Rainbows and Earthworms, or Making Sense of God's Nature

When it comes to Protestant doctrines the COGs despise, the Trinity has to be in the top five. And the belief that the Holy Spirit is a person - not the power of God - goes hand in hand with it. I always accepted both as false because it was what I was taught as long as I can remember. But I never understood the deep loathing many (mostly Ambassador College grads) felt for them. Something about how the Trinity had pagan roots (didn't everything?) and how it was a closed system that didn't allow for more members in the God family. Sounded plausible, I guess.

Over the past year, I've wrestled to understand beliefs about the Trinity and the Holy Spirit. While my COG upbringing created a barrier, it's not like I had any personal antipathy toward them. I just didn't get it. I've read the Bible and I've read theology textbooks. One of my best, sweetest friends even tried to explain it by showing me a pamphlet with a picture of a triangle. Right. That cleared things up in a jiffy.

It only took twelve months to penetrate my thick skull, but I am starting to see that what maybe Protestants have been telling me - that the Trinity can't be explained by human logic - isn't so crazy. I still haven't found any secret diagram, and I'm done trying to put God in a box. Frankly, it's silly to insist that humans can fully understand everything about God's nature and how He works.

This probably sounds like a cop out to you, because it always did to me. I remember having a conversation with a Protestant pastor whom God brought into my circle of friends last year. The son of Irish missionaries, this man studied at one of the most prestigious seminaries in the United States. He is bilingual and has served God in countries I've never heard of. He is wise beyond his years. But when I asked him to explain the Trinity to me logically, he told me it was not possible.

"How can man fully understand God?" he asked me. "It would be like explaining a rainbow to an earthworm. Even if he could see it, would it ever make sense to him?".

Mildly irritated, I wondered why on earth I was listening to this "man of God" who couldn't even explain his belief about His Creator's nature. But as I mulled over the conversation later, I realized maybe he wasn't just being poetic. Several scriptures describe man as a worm in comparison to God. In Job 25:6, Job opines that man is nothing more than a maggot before God. David similarly describes himself in Psalm 22:6. Even God uses this comparison in Isaiah 41:14.

Once I was done being annoyed, the humility of his answer struck me. He wasn't afraid to say, "I don't know." His answer was unpretentious, unlike many recent responses I'd gotten from COG ministers, who often made something up or changed the subject in response to my difficult questions. If you're reading this blog, you might have already discovered these are some of the tactics COG ministers use when questioning members approach them. Many COG doctrines come from proof-texted scriptures these ministers use in isolation to discredit certain Protestant doctrines that don't have simple answers. In the COGs, we are used to having a simple explanation for everything, even if the explanation is a dumb one. Come on, you know it's true. Only the things Herbert W. Armstrong said must be taken on faith are allowed to be illogical.

This post isn't intended to prove the Trinity is true, or even to fully examine the nature of the Holy Spirit. If that's what you're looking for, take a look at Primer to the Trinity Doctrine.

I am simply trying to take the mystery out of a couple topics where I know many struggle, even after exiting the COGs.

When Protestants say they believe in the Trinity, they don't mean that they can perfectly explain, label and diagram how God manifests Himself. What they mean is that the Bible tells us there is one God (Deuteronomy 4:35) and never will be any more gods (Isaiah 43:10). That the Father is God, that the Son is God and that the Holy Spirit is God (more on that Holy Spirit thing in a minute). They are simply reading scripture and making the best sense of it that they can, and accepting that explanation on faith. Because, at the end of the day, there is nothing equal to God and nothing to which we can adequately compare Him (Isaiah 40:25).

But the Trinity doesn't make sense, and God has to make sense, one frustrated relative told me. Really? How much that happened in scripture can you explain logically? Please explain to me how God created matter out of nothing. How someone immortal can become mortal. How we exist in Him (ACT. 17: 28) but the universe is not God. If you're still unsure of my point, read Job 38 through 42.

When you boil it down, we already take many things about God on faith. Teachings about the Trinity are no different. We are only uncomfortable with them because we have been taught that they are wrong, and that God's nature must be explainable according to the rules of logic in our tangible, material world. Why is it any more irrational to believe the doctrine of one God in three persons than the COG doctrine that claims to be monotheistic, yet believe two God beings exist and that a whole pantheon more is on the way (a belief that is problematic in light of Isaiah 43:10).

But the word "Trinity" isn't found in the Bible! Well, neither is the word "Bible!" The words "reproduction analogy" or "God in embryo" aren't in there, either, but HWA didn't have qualms about fleshing out a teaching he felt scripture supported. HWA did the same thing Trinitarian theologians do - piece together scripture in efforts to get a clearer picture of a concept they believe is portrayed in the Bible.

Hold on, you say, doesn't the Trinity have its roots in pagan religion? It was only recently that I realized a very important voice was noticeably absent from the COG's anti-trinity teachings - that of Alexander Hislop. Hislop was a nineteenth-century Scottish Presbyterian minister who wrote extensively about what he believed were pagan worship practices carried forward into Catholicism and Protestant Christianity. Hislop's theories have been widely discredited, but the COGs still quote him extensively as a source on all things pagan (UCG considers his book The Two Babylons "a definitive work on pagan customs that survive in today's religious practices," according to a recent article, "Christians Who Don't Celebrate Easter - What Do They Know?").

So Hislop is their trusted expert, except when it comes to the Trinity. In The Two Babylons, Hislop posited that the three-in-one tradition consistently appeared in pagan religions because it was a true concept deeply ingrained in mankind from the time of creation.

"While overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a Trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world, proving how deep-rooted in the human race was the primeval doctrine on this subject, which comes out so distinctly in Genesis,"
-Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, p. 17

If the COGs revere Hislop as their authority on paganism, you'd think his belief that the Trinity isn't pagan would carry more weight with them. Instead, the COGs try to pin the origins of the Trinity on the Greeks, primarily Plato, and find a way to tie church fathers who promoted the Trinity to Greek philosophy, geography or religion. Remember Zeus and all his crazy kids? Yikes! Nothing that comes out Greece can be good.

Unless HWA gives it his stamp of approval, like he did with tabula rasa, the Greek philosopher Aristotle's theory that humans enter the world neutral as babies. HWA endorsed Aristotle's idea and wrote about it in his book, The Incredible Human Potential (Chapter 11). This theory is unbiblical, has implications for salvation, and is easily disproven by scripture (like Jeremiah 17:9, Psalm 51:6, Job 14:4 and Psalm 58:3, for starters), even according to some COG ministers, but UCG and other groups still embrace this idea in their literature today.

I hope you are starting to notice a pattern. To the GOG's, Hislop is the definitive authority on paganism in modern Christianity, except when he disagrees with HWA. On that point, Hislop was deceived. Greek philosophy is rooted in paganism and not to be trusted. Except where it supports HWA's conclusions. Then it provides brilliant insight into the human psyche. The Bible is the inerrant word of God, except for where it disagrees with HWA. Then rogue translators inserted their personal beliefs. Jesus was the Son of God, the great I AM, all knowing - except where His description of the Holy Spirit disagrees with what HWA taught. When Jesus describes the Holy Spirit in terms of personhood - as a Comforter who will guide and teach believers (John 14:6), it is biased translators speaking. When Jesus uses parallel structure to put the Holy Spirit on par with Himself and the Father (Matthew 28:19), He cannot be taken at His word, and must be redefined until He comes into alignment with HWA. And when Peter tells us that to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God in Acts 5:3-4, HWA tells us this same passage could be used to prove Peter was part of the Trinity.

The truth is, HWA set himself up as the authoritative voice above everything and everyone. We all know he set himself up as the final authority in the Worldwide Church of God. He broke apart families through his divorce and remarriage policy, and then married a divorcee when it suited him. He discouraged medical treatment in the WCG membership, then sought advanced medical treatment himself when his own health hung in the balance. He forbade, then allowed, wearing makeup and celebrating birthdays almost on a whim. So it's appalling, but not surprising, that when HWA disagreed with Jesus Christ and certain passages in the Bible, HWA's belief came out on top. Even today, decades after his death, when HWA's teachings seem inconsistent with scripture, we have all been conditioned to pull out our COG lexicon and put on our COG prescription glasses to see words and explanations that aren't there. HWA often said not to believe him, but to believe our Bibles. Well, it's time we started doing that.

• Acts 13:2 tells us the Holy Spirit spoke to a group of prophets and teachers fasting and worshiping God at Antioch. The Holy Spirit told the group to set Barnabas and Saul aside for a work to which He called them. Can a power speak? The Holy Spirit is also recorded as speaking to Philip in Acts 8:29 and to Peter in Acts 10:19. A prophet named Agabus quotes the Holy Spirit in Acts 21:11.

• Ephesians 4:30 tells us that we can grieve the Holy Spirit, presumably when we exhibit traits like bitterness, anger and malice (and others, according to verse 31). Isaiah 63:10 also indicates humans can grieve the Holy Spirit. Can one grieve a force? Does a power have emotions?

• Romans 8:27 describes the Holy Spirit as making intercession for the saints. This verse is doubly problematic for the spirit-is-a-power viewpoint. Can a power intercede with the Father on our behalf? Also, this verse seems to indicate a distinction between the Father, who hears the intercession, and the Spirit, who makes intercession. This verse makes no sense if the Spirit is simply a power or force.

• In Acts 16:6-7, the Holy Spirit forbade Paul and Silas to preach the gospel in Asia, and did not allow them to go into Bithynia. Aside from creating a science-fiction force field, how does a power accomplish these things? On the flip side of the coin, the Holy Spirit appears to endorse the decisions of the Acts 15 conference in verse 28 of the same chapter. How does a power communicate approval?

• Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10 tell us that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the only sin that will not be forgiven. Can one blaspheme a power or force, or does the word blaspheme refer specifically to an act toward God?

• Many verses would be redundant if the Holy Spirit were simply a power. Consider Acts 10:38, where I've taken the liberty of inserting the words "power of God" for the words "Holy Spirit": "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the power of God and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him." Try the same exercise with Luke 4:14, Romans 15:13 and 1 Corinthians 2:4. They make no sense.

• John 14:26, 15:26 and 16:13-14 all use the masculine pronoun he to refer to the Holy Spirit in the original Greek text. This contradicts HWA's claim that only neuter words appear in the original text (such as pneuma, the Greek word for "spirit") and shows he was mistaken when he insisted the Holy Spirit should always be referred to with the pronoun it.

So why does this matter? Does it really make a difference whether you believe the Holy Spirit is the power of God instead of a person? I could make a case either way. On the one hand, the point of this whole post is that we can't fully understand God. On the flip side, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin. Does calling the Holy Spirit a force if He is a person qualify as blasphemy? I'm not sure.

The bigger issue, as I see it, is the fruit the belief produces in our lives. In the COGs, where we believe the Holy Spirit is a force, we are taught to use the Holy Spirit to change ourselves. Sure, there is some talk of submitting to it or following its promptings, but it usually is described as a power tool for us to wield to blast the sin out of us. You have the power of God within you, at your disposal! Come on, people, get with it! That was the message a large percentage of sermons drove home.

Unfortunately, this approach leaves us vacillating between self-righteousness for all we have accomplished and despair for what we haven't. That's because it puts us in the driver's seat of a process we were never meant to lead. When we combine this view with the COGs' misunderstandings about what it means to be justified and born again, we are set up to fail. Don't get me wrong, we should refrain from sinning as much as we possibly can. It's a noble goal to try to eliminate sin from our lives, but it's also an exercise in futility.

The mainstream Christian view is that the Holy Spirit is a being living inside us, guiding us and changing us from the inside out. The goodness in us is His goodness and not our own. The light in us that we shine is Him. We are responsible to obey, to submit to His prompting and to cooperate with Him, but we are not in the driver's seat. In this view, it's all about Him and what He does within us.
The COG belief about the Holy Spirit teaches us to look to ourselves and rely on our efforts, somehow grabbing hold of the Holy Spirit to amplify those efforts, to make our goodness more like His goodness and our light more like His light. In this view, it's all about us and what we do with Him.
The Protestant belief teaches us to focus on God instead of ourselves, placing our faith in Him completely for both sanctification (removing sin) and salvation, instead of depending partially upon our own efforts. The distinction may seem subtle, but it makes all the difference in the world.

Yes, I know that the earliest church leaders didn't overtly teach the Trinity, and debated about the Holy Spirit. Neither became official church teaching until the 4th century, although the concepts were being discussed much earlier. I don't have a problem with that. It makes total sense that the Church didn't start speculating about these things until long after Jesus' death. Christians were too busy being hunted down and martyred to argue in-depth about abstract theories. I have a hard time picturing brethren having fractious debates about these things while hiding in the catacombs. Once they emerged in relative safety, that is when the deep discussions started, and that is when ideas starting taking off in every direction. As with most things, the motion to definitively settle a matter doesn't arise until there is a true need. The new explosion of incompatible speculation on all sorts of topics, not just the nature of the Holy Spirit, is what created that need.

Most people who have studied sociology have heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. This theory asserts that man can only address higher levels of human need once physiological needs and safety have been addressed. I can see this applying to the early church - different theories on God's nature were discussed, but it was only once Christians were no longer on the run and had their physical needs consistently met that they had time or desire to sit and debate these abstract concepts. Besides, those who cry foul because of the doctrinal time-frame are the ones who accept HWA's claim that God allowed the truth to be suppressed for 1900 years. You would think those same people wouldn't get all bent out of shape over a couple of centuries. The door swings both ways.

I know it feels good to think we have God all figured out. Remember, I was in your shoes for decades. I prefer for things to be logical, easily explained and in their proper spot. I can try to put God in my neat, clearly-marked box, but I'll have to shave off some of His infinite nature to make Him fit. Then I'm no better than Aaron, fashioning my own golden calf, making a form that better meets my needs and preconceived notions.

God is who He is, and He doesn't always make sense. It doesn't make sense that 90-year-old Sarah gave birth to Isaac. It doesn't make sense for God to turn the heart of a prostitute and make her part of our Savior's lineage. Who would suspect that Christianity's greatest persecutor, Saul, would become Christ's greatest missionary, Paul? Most importantly, what rational being would submit Himself to a brutal death to save us while we were still His enemies?

No, God doesn't always make sense. And we should be thankful that He doesn't.

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

Focus and Distractions - Sin

One of my constant endeavors of study is the twofold relationship between proper methods of biblical interpretation and understanding and the methods employed resulting in deceptions and falsehoods. If you want to truly tax your intellectual capabilities, this is a good place to do it. There are so many things influencing people in this regard on so many levels. Trying to compile a list for both categories becomes quite a challenge, especially when it comes to the methods of deception.

The “rules” of proper biblical interpretation are, for the most part, strait forward. The methods used in deceptions and falsehoods can be incredibly subtle and easily glossed over, or given credibility especially when they come across as rational and reasonable.

I have found very little available out there in the cyber-world on the proper methods of biblical interpretation. The common catch-word here is hermeneutics, which has a fairly broad interpretation, which I find lacking when it comes to specifics. It would appear that the vast majority of what I call “church corporates” have resisted attempts to produce a truly comprehensive “Systematic Theology”. Back in the late 1970's, a group of ministers in the then WCG were working on just such a project called, appropriately, the “STP” aka Systematic Theology Project, in an attempt to better define the doctrines of the church and the Scriptural backing for those beliefs. Herbert Armstrong wasted no time scrubbing the project, and demanded that all copies of the STP be destroyed. The truth be known, he was the authority for doctrine, and not Scripture, and he was not about to let much of that doctrine be exposed to the scrutiny of Scripture in a “systematic” way, designed to examine the beliefs of the WCG in a manner based on any proper hermeneutic.

The Bible itself gives a number of proper methods of keeping to the truth of Scripture. One of the most basic is:

(Proverbs 30:6) Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

(Deuteronomy 4:2) Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

(Deuteronomy 12:32) What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

In Deuteronomy 12, tithing is mentioned, and later in chapter 14, tithing is covered in greater detail. I find it interesting that v. 32 of Deut 12 is stated in this context, for my studies of the tithing law suggest that there was some wholesale alterations of this law by the scribes at some time prior to the diaspora, due to some conflicts within the Scriptures. If, for example, a Scripture has been purposefully altered, it is bound to conflict with the rest of Scripture that deals with the same subject. We also have a statement where God refers to the lying scribes in what they wrote/copied when it came to preserving the oracles of God. What is someone most likely to alter? Something that affects them personally. Who were the scribes? Levites. Could it be they altered the tithing laws in order to better situate themselves? How is it they ended up getting part of the tithe earmarked for the Levites/Priests, and “double-dip” the part earmarked for the poor, such as widows? How is it the widows and poor only receive assistance once every three years, when the Levites, who also had their own lands to till and livestock, receive “assistance” from the tithes every year, and three times a year at that? How did “the” tithe end up being “three tithes” which idea in itself is an oxymoron?

If Herbert Amstrong's tithing system were held up to the scrutiny of this one rule of biblical interpretation alone, members would have fled in droves. But, by applying some of the methods of deception to the tithing law and command not to add to, or take away from the words of Scripture, members complied with his interpretation that was in plain violation of the tithing law as stated.

I have written on this topic before, regarding discerning truth and discerning error, and in this regard want to expose what I have found to be another method of deception that has come into greater focus to me now.

This would fall into the methodology of deception and falsehoods as a sort of sub-set, and I have noted that even mainstream Christianity has fallen for it. I call this sub-set “Distractions” and what they do is to take one's focus off of what is important, and puts one's focus onto something else that appears to be important, but is not, and is actually counter-productive to true Christianity.

Specifically I am referring to the focus so many people and groups/churches have on “sin” and its avoidance.

Given that statement, I know a number of people would respond that I have truly lost it here, but like so many other distractions or questionable beliefs, they get their association with what are known as “conditioned responses” so as to close out anyone who dares go against the status quo regarding said questionable beliefs. Is sin a serious matter? Absolutely. Sin is so serious that Christ came and died a most horrible, painful, and degrading death in order to counter the effects of sin. That's what makes this topic so pervasive in the cults, and even in mainstream. Sin, and its avoidance becomes a powerful tool in the hands of deceivers and wolves in sheep's clothing. But here's the real problem. By being such a pervasive focus among many in Christianity, true, spiritual growth is curtailed, and another form of spiritual egotism (self-righteousness) grows in prevalence.

How is someone's attempt to “overcome sin” any different than the efforts of some to “keep the law”? Can you see the connection here? In mainstream, it is pretty well understood that one cannot keep the old covenant law. It would be a vain pursuit, and to those of us who have escaped the clutches of legalism, we understand that it is an insult to the sacrifice of Christ to try and enhance our salvation or salvation status with Christ by keeping the law. Even Paul weighs in on this in Galatians 3. There is nothing to be spiritually gained by trying to keep the law. If anything, it is counter-productive to Christianity. And as has been brought out so often, even in Scripture, even those who advocate keeping the law don't keep the law.

Sin was likened to leaven when we were told to de-leaven our homes when under Armstrongism. When I was a student, living on campus, it was comical to see how students would find a leavened item during the middle of the Days of Unleavened Bread, or even right after. The same scenario played out in people's homes. But all this begs we make some observations and draw the obvious conclusions. If you got all the leaven out of your house, did you feel more righteous? If you found some leaven in your house after cleaning it, did you feel unrighteous? Wasn't the whole purpose designed by God to show the futility of trying to remove sin from your life? Didn't some of the things Jesus said and taught designed to show the futility of trying to keep the law? Have you whacked off your hands and plucked out your eyes yet?

A ministry gains power over their members through the concept of sin and its avoidance. The members look to the ministry as their source of information in order to accomplish this. A dependency evolves, not on God, but a substitute; a false god, if you will. “Dancing is a sin. It leads to thoughts of lust, followed by fornication. Do not dance.” “Drinking is a sin, for drinking leads to drunkenness. Do not drink.” Need I continue? Has not the individual traded off one form of legalism for another?

Ultimately, if your focus is on avoiding sin, you would have to avoid, as much as possible, your contact with other people. You might as well move into a monastery where they take a vow of silence as another means of avoiding sin.

Where then is Christian, spiritual growth in this mix? Is this not a case of taking your God-given talent and burying it in the ground?

How is a Christian a light to others, if all they do is go about trying to avoid sin?

I submit to you that trying to live a life of avoiding sin is a life where one goes about trying to do nothing. You accomplish nothing positive. You have no interactions with others in a positive light. Jesus said to do undo others as you would have them do unto you; this being the law and prophets. Sin in this regard would be not treating others as you would want to be treated. How do you demonstrate Christian love and charity if you have no meaningful interactions with them?

James wrote that faith without works is dead. Again, those who have thrown off the shackles of legalism know James is not speaking about works of the law, but rather works of love and compassion that follow faith.

The thing then to focus on is faith and your works that follow faith, thus “fulfilling” the law, and accomplishing that which is also the opposite of sin. In other words, you truly avoid sin by “doing” the opposite, and not by avoiding doing things that “potentially” lead to sin. Sin is ultimately in the mind, and not in the actions of a man. The people who died in the flood were condemned over what they were, and not so much as a result of what they did. Their thoughts and imaginations were “evil continually”.

Your focus should be on Christ and Him crucified. He died in order to free you from sin. You are dead to sin. Armstrong and even mainstream churches spin this away. You are dead to sin. Dead, dead, dead. What does this mean, dead to sin? What does it mean to be freed from sin? Sin no longer has any power over you. You are “under grace”. You are seen by God as He sees His Son. When you repented; when you turned to God, He gave you remission from sin. He placed you into a new category, from that of a slave to that of a son or daughter. The believer is in a condition free of or from condemnation.

Focusing on sin and its avoidance is an act of faithlessness. It is indicative of not truly believing God and what His written Word reveals regarding our status in relation to sin.

The lifestyle of a sinful person is one of self-gratification and without the influence of God in their lives. God's Spirit has solved the sin problem and issue. Let more important things occupy your mind.

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

Truly Unleavened, Resting in Christ

I'd like to wish a meaningful spring Holy Day season to any readers who are celebrating the Days of Unleavened Bread (DUB). Especially at this time of year, we should remember the great sacrifice Jesus Christ made for us and the hope His resurrection gives us. I hope you find some quiet time to reflect upon both of these amazing truths. On a physical level, I hope you find some quiet time, period.

For me, there was not much rest around the DUB. I spent most of my spare waking moments cleaning crumbs from every nook and cranny of my house. I'd meditate on my spiritual state while wiping down the pantry, only to get distracted moments later. I'd try again later that evening and dose off, drained from the extra housework. This cycle continued until Passover, where I was almost thankful for the cold water in the footwashing basin that jolted me into alertness.

Afterwards, I'd race home to start preparing for the Night to Be Much Observed - because everyone knows only Laodiceans pay a restaurant to cater a meal on the Sabbath. Later that week, when I finally got a chance to sit, I'd realize that I failed once again. I got so caught up in the physical preparations that I glossed over the spiritual ones. I hoped God was merciful enough to consider me worthy to take the Passover, because I certainly didn't think I was. Maybe you've found the balance between spiritual and physical aspects of the DUB. If so, I commend you. I readily admit I did not. And I know I wasn't the only one.

Please know I'm not criticizing anyone for keeping the DUB or questioning their sincerity. I kept it for decades, and most of my family still does. I know that the majority of people who keep the Holy Days of Leviticus 23 believe they are obeying and honoring God by doing so. Who could blame them for that? Not me.

In more recent years, some ministers admonished us not to go crazy cleaning our homes, since the physical act was only symbolic of the spiritual. I understood what they meant, but it just didn't seem logical. If removing leaven was a command, and if it symbolized putting sin out of our lives, then was it possible to go overboard? God would never tell us to give less than our best efforts at removing sin. Deep down, I knew God didn't really expect me to find every crumb. But how much was enough? After all, these same ministers also warned us that we might not "make it" into the Kingdom if we didn't eradicate sin from our lives.

Really, my struggle with the DUB reveals the COG's faulty salvation model on a smaller scale. We believe that, by grace, our past sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ's sacrifice. And we rightly believe there is nothing we can do to earn that forgiveness. But after that, as UCG explains it, "to remain justified after being forgiven, one must behave in a righteous or just manner from that time forward" (from The New Covenant - Does it Abolish God's Law?). This sounds good on the surface. Scripture instructs us to do things like flee temptation and overcome sin. Besides, we have the Holy Spirit - the power of God - as a tool to help us! And who would argue that refraining from sin is a bad thing?

Here's a question that no COG minister has been able to answer for me: how much sin do I have to overcome to "make it?" Most agree God doesn't expect me to become 100 percent sin-free. So how righteous do I need to be? I'm not playing games like Paul's opponents in Romans 6:1. This is a deadly serious question - your eternal destiny hangs in the balance. If God doesn't expect you to be perfect, what percentage do you need to achieve - 98 percent righteous? Is "C" a passing grade for the Kingdom? And does God grade on a curve?

Rod Meredith, LCG's presiding evangelist, sets the bar pretty high in his booklet, Who or What is the Antichrist: "When we accept Christ's sacrifice we must also make a literal covenant with our creator to quit sinning in the future." In the same passage, Meredith explains that we abide in Christ and the Father "by obeying God and living as Jesus actually did - by every word of God."

How do you define "every word of God?" That's important to know if we've promised God that we will quit sinning in the future, presumably by the end of our physical lives. Is it every command ever given in the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments? Including observing new moons and swearing off clothing made from mixed fabrics? Is it every instruction Jesus gave? Must we completely root out every impulse of lust? What about snapping at someone who's hurt us, or even just wanting to do so? Is it the list of do's and don't-s that Herbert W. Armstrong intuited as he developed COG doctrines? Is it the ones that Meredith carried forward to LCG? Or maybe to be on the safe side, we should stick to Gerald Flurry's more conservative restrictions. Hope you didn't like spending time with those non-member grandkids. I apologize if I sound irreverent, but I'm just trying follow these doctrines to their logical conclusions. Because if you accept them, you believe that your behavior factors into your salvation.

Underpinning the COG's doctrines about salvation is the related teaching that, in this lifetime, believers are like fetuses who will be born into God's Family at Christ's return. If we don't achieve a proper, yet undefined, level of righteousness in this life, God aborts us. Think that sounds horrific? Don't blame me, I didn't come up with it. You can thank Herbert W Armstrong. Check page 45 of his booklet, "Just What Do You Mean... BORN AGAIN?". I can't post a link directly to the paragraph containing this statement, but electronic versions of the publication are easy to find online.

Most COG splinters still embrace Armstrong's fetus analogy, although they conveniently leave out the part about God aborting His own children. Splinter groups can edit and sanitize their literature all they want, but this is the foundation of their doctrines, directly from the man who created them.

So back to God's grading scale. Righteous behavior is a pass/fail proposition, according to James 2:10-11. Would God have accepted Jesus' sacrifice if He had sinned even once? LCG's Meredith tells us we are to live by every word of God. Well, in His his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught that sin is about the attitudes in our hearts, not just our physical behavior. I don't know about you, but my Passover examination always showed me how badly I was failing in this area. I might as well have been dusting crumbs off of a bakery counter covered with doughnuts. Just "trying harder" to be more patient with my kids, or to avoid silly spats when someone hurt my pride wasn't working. That approach wouldn't change my heart if I lived to be 250 years old.

Yet ministers like UCG's Darris McNeely would have us believe it's possible - in fact, it's the reason God created the DUB, he says. In a recent episode of Beyond Today (What Easter Doesn't Tell You), co-host McNeely tells us we can become a new creation in Christ "as a result of our putting sin out, by working on our lives and living a righteous life, and God helping us to accomplish that."

That's absolutely false. He blatantly twists 2 Corinthians 5:17, which directly states that anyone who is in Christ IS a new creation. Not he WILL BE a new creation, or that he is in the process of becoming a new creation. He is one now.

Even worse, McNeely makes this transformation about our efforts. But, oh, yeah, God helps us do it. The very next verse, 2 Corinthians 5:18, tells us that this change is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ. We are not a new creation because of what we do; we are a new creation because of what He did, both at the Cross and in our lives each day once we place our faith in Him alone for salvation. Our righteousness is nothing more than filthy rags.

It's an incredible blessing that our eternal destiny doesn't depend on just "trying harder." It's based on grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21-24). And it includes all of our sins, not just those committed before we accept Jesus' sacrifice. It's ridiculous to teach that His sacrifice almost 2000 years ago paid for my past sins but did not cover my future sins as well. That it paid for the future sins of my unborn, unconceived grandchildren, but only until they officially accept His sacrifice. Jesus died once for all, covering our sins completely. We must let go of any dependence on our own efforts or goodness for salvation and place our faith in Christ alone. When we do, His righteousness is reckoned to us, just as it was to Abraham (Romans 4:18-5:1). Just as all our sins are credited to Him (Romans 5:17-19, 2 Corinthians 5:21), His righteousness is credited to us (Romans 5:17). Protestants call this doctrine imputed righteousness.

COG leaders like Rod Meredith malign this doctrine. In fact, he ridicules the teaching in the booklet I quoted earlier, Who or What is the Antichrist: "Now we just 'accept Christ' and His righteousness is somehow imputed to us - without any requirement for righteous works?".

In a word, yes. Rod Meredith's Bible must not include Ephesians 2:8-9, because that's exactly what it says. Salvation has nothing to do with our works. If it did, we could boast about what we've done. Instead, if we boast, it's supposed to be about what Jesus has done (Galatians 6:14).

The "works" part, which Ephesians 2:10 mentions, comes after we repent, accept Jesus' sacrifice and receive the Holy Spirit. Good works are part of a Christian's life, as the book of James states. They are evidence of our conversion, proving we didn't just utter idle words. That's evidence, not cause. If we are truly converted, our hearts are regenerated (Ephesians 2:1-6 and other verses describe this, which some call being "born again"), making us a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17, 1 Peter 1:23). Then God begins the process of sanctification - or making us more and more like Christ. Our lives outwardly will reflect this change within us. How could it not? But this is an effect of sanctification, not a cause.

Yes, we have a part to play in the sanctification process. It's our job to follow Jesus' example (1 Corinthians 11:1), live an obedient life of sacrifice (Romans 12:1), live at peace with others (Hebrews 12:14), avoid covetousness and coarse joking (Ephesians 5:3-4) as well as other behaviors that do not bring honor to God. It's our duty to obey the commands of Jesus and His apostles. But our responsibility is to cooperate with God, not to lead or guide the process. God is the one who transforms us into His image (2 Corinthians 3:18) through discipline (Hebrews 12:10), the truth of His word (John 17:17, Ephesians 5:25-27) and His Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:13). It may seem like a trivial distinction,  but it makes all the difference in the world when we put it into practice in our lives.

Remember, Christians who accept this doctrine don't believe it gives us Jesus' character instantly, as COG ministers claim. The imputation of Christ's righteousness simply changes our legal standing with God from "guilty" to "not guilty". This justification (Romans 3:20-25), or covering of our sins, is foreshadowed in prophetic passages like Isaiah 61:10. (I plan to discuss justification, regeneration and sanctification in detail later this year. If you have questions now, please feel free to email me at marthacog@gmail.com)

We are the clay, not the potter. We can't change just by committing to trying harder. We can't just grab hold of the Holy Spirit and use it as a tool to shape ourselves. Trying to do so either leaves us with a self-righteous sense of accomplishment or a hopeless sense of despair, depending upon how honest we are with ourselves. Either way, Satan wins. Our focus is taken from Christ.

Sure, it's possible that God intended for the DUB to teach Israel about sin. Instructions about the festival urge Israel to remember God's deliverance from Egypt, though, not to purge sin. Other scriptures talk about leaven in both negative (Matthew 16:5, 1 Corinthians 5:6-7) and positive terms (Matthew 13:33), although they refer to leaven's ability to permeate, not to puff things up. I don't know if the Israelites found DUB preparation overwhelming. Maybe only modern-day crumb traps like toasters and child car seats show the total futility.

Anyway, doesn't 1 Corinthians 5 tell us to keep the DUB? There's no doubt Paul used leavening as a metaphor for sin here. But notice that 1 Corinthians 5:7 tells the church that they already are unleavened. This likely means that God sees them as officially sinless, not that their houses are deleavened. We know many Jews exiled from Jerusalem were living in Corinth. On a related note, one major concern in Acts and Galatians is that Jewish converts were pressuring Gentile believers to follow physical observances from the Sinai Covenant. So the Corinthian church might have been keeping the DUB, but Galatians 4:21-31 reminds us it was not required for gentiles, to put it mildly. (Nor was it required of Jews who accept the New Covenant, if there is no longer a difference between Jews and Gentiles). For more information, please visit the post Were gentiles in Corinth observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread?

So if Jewish believers and some Gentile Christians kept the DUB, is it OK to do so today? I can't say for sure. Many in the COGs say they do it because they want to obey God, and that certainly is a commendable reason. But if we believe that NOT doing so will cost us our eternal life, then it logically follows that we are keeping it, at least in part, to ensure our salvation. Which is a problem, according to Ephesians 2. To me, it seems like a slippery slope, tempting those who do it to think they are more obedient and righteous than those who don't. That line of reasoning encourages us to look to ourselves and our efforts, instead of Christ, for our salvation - comparing ourselves to others instead of to Him. And that definitely is sin.

In Galatians 3:24, Paul tells us that the law was our tutor - our teacher - to bring us to Christ. For me, the DUB was exactly that. Not as the COGs explain it - as an annual cycle teaching me the way to live - but as a teacher that showed me my own efforts were in vain. That placing my full faith in Jesus and His finished work on the cross was my only hope. The purpose of the Sinai Covenant and the prophets was to point us to Christ - that is what Paul meant when he wrote that Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4). One doesn't continue practicing elementary addition drills when they are enrolled in college algebra.

God loves you. He loves you so much that He willingly suffered a brutal death on the cross for you. He wants you to live a happy, abundant life - not brimming with self-righteous pride or wallowing in depression. Step into the New Covenant and enter into His rest - into a life that's humble yet secure in your salvation. A life, not just a week, that's truly unleavened.   

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

The Matzo or the Egg?

Hi, it's me again. You may remember the borderline nervous breakdown I had going through my first Christmas season after leaving the Churches of God. So I'm sure you'll be shocked to read this. I know I'm shocked to type it.

I'm really looking forward to Easter.

Why not? It's all about candy, right? I mean, I've been seeing UCG promotions featuring a chocolate-smeared toddler for weeks. Easter means chocolate. I'm a girl. What more is there to explain? This is pretty much how COGWA bigwig Clyde Kilough explained people like me in a pre-Easter article last year. Yeah, Clyde, you figured it out. Evangelical Christians talk a good game, but we're really in it for the jelly beans.

COGWA literature gives me a migraine, so I decided to read the transcript for the UCG promotion instead, a Beyond Today episode titled "What Easter Doesn't Tell You." The hosts' main criticism against Easter, aside from the alleged paganism, was that "obscures the truth" that Jesus suffered, died and was resurrected that all might have the opportunity for eternal life. Why? Because it only focuses on the resurrection.

I'm sorry, but that's one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard. I'd wager almost anything that Christ's life, sacrifice, suffering and death will be discussed at my church's Easter service. They have in every leading up to it so far! They never stop talking about it! Our pastor always discusses our sin and the penalty Jesus paid for it. Even on Christmas Eve! Saying Easter (also known as Resurrection Sunday) doesn't give the full picture is like criticizing Pentecost because it, in isolation, doesn't discuss Jesus Christ's return to earth. Oh, by the way, the criticism that many of these "so-called Christians" only go to church on Easter says more about those individuals than the observance itself. You know, my COG congregation always had to set up more chairs on the Holy Days than on the weekly Sabbath, too.

Anyway, to read the banter between the hosts, you'd think we deceived Protestants believe Jesus died in a car crash and then celebrate His resurrection in a meaningless vacuum. Trust me, they know how and why He died. If anyone is leaving something about of the story, it's the COGs. They observe Passover, then throw a lavish party while His body lay in the tomb, loosely adapting Sinai ordinances through HWA's interpretative lens. They hold their annual golf scramble on Easter, where they make fun of all the pagans who skipped tee time to celebrate Tammuz rising. And then we get together on the last DUB to compare notes on who found stray goldfish crackers where.

Here's the thing. Jesus' resurrection is important. It is the entire reason we Christians have hope. That's not me talking, that's Paul (1 Corinthians 15:12-19, especially verse 19). It's what proved Jesus was the Son of God (Romans 1:4-5). And if He was who He said He was, then we know that our sins are forgiven (1 John 2:2) and we can have eternal life by placing our faith in Him (John 11:25-26). If that's not worth celebrating, then I don't know what is.

But it doesn't matter what you think, you say. We're not commanded to celebrate Jesus' resurrection. You can't just make up your own holidays for what YOU think is important. Well, the Jews did. They weren't commanded to celebrate Purim or Hannukkah, but John 10:22-23 shows us that Jesus was at the temple during Hanukkah (Festival of Dedication). It seems God gave this man-made celebration tacit approval. So if it's ok to create annual observances of the miraculous oil in the temple or Esther's triumph over Haman, it would seem that Jesus' victory over death qualifies as worthy of celebration.

I wanted to share the most compelling reasons I will be celebrating Easter guilt-free this year. The more experienced writers here at ABD did all the heavy lifting, I just want to point you to the places where you'll find background on topics where you might have questions, misinformation, or not even know whether you have all the information.

The COGs try to trace the "change" from Passover to Easter to the Quartodeciman Controversy of the late 2nd Century. They describe it as a decisive turning point for Christianity, in which rogue church leaders prevailed over followers of the apostles by replacing the Passover with Easter celebration.

In reality, the debate lasted 300 years and was about whether to observe the Pascha on the 14th of Nisan or on a static date, not whether to introduce pagan worship practices. Some wanted to stick to the Jewish date. Others argued that the Jewish calendar (with its postponements and such) made the observance disruptive and unpredictable. Paul's writings made it clear that gentiles were not required to observe specific calendar dates from the Sinai Covenant, so they found no reason to keep their calendar in flux. Apparently their argument had some merit, since the Jews scrapped their entire calendar system just a few decades later. Today, the timing of Easter is still based on the same events as the Hebrew lunar calendar, not pagan equinox worship. There's nothing wrong with taking the bread and wine on Nisan 14. But there's also nothing wrong with doing it on a different date instead.

Easter History Part 1

Writers aren't usually known for their math skills, but I can count to three, so I always believed the COG chart showing how Matthew 12:40 disproved traditional Christianity's belief about the timing of Jesus' resurrection and crucifixion. So I was shocked to have Luke 24:21 pointed out to be, in which the disciple Cleopas describes Sunday as the third day since Jesus was crucified. Many more gospel verses alternately predict Jesus would rise "on the third day," "in three days" and "after three days". What if Jesus used a Jewish idiomatic phrase (figure of speech) that's lost on us Westerners? Might Hebrew scholars know something about how the Jews marked time using inclusive reckoning? If you're still reading this, it's at least worth considering.

Three Days and Three Nights

Wednesday Crucifixion? Not Likely

Did those 2nd century leaders also push to ditch the name "Passover" in favor of "Easter"? No. They kept on calling it by its Hebrew/Aramaic name, "Pesach." Those who spoke Latin called it "Pascha." The name "Easter" wasn't used until centuries later, when Germanic tribes were introduced to Christianity. English, which is heavily influenced by the German language, adapted the name.

Even today, in countries where Romance languages are spoken, the name for Resurrection Day celebrations are reminiscent of their Aramaic roots. Spain has "Pascua." Portugal has "Pascoa." The French call it "Paques." In Italian, it's "Pasqua." You get the picture.

Arguing the suspect name "Easter" taints the resurrection celebration makes about as much sense as claiming keeping the Sabbath is pagan since Saturday is named for the Roman god Saturn. Reading paganism into Easter because Germanic tribes gave it a pagan-sounding name seems symptomatic of an the unfounded belief that history revolves around the Anglo-Saxon people. We are not the center of the universe. We came to the table pretty late as far as civilizations go.

Easter History Part II

Wait, didn't the holiday name come from the Babylonian fertility goddess Ishtar? No. COGs connect Ishtar to Easter through her consort, Tammuz, who died and rose from the dead each year in Babylonian mythology. Several Easter traditions supposedly come from this vegetation god - Lent is really the weeping for Tammuz mentioned in Ezekiel 8:14 and sunrise services marked his resurrection.

The problem is, mythology places Tammuz' resurrection long after the Passover - during the summer month both the Hebrew and Babylonian calendar call "Tammuz."

And the Germanic goddess Eostre? There's little proof she ever existed. Ostara? Chances are good she was made up, too. The name came from Charlemagne, who renamed the months when he conquered western Europe. Resurrection Sunday occurs during the month he named Ostarmonath. Where did he get the name? Experts say it's unlikely that Charlemagne, a warrior against Germanic paganism, named a month after a goddess. Days of the week were traditionally named after deities but, in that culture, months were named for weather events, calendar events or customs that occurred during them.

Well, the word "ostar" means "east," and originates from the same high German word from which "Austria" gets its name. Austria was long known as the "Osterreich," or "Eastern Kingdom." The root indicates a movement toward the rising sun, which always occurs in the east. Professor Ronald Hutton, a well-known historian in British paganism and occultism, suggests the name simply meant "the month of beginnings" or "the month of openings," an appropriate name for a time of year when trees budded and flowers bloomed. The theory that many months were named for weather events seems to support this explanation (although my personal favorite still is Solmanoth, or Mud-Month, which was roughly the equivalent of February).

Easter History Part II

So even if there's some relation between possibly non-existent goddesses and the word Easter, it's a problem to deem a millenia-old observance pagan because a goddess was stapled on after the fact. The same goes for fertility symbols like eggs and rabbits, which weren't associated with the resurrection celebration until Christianity spread to the Germanic tribes. And in case you are still hung up on Ishtar, her symbols were lions and eight-pointed stars, not eggs and bunnies.

Eggs were associated with the resurrection celebration in the Eastern Orthodox church, where Christians fasted from eggs during Lent as a means of sacrifice. Once the fast was over, children went out into the bushes to look for eggs to feed the family.

Easter FAQ

Now please understand, I'm not trying to talk you into doing anything that makes you feel uncomfortable. You don't have to go get your kids' picture taken with the Easter bunny (I'm not).

Don't get up to pray at sunrise on April 20. I plan to be asleep then, and I pray my kids cooperate. But there is nothing inherently sinful about doing either of these things, as Romans 14:14 tells us.

All I ask is that you don't let your Bible reading end with John 19 and its parallel passages the night of Passover. Take some time to read the resurrection account during this season when we all agree it happened, whether it's on the first Day of Unleavened Bread, on Resurrection Sunday or on a random Tuesday. There is no wrong day to read the scripture and thank God for the events that make our salvation possible. Jesus' resurrection is just as significant as His death, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. He is risen, indeed, and it's the reason we have hope.

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

A Different Gospel

"Should you believe a movie or what the Bible says? So much hype about the movie and not much talked about opening up the pages of the Bible and reading His entire story."

The statement stood out like a sore thumb between pictures of kittens and weather-related complaints in my Facebook news feed. A friend of mine, who works in a Church of God media department, posted this comment the day the Son of God movie came out. I sighed, then mentally steeled myself for the barrage of negative comments about the movie I was sure to read in the coming days. I was surprised to see almost nothing posted that weekend, but figured the pace would pick up when people were back at work on Monday. I was mystified when, almost a week later, I had seen next to nothing said about the movie from either official COG sites or individual members.

Incidentally, my pastor shared his thoughts on the movie that weekend. Like any dramatization, the depiction was not 100 percent accurate, he admitted. Complete accuracy would be almost impossible, considering even the synoptic gospels vary a bit in some of their accounts. There's nothing wrong with watching a movie about Jesus, but it doesn't replace reading the Bible, he reminded us. Over all, he concluded that it was a great tool for sparking interest in the Bible and spreading the gospel.

Finally, it hit me. Why would the COGs draw any attention to the movie, let alone try to capitalize on it? They are preaching a different gospel.

Of course they are, you're probably thinking. The people promoting that movie teach a FALSE gospel. The TRUE gospel Jesus and His disciples taught is about the coming Kingdom of God.

That's what I thought, too. For years. The problem is that the COGs set up a false dilemma for us  - that they are the only ones who believe the true gospel. They narrowly define the gospel as being only about Jesus' second coming and establishing a literal Kingdom on earth. Then they tell us virtually no one else believes this will happen. Deceived Protestants blatantly ignore all those scriptures and only teach about going to heaven, they claim. So conscientious Christians have only two choices - attend a COG or ignore the Bible and go to the Baptist church down the street.

My friends, we have been misled about what mainstream Christianity teaches. Millions of your Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian and Catholic neighbors believe Jesus will literally return to this earth; that He will establish a literal Kingdom on earth. Granted, there are some differences based on teachings about when one is born again, when one enters the Kingdom of God and whether soul sleep is biblical, as well as several other doctrines. But to assert that most so-called Christians don't understand that the Kingdom of of God is literal - as LCG, UCG, COGWA and all the other alphabet soup of COG abbreviations do - is a total fabrication. Some might even call it a lie.

To be fair, Jesus Christ had a lot to say about the Kingdom of God during His 3-1/2 year ministry. His focus is understandable - He could hardly teach his disciples about His own death and resurrection when they had yet to occur. They barely understood his parables, let alone His foreshadowed comments about His death. It was only after seeing Jesus' resurrection and receiving the Holy Spirit that His disciples fully grasped the significance of what He had done. So it's intellectually dishonest to claim the true gospel focuses solely on the Kingdom of God, and that any gospel focusing on His life, death and resurrection is inherently false. Jesus' return, establishment of His Kingdom and the resurrection of believers to glory certainly is part of the gospel -  in fact, it's the consummation of the gospel - but it's not the full story. One can only see the complete picture from the other side of the cross, so we must also consider the teachings of those Jesus Himself sent into the world.

When it comes to reliable preachers of the gospel, few would debate the apostle Peter's credentials. He was taught by Jesus, both during His 3-1/2 year earthly ministry and after His resurrection. Let's turn to Acts 10, where Peter shares the gospel with Cornelius, a God-fearer and a gentile centurion of the Italian regiment. In verse 36, the Apostle to the Jews notes he is relating the same good news sent to the people of Israel. What was that message?

In short, Peter told Cornelius and his household that Jesus died on the cross (verse 39), that He rose on the third day (verse 40) and that all who believe in Him will be forgiven of their sins (verse 43). Apparently Peter's version was close enough to what Jesus taught for Cornelius and his household to receive the Holy Spirit. This message and result is similar to that of Acts 2, although Peter's Pentecost message also included an element of repentance.

The Apostle Paul might not be the COG's favorite Biblical author, but he does seem to corroborate Peter's gospel summary in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul relates the gospel by which we are saved (verse 2) - that Jesus died for our sins (verse 3) and that He rose on the third day (verse 4). Later on in the chapter, Paul details the consummation of the gospel we discussed earlier - believers' resurrection to glory.

If you're still not sure, we can check out the slightly more poetic version Paul included in Romans 3:21-26. In this passage, Paul tells us that righteousness does not come from keeping the law (verse 21), but through faith in Jesus (verse 22). That all men are sinners and are justified by grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus (verses 23-26). Bonus points for style in this passage, but the basic message is the same.

Paul warns us not to be led astray by those teaching a gospel that was different from his, both in Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:4. Let's turn to the message several major COG groups call the gospel and see how they compare to what both Paul and Peter taught.

The Living Church of God describes it this way:

"Open your Bible and turn to Mark 1:14-15. Read what God inspired Mark to write: "Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel. This is the Gospel. There is only one - and it is about the Kingdom of God."
(http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/booklets/do-you-believe-the-true-gospel)

The United Church of God asserts that Jesus defined His mission as preaching the gospel, or good news, of the Kingdom of God. And when Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God,

"He was simply continuing the messages of the Hebrew prophets whose words are recorded in the Old Testament. Centuries earlier God had inspired such faithful men as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Zechariah to look beyond the difficulties and destruction of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah to a magnificent future when God would establish His world-ruling kingdom on earth under the reign of the Messiah."
(http://www.ucg.org/booklet/church-jesus-built/responsibility-and-mission-church/what-true-gospel/)

The gospel of the Kingdom of God is the message that Jesus urges us to believe today, according to COGWA. Since He is the only Being through whom we may receive salvation, we must heed his instruction to repent, and believe in the gospel.

"Old Testament prophets had spoken of the Kingdom of God while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Many of them had described the universal peace and abundant prosperity that would accompany this Kingdom. When Jesus came to earth, He gave this teaching even greater prominence. Indeed, it was the central core of His instruction."
(http://lifehopeandtruth.com/prophecy/kingdom-of-god/gospel-of-the-kingdom/)

Hmmmm. Sounds like a different message to me, or an incomplete one at the very least. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be flippant. I know these are hard things to hear. I've been in your seat all too recently. But warnings about curses against those who teach a false gospel (Galatians 1:8-9), admonitions about being led astray by false apostles (2 Corinthians 11:3) and false prophets (Matthew 7:15) should lead us to carefully examine the predictions of Herbert W. Armstrong (for starters, see our article An Inconvenient Plain Truth). If we believe the Bible is God's word, then we need to heed Deuteronomy 18:18-22, which shows HWA did not speak for God. Neither do those who still advance many of his teachings today.

The gospel is not a witness against the world. Neither is it a Terminator gospel simply warning humanity that "I'll be back." The gospel does not speculate about the lineup of God's future executive ruling team, nor does it repackage Mormon doctrines about a pantheon of divine beings ruling over planets, as COG booklets have for decades.  

The gospel the apostles taught does the same thing as the Law and the Prophets - it points sinners to Jesus Christ for salvation. In contrast, the incomplete COG gospel teaches sinners to focus on their future as glorious deities, largely looking past their Savior and the work His Father asks of us - to believe in the One He sent (John 6:29). I can see how this "gospel" led me to lose sight of who Jesus really was and who I really am - a sinner deserving death. That I can be saved from that fate is the best news I could ever hear.

--If you would like more detail on the Gospel, please see the Gospel section in our FAQ page.--

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

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

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

Victims Of Alarm Fatigue?

Just a reminder. The book, which began here on ABD as an article, is available today (Saturday 3-1-14)  through Wednesday the 5th for FREE on Amazon in the Kindle format. I earnestly desire that we should not be dulled by alarm-fatigue, for this is what the enemy wants. Yes, prophecy is for stimulating belief, but also for encouraging one another—" and all the more as you see the Day approaching" -Hebrews 10:25. Apathy has hit the church and we need to resist it. False prophets have made the idea of Jesus' soon return seem tiresome. I want people to see the possibility that all the prophecies proceeding the return have in fact been fulfilled. Brothers and sisters in all nations; are you more focused on the things of the world, or are you one who has put your hand to the Gospel plow and will not turn and look back? We can focus on the past of being in a COG and their emphases on the return of Jesus and be repelled by this mind set or do as Paul advised, "Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead," Phil 3:13.
 

Don't you see that this is an effective method that Satan has employed? Everything you learned wasn't a lie. There was some truth which the devil may convince you to throw out with the proverbial bathwater. Our job is to filter out the poison and keep what remains. If we now make our temporal existence the most important thing and not Jesus, He says we are not worthy of Him. God's time piece is Israel. My nation (USA) has a government that continues to stab Israel in the back. This is prophecy being fulfilled as there will be no one to stand with Israel! The way is being prepared for the final battle. You who make Jesus the first priority have a date with destiny. We can't know the day or hour, but we are told that we can know the season. And if we aren't dissuaded by the false alarms sounded by the enemy to dull our senses then we will be like the virgins who kept their lamps full and waited for the bridegrooms arrival. Be awake; be alert;  believe Him first and foremost and be the ones who cross over from death to life. Let us focus our eyes on Jesus and not on some man or on distractions. There is no one that stands between you and God but Jesus Himself. Again, the link to the book is Bible Prophecy - God's Agenda And Your Part In It

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