientific and technological sources, for accomplishing certain materialistic objectives."
-HWA
If it has nothing to do with prophecy, WHY name it "...In Prophecy"? If it had nothing to do with 1975, WHY name it "1975"? Why not name it "What Do You Mean, Push-Button Leisure-Year?" Or perhaps "Push-Button Leisure-Year Or Not Push-Button Leisure-Year, Which?"
Of course it had to do with prophecy. When "1975 In Prophecy" was first written, many things were "...In Prophecy". They had several articles in the Plain Truth with that title; eg. "Suez Crisis In Prophecy", "Kingdom of Jordan In Prophecy", "Germany In Pophecy", "The Latins In Prophecy", etc. Each and every one of them had to do with prophecy. "1975" is just another in that long line. To claim it didn't have to do with prophecy is just not honest.

Even so, Armstrong is technically correct on one point. 1975 was never an important date. 1972 was! Never-the-less I believe he is being disingenuous. The book never set 1975 as a firm date.. rather it said "before the anticipated push-button leisure-year of 1975 dawns upon us". In the next quote, he actually sticks to that claim!
"I did not set that 1975 date -- spokesmen for science and industry did. I still say it will occur BEFORE their dream-world materializes!"
-HWA
That claim was being made as far back as 1955:
"...prophecy proves it [great drought that topples the United States] will happen - before 1975! Here are the FACTS." 
-Herman Hoeh, "Plain Truth Magazine", January 1955, p.1
It wasn't 1975 that mattered. 1972 was the date that mattered. I will show you why in a bit.

In the light of how it was worded, and how we know HWA dogmatically stated things that weren't accurate, can I believe his statement? I have a hard time giving him the benefit of the doubt. The book was worded in such a way as to get the reader to believe the end was NOW. The Plain Truth magazine had been worded in such a way, for over two decades prior, that the end was NOW. It feels deceptive.
There is no prophecy that ties the end with push-button dream-worlds. So it's still inaccurate at best.
"Scientists set dates for the times they HOPE to accomplish certain breakthroughs. But does anyone discredit THEM, if they set the wrong date? Of course not!"
-HWA
The difference is that Scientists do not preach the "absolutely SURE!" and "TRUE MESSAGE FROM GOD" on the "authority of God Almighty"!! I can't get Deuteronomy 18 out of my mind.
And now he really starts to back peddle.
"I said 'indications are' and 'probably.'"
-HWA
Sure did. This is a fact. But it's only HALF of the facts. The other half is that he also said "absolutely SURE!", and "TRUE MESSAGE FROM GOD", and on the "authority of God Almighty"!!
"WHERE ARE God’s true prophets today? In this age of world chaos and sudden death, you had better rid your mind of preconceived ideas and prejudice and honestly seek to find out! Listen! This work has been warning America of definite and tremendous events to come for many years! ...
They use the words “may," “could,” or “might.” They are afraid to be definite and specific! The truth of the matter is that they DARE NOT be specific about the future because they just DO NOT KNOW what the Bible says is going to happen! But on “The World Tomorrow” broadcast and in this magazine we have dared to unlock the Bible prophecies and apply them to specific nations and events that are NOW being affected. Do you grasp the SIGNIFICANCE of this?
"
-Rod Merideth, "Plain Truth", August 1957, p.3 (emphasis mine)
Rod Meredith used the word P-R-O-P-H-E-T-S!
"Yet, in our human zeal and enthusiasm for getting this greatest mission on earth done, we have a few times come close to it or appeared to -- and that we deeply regret."
-HWA
Ahh! This is all just a huge misunderstanding on the reader's part.
"If YOU would rather hear God’s Truth in place of the soothing cries of 'Peace, Peace' (Jer. 6: 14), write in immediately for Mr. Armstrong’s AMAZING booklet, '1975 in Prophecy!' This startling booklet is profusely illustrated with pictures - actually showing you a step-by-step account of what God says IS GOING TO HAPPEN within the next 10, 15 to 25 years!"
-Garner Ted Armstrong, Plain Truth Sept. 1956, p. 14 (underline and bold mine)
So, when Garner Ted Armstrong says that "1975 In Prophecy" contains what, "God says ... IS GOING TO HAPPEN ... within the next 10, 15, to 25 years", we misunderstand if we take that to mean that God said it, that it is going to happen or that a date was set. Oops!
"Scores and scores of times we have said, 'We do not set dates.' Yet, in our zeal, we have used 'possiblies' and 'probablies' [note: the version on Ron Weinland's website has this transcribed incorrectly] and even appeared to set dates we really didn't intend to set."
-HWA 
"we did, a few times, go further than we should with it -- though basically, we continued, time and again, to say 'we do not set dates.' But some statements gave the IMPRESSION that we did set the date, January 7, 1972. It is difficult to control sincere, dedicated enthusiastic ZEAL; and we were human!"
-HWA (bolding mine)
There it is, the 1972 date. We will see why that was important, just hold on a bit longer.

Appears so, except that "absolutely SURE!" and "TRUE MESSAGE FROM GOD" and "on authority of God Almighty" were also said, along with "very soon, — of this present generation – of all people you know now".
Wait a minute! Stop the presses. He doesn't set dates? That's not what he said before!
"WE CAN understand it [prophecy - specifically Revelation], because JESUS CHRIST is the Revelator! HE is the interpreter! And we have found HIS interpretation, which is TRUE! Yes, we CAN know where world affairs today are LEADING. We CAN know what’s GOING to happen during the next 5, 10, and 20 years!"
-Herbert Armstrong, "Plain Truth", Jan. 1955, p.3
He said we CAN know what was GOING to happen, in 5 (1960), 10 (1965), and 20 (1975) years. 1975, you say? Never heard of it.

Please allow me to remind you that the supposed "MASTER KEY" to their entire prophetic understanding is that they received their interpretations from no other source besides Jesus Christ.
"But we’ve seen that the one MASTER-KEY to this tremendous prophecy is the fact that JESUS CHRIST IS THE SOLE REVELATOR - the SOLE INTERPRETER!"
-Plain Truth Nov-Dec. 1954, p.3
"We were very plainly told that NO MAN can understand, or REVEAL the meaning of this prophecy. .. But NO MAN can interpret this Book of Revelation. JESUS CHRIST is the Revelator. The Apostle John was not the Revelator. No modern religious leader is the revelator. This is the Revelation of JESUS CHRIST, and we must accept HIS revelation - HIS interpretaticn - or fail to understand! THAT’S the master key of this mysterious PROPHECY."
-ibid., p.4
Herbert Armstrong had many "keys" to unlocking prophecy, but this is the greatest of them all. His point in all of this is to indirectly claim that his prophetic teaching came to him from none other than Jesus.
In 1954-1955, we CAN know what was GOING to happen in the next 5, 10, 20 years because Armstrong received it from Jesus. But when he retells the story in 1972, not so much.

So, let me get this straight.. regardless of what he said, what he MEANT to say all along was, "You can read things that God said to me in Ezekiel that probably, possibly, might be absolutely SURE! on the authority of God Almighty, I think"?

Here is another example of that very same thing.
"But, after the astounding fact of discovering our first broadcast into Europe and Britain had been 19 years -- TO THE VERY DAY by both Hebrew and Roman calendars -- we gained further insight into the probable time it would require to reach all nations."
-HWA
It doesn't matter what calendar you use, 19 years is 19 years. I can measure 19 years from date A to date B by all possible calendars and it will still be 19 years.
Let me deconstruct that quote for you: "Prophetically fulfilling a 19-year time cycle, to the VERY DAY, we gained (from God we assume) further insight into what could probably maybe might possibly be absolutely SURE! to happen on the authority of God Almighty... but might not.'
When I exaggerate it like that, I hope you can see the flaws in it.

I'm not trying to be cheeky, but Herbert Armstrong sounds just like Pinocchio from the movie "Shrek the Third": "I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that I undeniably do or do not know where he shouldn't probably be. If that indeed wasn't where he isn't!"

And concerning the myriad of 'three to four years', 'five to ten years', 'within the next 20 years', and so on, HWA says this:
"You will notice that, even here, we were not setting a definite YEAR, but expressing a general period in different ways."
-HWA
What?? HWA missed his calling as a politician! Maybe it wasn't a definite year, but it was none the less a definite period of time! With a definite beginning and a definite end. Whether or not it was a definite single year is meaningless!
When HWA says "SURE!", he means this:
"'The events prophesied to strike the American and British peoples in the next four to seven years are SURE!' By this we meant the EVENTS are SURE -- not the 'four to seven years.'"
-HWA
If the date range has nothing to do with anything at whatsoever, like the title of the booklet, WHY include it at all??
OK. I've had about all I can endure of that. I think I've made my point.

------

I HIGHLY recommend you read that entire redaction for yourself. There are simply so very many points that need to be mentioned, but I could not possibly get to them all. (If you don't, you'll never know why I named this post "All Systems Are 'Go'!")

After the redaction set the official talking points for the retreat, the cover-up began. The church members in general were ordered - not suggested, but strictly ordered - to burn all material relating to 1975 In Prophecy. People entering the church from this time would have no idea the fiasco even took place. I personally never heard a word of the incident until well into the 1990's.

Let's move this tour onward. I would like to go through a few places in the WCG history and demonstrate the slipperiness of this 'I didn't mean 1975 in prophecy when I said 1975 in prophecy' game. Let's lift the tail, so to speak, and get a clear look at this "I said 'maybe" nonsense. You will recall that 1975 is not the important date at all. January 7, 1972 is! Let's go all the way back to where 1972 came from and we'll get a good look at quite a few things. Just bear with me, some of this may even be moderately interesting.
And moving forward you will be introduced to the co-author of this mess, the official church historian and most accurately informed man in the world, Mr. Herman Hoeh.

HOW DID WE GET 1972 & 1975?

Now we come to the next stop on our tour, where we try to figure out how we got the dates 1972 and 1975 in the first place. Was it all the fault of those pesky scientists, or was someone else to blame?

Most of the material for 1975 In Prophecy was written in the early 1950's. Much of it was quoted verbatim from articles in the Plain Truth magazine. They just took whole chunks from the Plain Truth and made a booklet from it.

In the Plain Truth magazine, June 1953, (the article starts on p.5), Herman Hoeh starts the 1972 ball rolling with this statement, "probably ... about 1972" (p.13). There's that word, "probably" again. But he only does that one time. Of course, this would be the time Herbert Armstrong selected as an example of his innocence. 

Let's look a few pages further.
"So Babylon fell in October 539 B.C., and 2520 years later is October 1982"
-Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth, June 1953, p.13
No "probably" there. But 1982, that's odd. Another new date. And it's VERY specific! Even gives you the definite reasoning why it was chosen.

You see, 1982 is part of what Herbert Armstrong called "the Times of the Gentiles". Don't worry if you don't fully understand what these "Times" are right now. HWA will define them for us below.

I would like to note that if you've spent any time studying HWA's prophecies, you've noticed that he goes through periods where his prophetic focus has a theme to it. At first, it was the "Third Angel's Message". This theme was a carryover from his days as a minister of the COG7, but it fell by the wayside early. It soon became the "Times of the Gentiles". That lasted a while until it also fell by the wayside. Later we had other themes. This is just how it went.

Back to the magazine.
We get an earful of what will happen between now (1953) and then (1982), which includes "famine, tribulation, and captivity", and how that punishment must end... which is where we find this little gem:
"at least ten years just prior to the ending of the times of the Gentiles", therefore, "that would mean that these events would probably begin about 1972".
-Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth, June 1953, p.13
So, that is what 1982 is about!
Even though the Times of the Gentiles were to reach their absolute completion in 1982, a 10-year buffer was given for events to begin a build-up to their 1982 crescendo. The starting date was 1972, you say??? I'm intrigued! If we add a 3 1/2 year Tribulation to 1972, we get ... 1975!

But that's me putting words into Hoeh's mouth. HWA already made it clear that scientists chose 1975. Let's allow Herman to explain what he means:
"This is a very significant date - 1972. It is only 19 years from 1953 ... If you read the February issue of the 'Good News' you will recall that Mr. Armstrong wrote that January of this year, 1953, marked the completion of the first 19 year time cycle which began in January 1934 ... It seems God is allowing us another 19-year cycle to COMPLETE THE CARRYING OF HIS GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM ... Are you paying your tithe to God for the furtherance of His work?"
-Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth, June 1953, p.13
So, 1972, 1975, and 1982 are linked, as are other dates like 1953 and 1934. And in this we get a peek behind the curtain to see it's not so honest to claim scientists chose 1975. 1975 was chosen because of 1972, and 1972 is important because of 1953, and 1953 is important because of 1934.

You may wisely ask, what event marks January 1934 as the beginning for this crazy timeline? Herman tells us!
"...the first 19 year time cycle which began in January 1934 when the 'World Tomorrow' broadcast first went on the air..."
-Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth, June 1953, p.13
1934 is the start of periods called "19-year time cycles". The start was January 1934, when the 'World Tomorrow' program went out over the radio waves. Add 19 years to 1934 and you get 1953. Add 19 more years and you get 1972.

Here's a quick rundown so you don't get lost:
1982 = the end of the "Times of the Gentiles".
1975 = the end of the Great Tribulation.
1972 = the end of the second "19-year time cycle", the start of a ten-year buildup to 1982, and the start of the Great Tribulation. Of all these dates, this is the most important one.
1953 = the start of the second "19-year time cycle".
1934 = the start of the first "19-year time cycle".

We actually have two balls in the air.
  • The first ball is "Times of the Gentiles", to which the dates 1972, 1975, & 1982 belong. What are the Times of the Gentiles? This is a time-period mentioned by Jesus in Luke 21: 24, during which, "Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." Herbert Armstrong and Herman Hoeh interpreted these times as beginning in ancient history and ending in modern times. Whether they do or not is completely speculative and open to wild interpretation; God knows. Herman Hoeh said these times began in 539BC and end in 1982 AD.
  • The second ball is "19-year time cycles", to which the dates 1934 & 1953 & 1972 belong. What is a 19-year time cycle? It is an interesting feature of lunar calendars (and the Hebrew Calendar was a lunar calendar) that they synchronize with the solar calendar roughly every 19 years. Herbert Armstrong taught that these 19-year cycles were prophetically significant. He would find significance in any way he could. Here, Herman Hoeh finds significance in the fact that Armstrong's radio show first went on the air in January 1934, and the church was still around 19 years later in 1953.
In 1934 the 'World Tomorrow' broadcast first went on the air (kind of). 19 years later, or one "19-year time cycle" later, we get 1953. Since the end did not come by 1953, that can only mean there is one more cycle to go (what else could it mean?). Add one more time cycle and you get ... drum roll ... 1972!
You should know that date by now. 
But the 1982 finish of the "Times of the Gentiles" cannot be forced to end in 1972 cleanly because its starting date depends on ancient history. Hoeh solves that dilemma by inventing a 10-year period (let's call that a "thunders increasing" period); subtracting that from 1982 gets us... 1972! If you had been wondering where that ten year thing came from, it's completely made up. Not a single scrap of Biblical evidence to support it. He just needed desperately to tie 1982 to the important date of 1972 somehow.

Everything was made to tie into 1972. The really important date is 1972. Tack on a 3 1/2 year Great Tribulation and we have 1975!

No, dear reader, the scientists did not choose 1975. Herman Hoeh did.

Setting "Times of the Gentiles" aside for a moment --
We know what Hoeh said about 19-year time cycles. He said a first cycle was from 1934-1953 and a second cycle was from 1953-1972. We must then ask, did Herbert Armstrong mention 19-year time cycles in February 1953, as Hoeh quoted? Yes! His story should match, right? Let's read that:
"This means our United States co-workers will have to dig a little deeper, and sacrifice a little more - because we of America will have to pay all the costs of the broadcasting to other parts of the world. But WHAT A GLORIOUS OPPORTUNITY IT IS!"
-Herbert Armstrong, Good News, Feb. 1953, p. 2
Oops! Wrong quote. *blush* The one I want was one page up.
"Think of it! This most important work on earth now TAKES ITS GREATEST LEAP AHEAD! Do you realize the significance of this tremendous event? Do you know the MEANING of nineteen years? It marks a complete cycle of time - as God's set time in nature. ... Nineteen years ago, the first week in January, (1934), this program went on the air. ... The first week in January, 1953 - after one of God's complete cycles of nature - it starts as an INTERNATIONAL and WORLD-WIDE program ..."
-Herbert Armstrong, Good News, Feb. 1953, p. 2
Did you catch that? The radio program started in January 1934. January 7, to be exact. Add 19 years and you get January 7, 1953. Add 19 more years and you get January 7, 1972.

So HWA did say that. Hoeh did quote him correctly. You were waiting for a twist, weren't you?
Oh, there's a twist! And here it is:

BUT... this radio story is a certifiable, verifiable, demonstrable load of hooey made up after the fact!! 
Why? Because even though in 1953 both Armstrong and Hoeh were singing the same tune about 1934, that's not the story HWA was telling in 1934!! Not only that, but Hoeh's story about the "Times of the Gentiles" does not match Armstrong's.

Let's go back to not push-button not leisure year of 1934.

The "Times of the Gentiles" started, according to Hoeh (writing in 1953) at the destruction of Babylon in 539 B.C., and 2520 years later is 1982 A.D. We've already seen that. But according to Herbert Armstrong (writing in 1934), the time starts when Nebuchadnezzar finished removing Jews from Judea not from the time Babylon fell! And 2520 years later is 1936 A.D., NOT 1982!
The story changed significantly! Let's see that:
"...19 years after the first seige, or 585 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar made his final siege, drove out all the Jews, took complete possession of the land, and the Times of the Gentiles came fully in. And 2520 years later, or 1936 A.D., the Times of the Gentiles will have completely ENDED. As nearly as we can calculate from the dates of ancient history, the year 1936 will see the END of the Times of the Gentiles. Those "Times" have not been completely fulfilled until that year."
-Herbert Armstrong, Plain Truth, June/July 1934, pp.4-5
Later on page 5, HWA refines the time to autumn of 1936 and specifically names September. September 1936, not January 1934!! And the radio program is never mentioned!!

Let's see another, just for effect.
"'The times of the Gentiles' (a prophetic time allotted by God to the Gentile nations, of 2520 years. It began in 604-585 B. C. It began to end in 1917 with the delivery of Jerusalem from the Gentile Turk and will end fully, probably the latter part of NEXT YEAR, 1936.)"
-Herbert Armstrong, Plain Truth, March 1935, p.7
Armstrong mentioned that he went into great detail about the Times of the Gentiles in the March 1934 edition, but I have no copy of that. I do have a partial copy of the January 1938 edition, where HWA makes this phenomenal claim:
"An understanding of the "Times of the Gentiles" is vital and fundamental. It is the frame-work of the whole structure of Bible prophecy. It is a KEY to unlock the doors to understanding. Here is a fascinating subject without which the prophecies concerning the present wars, and the coming war -- in fact all prophecy, cannot be understood."
-Herbert Armstrong, Plain Truth, Jan. 1938, p.1
Didn't he make that same claim about Anglo-Israelism? Yes, he did. Didn't he make that same claim about Jesus being the revelator? Yes, he did. Everything is a vital key. But I digress...

If the correct understanding of Times of the Gentiles and 19-year time cycles is so crucial to understanding the Bible, so KEY, why was the story so irreconcilably different in the 1930s than the story we hear in 1953?

So we get a few little switch-a-roo's here:
1) In 1934, "Times of the Gentiles" meant '2520 years from the deportation of the Jews ending in 1936'. In 1953, "Times of the Gentiles" means '2520 years from the fall of Babylon ending in 1982'.
2) In 1934, the 19-year cycles were from September. In 1953, the time cycles are from January.
3) In 1934, the 19-year time cycles were tied to the "Times of the Gentiles". In 1953, they are tied to some made up story about the radio program.
4) To mesh the dates 1982 and 1972 together, Hoeh invents some 10 year buffer time for the ending of the "Times of the Gentiles" to phase in slowly. (Sorta like Ron Weinland's "Thunders" getting louder.)

And if that's still not hot enough for ya -- no one makes a single mention about these changes at all
The reader in 1953 would be utterly oblivious to the fact that HWA prophesied something unrecognizably different in the 1930's. Just like many of us who grew up after 1975 had no idea there ever was a "1975 In Prophecy".
Go ahead, read the Plain Truth for March 1935. Read every word. Read it because it was written after this supposed fulfillment of 1934. You will not see the beginning of the World Tomorrow radio broadcast mentioned as a fulfillment of 1934's prophecies. Or 1935's either, for that matter. HWA was still repeating his claims about 1936 as late as 1939 (see the January 1939 edition, p.1)!

To sum up --
We've seen how the first 19-year time cycle bore little resemblance at all to the second one. We've seen how there were prophetic failures in 1936 and 1953 just like there was in 1975. We've seen how the failures were buried. We've seen how the story changes drastically over the years. We've seen how there are many specific dates mentioned. We've seen how all of these dates are entirely based on prophecy, and none of them come from scientists. And we've seen why the not at all specific date of January 7, 1972 was important to this whole mess.
Why did this redaction letter get issued in February 1972, at the first possible opportunity after January 7, 1972? Because that's the not at all specific date on which their prophecies had failed, and they knew it!

It wasn't the scientists, my friends. It was certified bovine scatology.

1975 IN COMPETITION

As a related side-note, I find it quite interesting that the Jehovah's Witnesses also thought the end of the world would come in 1975. Coincidence? I think not.

It is very significant because events on their end played out in ways identical to WCG experience. People were hurt, leaders played word games. I recommend you view this website and especially view the video there for a chilling insight into what terrible deception those poor slaves of the Watchtower Society were suffering while Armstrong's churches were also suffering.

THE REDACTION REVISITED

We have seen how 1975 wasn't important, 1972 was. When nothing happened on January 7th, 1972, a redaction letter was issued under the radar as damage control. They gaslit thousands of tithe-paying believers and moved on as if nothing ever happened. 
I want to circle back to that redaction letter and show you another striking similarity between this 1953 event and "1975 In Prophecy"?


When nothing happened in 1953, Herbert Armstrong wrote a couple things to distract from the failure and refocus on future success. Notice these two points:
1) According to HWA, the fulfillment of the 19-year time cycle from 1934-1953 was an increase in radio broadcast power, hailed as "THE MOST POWERFUL AND WIDELY LISTENED TO PROGRAM ON EARTH, OR IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!".
2) After which he mentions Ambassador College and the ordination of the likes of Rod Merideth.

When nothing happened in 1972, Herbert Armstrong wrote a "Personal" redaction letter to distract from the failure and refocus on future success. He mentioned the fulfillment of January 7th, 1972 came in two forms -
1) An ad in the Reader's Digest, hailed as "the MOST POWERFUL DOOR so far opened to us".
2) They signed the financing documents to build the auditorium at the Ambassador College's Pasadena campus.

Did you catch that? In both situations the fulfillment was 1) some great advertising scheme, followed closely by 2) a mention of Ambassador College's Pasadena campus. This bears every fingerprint of a money-making scheme.

As an aside, I doubt the media empire was nearly as popular as claimed. Herbert Armstrong was a salesman by trade, and known to grossly over exaggerate in his claims of success. On June 13, 1974, the Regional Director for the Worldwide Church of God in the Philippines, Mr. Colin Adair, wrote a letter to his superior at the church headquarters in Pasadena, California, Mr. Leslie McCollough. In this letter, Mr. Adair pleads with Mr. McCollough for guidance in handling a potentially embarrassing over exaggeration made by Herbert Armstrong regarding attendance at an event held in Manilla. You can read more in an article on Midnight Ministries website called The Painful Truth About the WCG (see the section titled "More Lies From HWA").

CONCLUSION

We have seen how this claim is false:
"Let me say here in regard to this booklet, the title date, "1975" had NOTHING to do with any prophecy, or fulfillment of any prophesied event whatsoever. It was a date set by certain scientific and technological sources, for accomplishing certain materialistic objectives."
-Herbert Armstrong, Tomorrow's World February 1972
I'll give HWA one thing, he was right that he never set 1975 as a solid date for the return of Christ. This is the identical technicality the Watchtower Society tried to use to escape their own responsibility to fess up. They never said the same things Armstrong never said.
The big date was supposed to be 1972. January 7, 1972, to be as unspecific as possible. That's why the redaction was issued in February 1972 - immediately after the failure.

None of those dates were chosen by science, or science fiction, or scientism, or scientology, or anything besides. It had nothing to do with push-buttons or leisure. These dates were chosen in the early 1950s by Herman Hoeh, the "most accurately informed man in the world", and blessed by Herbert Armstrong, God's apostle on earth. The dates were entirely due to prophecy.

You see, the problem was, it was previous to 1955 when "1975 In Prophecy" was being written. How do you keep tithe payers doped-up on their addiction to prophetic terror, while setting dates far enough in the future to guarantee you an income, AND compete with the Jehovah's Witnesses? Why, that's simple, really! Be vague, set a series of rolling dates (eg. 1936, 1936-1953, 1953-1972, 1975, 1982, and the final date set was 2005). Nothing near, it has to be out a few years, but not too far out or the people won't feel pressured by their own fear to pay you. Then, make innumerable lesser claims of coming disasters. Should anything go awry, you toss out a bone (like an increase in radio power or an ad in Reader's Digest, or perhaps a 50th "truth") and move the goal post! They key is to act like nothing just happened as you gaslight your trauma-bonded, codependent believers.

The whole thing falls apart when people go back and read what you've said in the past. That's why you burn the evidence.

He tried to wriggle out by saying 'as nearly as we can calculate' and 'probably'." Why, HWA himself said, "I said 'indications are' and 'probably.'" But this ignores other statements like the ones we started this post off with. There's a good reason I led with those quotes.



BONUS MATERIAL

This concludes our tour of "1975 In Prophecy". I hope you find value in the information. Now, as promised, a free bonus just for making it this far!


I have transcribed this quote from the You Tube video “Called To Be Free”. A lot of people don't like this video because of who it was made by and the other things it says, but I only reference it because I have not yet found the original, and I ask only that you listen to Herbert Armstrong's own words from his own mouth recorded in that video. Start listening at 5:11 through 5:42, HWA makes very specific prophecy about a famine that ruins the United States. He stakes his very reputation on its accuracy. I place the time of the recording of this quote to around the mid to late 1950’s. Those were the times when the WCG was predicting famine, and predicting things in 20 years to coincide with the end of the third 19-year time cycle in 1972-1975.
In fact, if you don't want to listen to it, I will transcribe what HWA said:
I want to tell you that all this weather disturbance means a terrible famine is coming on the United States that is going to ruin us as a nation inside of less than 20 more years. Alright, I stuck my neck out right there. You just wait 20 more years and see whether I told you the truth. God says, if a man tells you what’s going to happen, wait and see. If it does not happen, he was not speaking the word of God; he was speaking out of his own mind. You watch and see whether these things happen. You’ll see who’s speaking to you, my friends.
-Herbert Armstrong
No if's, and's, or but's. He "stuck his neck out right there." Well, we gave him his 20 years, and 30 additional to boot! Can you see and accept who was speaking to us? Now read Deuteronomy 18: 20-22.
Just to reinforce that this sort of duck and weave has been his pattern since the beginning, I will give you a couple more quotes.
"So this IS the TRIBULATION. We have been IN the Tribulation [note the capitalization of Tribulation, meaning THE 'Great Tribulation' as it was later called] since 1929 in the United States, and since 1928 in Europe."
-Herbert Armstrong, Plain Truth, June/July 1934, p.4
"So we know these terrible signs [in the heavens] are in the very immediate fiture."
"THEN shall the sun and moon be dark and the stars fall --- at or quickly after 1936."
-Herbert Armstrong, Plain Truth, June/July 1934, p.5
"The great and terrible DAY OF THE LORD is upon us! It will follow this world-Depression."
-Herbert Armstrong, Plain Truth, June/July 1934, p.9
Oh, friends and loved intensely by God, sought after by His deepest loving desire, there are so VERY many more examples just like these ones. Take this list of "Herbert W. Armstrong's 209 False Prophecies" for example. Powerful stuff!
Do you recall HWA's quote from earlier?
"Now a word about what my Commission is NOT. It is NOT to become an infallible expert on, or to preach, chronology."
-Herbert Armstrong, "Personal", Tomorrows World, February 1972.
NOT TO PREACH CHRONOLOGY?????? THAT'S THE BETTER PART OF WHAT HE DID FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER!!! That was his bread and butter! He kept it up until his death in 1986. He made "absolutely SURE!" prophetic statements "FROM GOD", "on authority of God Almighty." And then asked for donations.
The idea is to get us good and emotional, and then ask for money. It is exactly the same trick used in commercials. That's why we often see babies, puppies, and skantily clad women. Commercials for charity regularly use images of pitiable children. Marketing experts and Ad-Men like HWA know we are more likely to part with our cash if we are emotional. I've written a blog post on my old blog about this very thing before, if you're interested in reading it. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have all been fleeced!

This pattern displayed by HWA, dear reader, is precisely followed by the false prophet Ron Weinland. And he's been called out on it before. Sadly, his followers take no notice whatsoever.
In the You Tube video, "God's Final Witness", Ron, from his own mouth, makes the following two statements:
And the world will be shocked! And in horror! On the day that the 7th seal is opened. You will lie, you will twist, you will distort, and you will die… speedily.

The 7th seal is opened. Somebody in email will say, ‘Well, nothing happened.’ You know? Well, you know? Did I say anything would happen on the 18th? It’s a spiritual thing. I thought I made that abundantly clear.
-Ronald Weinland
At first it's "the world will be in horror" and "you will die." Then it's "Did I say anything would happen?" and "I thought I made that perfectly clear." Yup. Clear as mud!

Salvations could quite possibly be on the line, here. I am no judge of who will and who will not receive eternal salvation, but don't be deceived, this false prophecy game is abhorred by God (DEU. 18: 20-22).
God bless and keep you all!
I'll leave you with this final quote from the Plain Truth:
"But who today understands what the prophets foretold? Why, only the ministers today whose word comes to pass!-those who are appointed and guided by God to preach the truth! Those whose utterances do not come to pass have not spoken the prophecies truly. We give you here the record of what we have been proclaiming for the past 2 years-a message which no other voices, to our knowledge, have been proclaiming.... But what we have been warning you about is happening!-precisely as we have stated.... This is how you can know that our work is not of men but of God!"
-Rod Merideth, Plain Truth, December 1956, p.3



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

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Plan of God: My Thoughts

This is my understanding of the gist of the plan of God:

It seems to me that Armstongists believe the whole of everything is: obey The Ten or you can't gain the Kingdom. The Ten is the whole of everything.

But here is what I see, seven things:

1. God says "I want children"

2. They can't be created like the angels of whom one third contemplated that which is no love.

3. So we'll expose them to the disease (sin).

4. But that means they can't have eternal life and then We will be without children.

5. But one of Us could pay the debt so that We can have children.

6. Then they'll need to understand the concept of governing themselves, so We'll show them through two juxtaposed covenants;

[The first one will be forced, coming from the the outside - which will change nothing in their hearts, meaning We could wind up with the same situation We had with the fallen angels...

Then We'll follow up with the second, which will demonstrate governing oneself, from the inside, internal - because the governing must come from within them, not from an outside force: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

So by this juxtaposition of the two covenants, and by living exposed to the disease (thus seeing how horrific it is), there will be no chance of what happened with the fallen angels.]

7. And they MUST understand that the ONLY possible way for them to gain eternal life, the only way this plan can work, is by the GIFT from God of the payment of their debt by JESUS.


Without JESUS you CANNOT have eternal life. We must accept that gift. He then, gives us His Spirit, the vaccine, which begins it's work in us. Complete healing comes upon His return when we are changed.


That's my take, anyway. For all I know, it could go back to the angels. Were they part of the plan, or separate from the plan? Any thoughts...?

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

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

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

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Tithing

I’ve written a number of articles on tithing, and one more can’t hurt. I intend to make this one a bit different, tackling the issue from another angle.

I learned a long time ago that in this world, everything boils down to economics.

This article then will make a few connections in the wide world of religion in regards to false prophets and money.

False prophets are given the distinctive by Christ as being wolves in sheep’s clothing, whose main desire is to feed their own belly while devouring the flock, all the while giving the appearance of being sheep-like.

I find it amusing that the ministers of the WCG and splinters like wearing wool suits, but perhaps that observation is merely a coincidence. Graduates of Ambassador that were put into the ministry program were given an allowance for the purpose of acquiring suits suitable for the ministry. The uniform of a minister was this ‘sheep’s clothing.’

Anyone who has had an association with Worldwide or the splinters knows the emphasis that was put on tithing. To not tithe was to rob God. Malachi 3:8 was drawn like a gun and held to the collective heads of the members. In order to justify tithing, several issues had to be overcome, some of which many members were never even aware of. If any subject ever was full of cognitive dissonance, this is the one.

First off, we need to establish the proper biblical definition of just what a tithe is. When it comes to deceptions and deceiving people, invariably words and terms are redefined to suit the purpose of the one “pulling the wool” over the people’s eyes.

The tithe that was commanded in the law was a tenth of the increase of produce and/or livestock, or even products derived from the same. Wine was tithed upon instead of the grapes used to produce the wine for instance. One thing that was never commanded or required was that people tithe on the increase of wages. The land is what produced wealth, and it was that which came from the land and animals that was tithed.

The justification for teaching people to tithe of their wages today is the rationalization that we do not live in a predominantly agrarian society, thus the necessity for this change in the law.

Did you catch that? Armstrong and others changed the law in order to adjust to our modern times.

And yet, it was Armstrong who taught, citing Matthew 5:17-18 that the law remained intact and unalterable down to jots and tittles.

When HWA began preaching to farmers in the Willamette area of Oregon all those years ago, theirs was an agrarian society. Did HWA teach and demand their tithes of the land, or did he teach these farmers to tithe on the money they derived from the sale of their produce and livestock?

Whenever I have pointed out this anomaly to a “dyed in the wool” Armstrongite or SDA member, they simply refuse to see the cognitive dissonance between the two beliefs that cannot both be true at the same time.

What we need to ask ourselves, and answer, is whether any man or any organization has the right to alter any of the word of God and/or its application.

Some Armstrongites, when confronted with a new covenant theology that does not contain the old covenant law respond by claiming God changes not, and Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever as a rationalization for keeping that law. I had someone respond to me the other day that we are not to alter the Holy Scriptures by adding to them or taking away from them. Then they flip flop and take the opposite stance when it comes to altering that same law in order to meet with the “changing times” when it comes to tithing.

Does anyone really then have the right to alter Scripture and the application of Scripture?

I’ll leave that unanswered, but just point out that I don’t want to be the one who stands before Christ being asked that question of me.

When Paul made his case for support in regards to preaching the gospel, he pointed out that Christ had ordained that those who preached had a right to support as a result of preaching the gospel. He also did not use tithing as a justification. Rather, he used the example of not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain. After stating this, he then went on to say he did not always avail himself of this right in order to be more effective in preaching the gospel.

This begs the question regarding false ministers; the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Would they preach for free, working at other times for their sustenance like Paul did, or would they teach people to tithe to them out of their wages, thus altering the Scriptures way beyond jots and tittles to their own benefit?

One last observation. The narrative of Peter going to the temple one day in order to pray there with John, and a lame man hoped Peter would give alms to him:

Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms. And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. — Acts 3:1-6

The pillars of the church had no money to give to him. How odd, don’t you think, that if what Armstrong taught and claimed was true in regards to tithing, they should have been rolling in dough!



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

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

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

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Error and Condemnation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul says,

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

But Paul also says,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's read this again from the Message Bible:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Acts 17:11

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