Sunday, or Herbert Armstrong?

My thought of the day is about a certain view which I was taught as a devout Armstrongist. This view pops up often when an Adventist of any stripe sets out to defend the doctrine of the mandatory weekly Sabbath. This view is in regards to prophecy.
This idea goes something like this "As Christ often warned in the gospels, there would be false prophets and false doctrines coming, in an attempt to betray believers." The false doctrine, in this case at least, is set up to be Sunday observance. The "true" doctrine, of course, would then be mandatory weekly seventh-day Sabbath observance.
(Mandatory partial Sabbath observance, that is, because the law is never actually followed as written. It's just insisted that Saturday is the "true" day of worship, which the law says nothing about.)

In Armstrongist and other Adventist circles, the prophecies of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 are almost universally interpreted as referring to the time immediately prior to the Second Coming, That is precisely the way they were taught to me. More specifically, I am referring to Matthew 24: 24 and Mark 13: 22.

Is it not true that the official interpretation of the Mark of the Beast (REV. 13: 17; 14: 9, 11; 15: 2; 16: 2; and 20: 4) would be Sunday worship? And that this mark would be given immediately prior to the Second Coming? Yes it is.

Is it not true that the oldest extant historical documents all appear to show that "church services" were held on Sunday in the early church? Yes it is.

Is it not true that these ancient documents, often lumped under the name "Early Church Fathers," are castigated and demonized as heretical, false, distorted, full of lies, and many other such accusations, and the reading of these documents is frowned upon by Armstrongists and other Adventist groups alike? Yes it is.

Why mention any of this? Because, here are the facts:
1) Sunday observance is recorded from the first century AD. It is an exceedingly old practice.
2) The prophecies used against Sunday observance are interpreted by these groups as being for a time yet future to now. The time has not come yet.
3) If the false doctrines referred to in the prophecy are to arise before the Second Coming, and Sunday has been observed nearly 2,000 years, then according to their own teachings Sunday observance cannot be the thing these prophecies refer to.

It's a pretty simple line of logic to follow, really. If prophecy = new, and Sunday = ancient, then prophecy cannot = Sunday.

I would continue this line of thinking further.

According to their own prophetic interpretation, these teachings (the ones that turn out to be false) are to arise in the "end-times." Do we know of anything that has arisen in this late age? Of course we do! And that would be Adventism.

Around 1840, one William Miller decided that he had figured out the timing of the second coming of Christ. He claimed Christ would return by March 21st, 1844 at the latest. That day came and went. A second date was set at October 22nd, 1844. That day came and went. It would come to be known as "The Great Disappointment". Yet the Millerite faithful muscled on. Soon, Ellen G. White would rise to take over the group, claiming her visions and her teachings were the only truth. The Whites and their friends came into contact with some Seventh Day Baptists in New York, and took on the Sabbath doctrine from them. Ellen White would gather a huge following which eventually took the name "Seventh-Day Adventist Church." The SDA church is the largest seventh-day Sabbath keeping Christian denomination on earth. Her prophecies are held in high regard in that church to this day. But there was one man who would have none of her prophecies; his name was Gilbert Cranmer. Even though Cranmer parted ways a few short years earlier, he officially parted ways with Ellen G. White at the 1863 meeting in Battlecreek, Michigan where the Adventists officially took the name "Seventh-Day Adventist Church." Gilbert Cranmer and a small group went on to form the "General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh Day)." It was this group, the COG7, that hired and credentialed one Mr. Herbert Armstrong in 1927, electing him to the governmental body known as "The Seventy." This is the very same Herbert Armstrong who went on to found the Radio Church of God in 1934.

Herbert W Armstrong based his church on spurious beliefs such as British-Israelism. He relied heavily on material from the SDA church, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons. He made a series of prophetic speculations which failed to pan out. One popular claim of his was that he was the first to preach the "true gospel" in 1,900 years.

OK, so to make a long story short, the main thing we've learned here is that Adventism has popped up recently. In fact, HWA claimed that he was the first person in 1,900 years to teach the "true gospel" and that all other churches since antiquity had been preaching a false one (including all churches he considered "true" ancestors of his own). Now, if that's not something new arising in the end-times, I don't know what is. By definition this was something arising in the end-times because HWA's Adventist ministry preached the imminent return of Christ from the very start. In fact he first predicted the return of Christ in 1936. ..which obviously failed to happen. I cannot think of any piece that fits this puzzle better than the ministry of Herbert Armstrong and the current Church of God splinter group leaders.
But the modern imitators of HWA have become even more bold in what they teach. Some have gone so far as to say that HWA was a false prophet and a law-breaker, others say HWA was not the Elijah he claimed to be even though they still treat HWA as the Apostle of his time, and even though they recognize their entire authority and credentials as ministers come from him, they have rearranged what he taught and prophesied as they see fit. Some teach Jesus was created a man, some teach Jesus is Satan's brother, some teach Mohammad is a prophet of God, some teach that all Christians are physical descendants of Israel and that Gentiles were never called (they explain away this blatant error by claiming we simply misunderstand what the word "Gentile" means), and some just plain appear to teach whatever pops into their head at the time. None of it makes sense in any context apart from the self-appointed authority of the wild-eyed prophet who makes the claims.

(II TIM. 3: 13) But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

I would continue this line of thinking even further!

(MAR. 13: 22) For false christs and false prophets will rise....

False prophets are supposed to rise. Do we know of any false prophets? Of course we do! And that would be Herbert W Armstrong and his current imitators.

As we've seen earlier, Herbert Armstrong left the gate breathing out prophecies which were all claimed to be the "absolutely SURE!" and "REAL" and "TRUE MESSAGE FROM GOD" given "on authority of God Almighty." [Emphasis his; not mine.] His crowning failure came in 1972 when a two-decade long series of prophecies, all supposedly culminating in the 1972 escape to "The Place of Safety" in preparation for the Second Coming in 1975, all failed to materialize. (For a great deal more info on this, please see the post "All Systems Are Go!") All total, not a single prophecy HWA ever made has come true.
To this day, his faithful defend him by claiming that he was not a prophet at all. Ahhhh! AsBereandDid has demonstrated several times that this is a ploy at best. (And we are not by any means the only ones who have done so.) HWA made multiple date-specific claims about the future, claiming they were given by authority of God Almighty, and even staked his authority on their accuracy in clear reference to Deuteronomy 18: 20-22. He was a false prophet, in a long line of false prophets. No if's, and's or but's.

"JESUS CHRIST chose and appointed me"
-Herbert Armstrong, Pastor General's Report, p. 3, Jan. 31, 1980

OK, so here we have 2 categories met. New teachings arising in the "end-times" and false prophecies.

I would like to continue this line of thinking further still!

(MAT. 24: 24) For false christs and false prophets will rise...

Matthew 24: 24 and Mark 13: 22 both refer to false Christs. Do we know of any false christs? Of course we do! Let's get a closer look at what a false christ is, shall we?

What is a false Christ? The Greek is "pseudochrist." This isn't necessarily a person claiming to be Jesus Christ. These verses don't say, "False Jesuses will rise." It says false Christ. "Christ" is just the Greek word for "Messiah" which basically means "anointed" and in this context refers to a savior. A false christ is someone who isn't Jesus Christ and who holds themselves up as a form of savior to the people. In other words, if Jesus is the Vine, and we are the branches, a false Christ either attempts to replace the vine or attempts to position themselves or their ministry between us and the vine. To put it bluntly, a false christ will claim to have the only truth and the only true ministry. So, a false christ in reality is claiming to be pivotal to your salvation.
Now, do we know of anyone who might fit that description? Yes! For decades, HWA taught that this was the Pope. Well, even though the Vicar of Christ who goes by the title "Holy Father" may appear to fit the description, the Catholic Church is ancient. Do we know of anyone else who may be a better fit? Someone appearing recently? Of course we do! You guessed it - Herbert Armstrong himself.

It was a mainstay of the Worldwide Church of God under Herbert Armstrong that the WCG was the only true church and the only entity on earth for 1,900 years that had the "true gospel". Oh, from time to time a sermon would include a blurb about how God may have hidden some people somewhere on the earth that we didn't know about (perhaps hidden in some mountain range in Russia somewhere), and those would also be His people, but for the most part, we were it. HWA specifically taught, in his book "The Incredible Human Potential", that it was the whole duty of the Christian to support his ministry through tithes and prayers. Excommunication from the WCG meant eternal death, since the WCG was the only path to the Kingdom of God. Only WCG trained and credentialed ministers were qualified to teach "the truth." Only WCG ministers were validated to perform rites such as laying on of hands, anointings for the sick, anointings to office in the church, or baptism. Even such seemingly innocent things as group Bible studies were frowned upon without the presence of a church official. Only WCG leadership was capable of receiving and spending tithes. Their judgments were to be unquestioned. It was accepted as truth that the higher up the hierarchy of church leadership one went, the closer to God they got. So, one could only get close to God through one of them. At the apex of it all sat HWA - the Elijah, God's appointed Apostle, the spiritual and temporal leader of the church on earth.
Herbert Armsrtong's official position, according to legal, state of California court documents filed during the 1979 Receivership, was thus:

"I am the founder, Pastor General, and spiritual and temporal leader of defendant Worldwide Church of God, Inc. (" Worldwide") . In addition, I am chief executive officer, chairman of the board of directors and chairman of the board of trustees of Worldwide and its two related entities, defendants Ambassador College, Inc. ("Ambassador"), and Ambassador International Cultural Foundation, Inc. ("AICF"); together with Worldwide, Ambassador and ASCF will collectively be referred to herein as "the Church".
The Church, which was originally known as the Radio Church of God, was founded by me in the mid-1930's for the purpose of proclaiming "the Gospel throughout the world as a witness of the coming of the Kingdom of God." Matthew 24:14. [Prophet!] I am the appointed Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and, as such, have been both the spiritual and temporal leader of the Church from its inception."
-Herbert Armstrong, Pastor's Report, pp. 28-29, Jan. 8, 1979

Not just temporal, but spiritual and temporal!

"Mr. Armstrong has been the spiritual and temporal leader of the Church since its inception"
-Mike Blackwell, Pastor's Report, p. 3, Jan. 30, 1979

Yes, Jesus founded a church, but not this one! Herbert Armstrong founded the Worldwide Church of God. Ask just about any former Armstrongist and one thing they will note is how very little was preached about Jesus Christ and His work. There was no mention of a "finished work on the cross" at all. Jesus was virtually absent from most sermons, booklets, and even the modern websites! You think I'm exaggerating? Here, read this article "On Following Men" if you need more convincing.

He was the first to preach "the gospel" in 1,900 years. What gospel was that? Did it include Jesus' earthly  ministry, who He is, or what He did? Barely. How could it? That is the Gospel other churches preached. False churches. His was new! Jesus was actively downplayed. It wasn't about Jesus' first coming, the cross was a symbol of Tammuz, but His second coming. End times. "Gospel of the coming Kingdom of God" is what Armstrong preached. Grace is cheap. The New Covenant is really the Old Covenant. The law given under Moses was key. Sabbaths and holy days and tithes and meats. And you needed him to teach you about it. And fast! Jesus is headed down any minute! You need Herbert Armstrong and his modern descendants, or all hope for you is lost.

So, we have the founder, Pastor General, and spiritual and temporal leader of the Church since its inception in one man - Herbert Armstrong, not Jesus Christ - who was Divinely appointed to proclaim the soon-coming Kingdom, which was prophecy, thus making him a (false) prophet speaking in the name of God.
We have the modern imitators following suit. For example Ron Weinland who still teaches that if you weren't baptized into Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God then you will never see the Millenial reign of Christ. In fact, Ron Weinland takes it farther and proclaims - in print - that if you do not join his church and accept him as what amounts to being your master, then you will die horribly in the Great Tribulation before Jesus' return by May 27th, 2012. Or for another example, Dave Pack. How many times must his prophecies fail before people have had enough of him?
These are men who set themselves up as gateways to Christ. They, not Christ, are set up as your path to safety and salvation. They are christs! False ones!

Now, to summarize, we have three things: new teaching, false prophecies, and false messiahs. Sunday observance, which is even found in Revelation 1: 10 (the Greek is specific and in fact refers to Sunday), is not in that list of three things... it must be read into the text. However, all three of these things are demonstrated in Herbert Armstrong and the men who continue what he started.
Yet, these ones drive ahead undeterred and teach people to point the finger at mainstream Christianity and say, "these prophecies are about Sunday-keeping." I reject that conclusion.

Current Armstrongists, loved and cherished by God, I am not saying that these prophecies definitely are fulfilled in these men. All we here are saying is that people should take the time to consider what is going on with these men and to prove out these things for themselves, as the Bereans did, rather than avoid the issue. I urge you to pray and to challenge yourself to ask the tough questions. I've made some hefty claims - claims most Armstrongists wouldn't even bother themselves to read because they would shut down the conversation at the start. If you've made it this far, good on you! But I am not claiming that these things are definitely so, I am merely presenting a different perspective to get you to think about points of view. Can you see how there is a possibility that these men may not be what they claim to be? Is there any chance in the world that what I'm saying might be even remotely possible? Might it be too much to ask for you to investigate whether or not these things fit the puzzle more accurately than other things you may have been taught, but perhaps you never thought of it like this before? Is there a possibility that you have been taken by a slick salesman? Then ask the tough questions! The truth is not in any danger of no longer being true simply because you investigate it. If it keeps anyone from stepping into a deeper faith in Christ, in the New Covenant in His blood, then such a one owes it to themselves to investigate the matter.

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

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

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

Are We Living In The Last Days?

Quote-miners rejoice! I've recently read over a forgettable little speedbump in the Armstrongist library. The title of the booklet is "Are We Living in the Last Days?" copyright 1971, 1973. I cannot determine who the author is, specifically. It only claims to be from Ambassador College. No doubt someone out there knows. Certainly it was not Herbert Armstrong himself. But I think you'll enjoy some of the quotes recorded all the same.

The opening statement contains this quote:

"How can you KNOW whether this really IS the end-time generation? Can you PROVE it?"

I would like everyone to keep in mind that throughout the entire history of the Radio/Worldwide Church of God, the claim was that we could know prophecy and its fulfillment, including timing, for sure! The claim was always that this information was revealed by God, transmitted on authority of God Almighty, and is sure! Failure to act upon it meant your eternal life was forfeit. These were by no means mere claims of "maybe" or "could be". They were SURE!

Bear that in mind.

“You are living in the time of the end. But people have said that for centuries, haven’t they? Yes, they have. And, surprisingly, we say it again today. You are living in the time of the end – at the close of an age.”

-p.7

An absolute claim. Remember - it's sure and you can prove it.

“Throughout history men have been jeering at the proverbial picture of the eccentric, slightly mad, self-appointed ‘prophet of doom’…”

-p.7

Because a false prophet can only be a person who is wild in appearance, and slightly mad. Not at all like the respectable people in suits and limousines like you see in Herbert Armstrong's entourage. Clearly these men are for really real prophets.

(II COR. 11: 14) For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.

On p.8, the author points out “perhaps the most famous” false prophet, William Miller. The very William Miller from whom Herbert Armstong’s church is descended.

It is astounding to me that the past cannot be changed, but these men always acted as if it never happened.

The connection between the Worldwide Church of God, the Seventh Day Adventist church, and William Miller's Adventist group is a matter of historical fact. Easily provable. Still they flatly deny it. This is plainly a lie; a deception; an untruth.

William Miller started the "we are living in the last days" Adventist movement in the 1840's. Though he twice failed, in an event known as "The Great Disappointment", his movement forged ahead none the less. (Sound familiar?) Into that group, in the latter 1840's, came James White and Ellen G. Harmon (aka Ellen G. White). They ran the Adventist show until one fateful night between September 28th and October 1st, 1860, when a meeting where the church would decide to take the name "Seventh Day Adventist". That night, one Gilbert Cranmer, an Elder in the church, broke away because he could no longer accept Ellen G. White's visions. Gilbert Cranmer started his own church that later became known as the "General Conference of the Church of God - Seventh Day." It was this break-away church that eventually hired Herbert Armstrong to be a preacher, and Elder, and a leading member of church government. Armstrong was secretly building his own ministry, and teaching ideas he got from fringe elements like G. G. Rupert. For this, he was fired. Undaunted, he formed the Radio Church of God (1934, 1946) which later became known as the Worldwide Church of God (1968).

This is a matter of documented, historical fact. The Worldwide Church of God IS an offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists, and thus a descendant of this very William Miller whom it here derides as false.

They are descended from two false prophets!

“So, all these people have something in common. They were all wrong. Not one of them was right. The end of the world hasn’t come yet. The world is still going along on a kind of disequilibrium. But, going along nonetheless.” 

-P.10

At this point, 1971/1973, Herbert Armstrong had been precisely one of “these people” for just shy of 40 years already. His own false prophecies started in the early 1930’s. Read the Plain Truth magazine, June/July 1934, paying close attention to page 3, and see for yourself how Herbert Armstrong plainly taught that Jesus Christ would return in 1936!!

What is even more egregious is that this booklet was written right smack in the middle of the "1975 In Prophecy" debacle. January 1972 was supposed to be the start of the 3 1/2 year Great Tribulation leading to the return of Christ. This booklet was started in 1971, in 1972 the prophecies failed, prompting Herbert Armstrong to write a horrendous redaction letter, and in 1973 - not one year later - this booklet was released.

I want you to read more about the 1972 failure in this article "All Systems Are Go!"

“But the time has come to silence this doubting, skeptical and cynical attitude. God says the time HAS COME FOR ALL THESE PROPHECIES TO BE FULFILLED…”

-p.42

In 1971, 1973?? I wasn’t even born yet! I’m fairly certain that if the end had come, I wouldn't be writing about it. Nor either would you be here reading this.

“For centuries a wily and crafty adversary of God (Satan the devil) has sent his false prophets to delude man into expecting the imminent return of the Messiah. Always there has been a letdown. Christ did not show up when these self-appointed ‘prophets’ said He would.”

-P.42

And there’s absolutely no difference in this instance.
Have they any self awareness whatsoever??

Yet men such as Ron Weinland, Gerald Flurry, Dave Pack, Rod Merideth, John Ritenbaugh, Harold Smith, etc, etc, etc, continue on as if none of this false prophecy mattered... or happened.

1972 never happened. Nothing to see here.

“Consequently, people have become doubtful that Christ really will ever return. This is exactly what the devil has desired! Because when God’s true servants stand up to announce the immanency of Christ’s return, a ‘once bitten, twice shy’ public will not believe it! They’ve been ‘had’ too many times!”

-p.42

I wonder. I just wonder... is this an admission of guilt, craftily disguised as a warning? One of those narcissistic “If I tell them my plan, they won’t believe it” sort of things? Something to ponder.

“God’s Word plainly says, ‘Watch therefore, FOR YE KNOW NEITHER THE DAY NOR THE HOUR WHEN THE SON OF MAN COMETH’ (Matt. 25:13). This Work has never set an exact date for the return of Christ!”

-p.43

Nooooooooooooooooo. Never. Except when they set 1936, 1936-1954, 1972, 1980, and etc, etc.

We're the good guys! Not at all wild-looking like a real false prophet. Trust us!

If you read "All Systems Are Go!" you will know why they included this disclaimer about setting exact dates.

The key here is the word “exact.” It’s deceptive to make claim after failed claim, then weasel out of it by saying “I never set an exact date.” Notice how God never set exact dates in the Bible either - so this excuse is void. But I tell you this - Herbert Armstrong made precise statements again and again and again. Only by the sheer volume of claims could a person possibly find one that appears to have come to pass. The great majority failed on their face!

The problem in 1971/1973 was that no one had assembled any accurate record of what was claimed in the past. Through the blessings of the Internet, we can do that now. Just glance at this list of 209 failed prophecies for one example.

“Though we cannot know the precise day of the return of the Messiah, we can know the approximate time in history – “THE TIME OF THE END.”

P.43

We can? Then why didn’t you, oh sane-looking author of the booklet? Remember, this booklet was written in 1971/1973. That's half a century ago. How "approximate" are we talking here?

I'm not saying no one can. Perhaps it is possible. But I would go so far as to say no one has. And that most certainly includes these people!

“As John the Baptist prepared the way for the first coming of Jesus, this Work is preparing the way for his second arrival! (Mal. 4:5-6.)”

-p.43

You should be fully aware that Jesus arrived during John the Baptist’s ministry.

And now we sum it all up with this final quote:

“Is this the wild-eyed ranting of another ‘sect’? Or is this the message of the WORK OF THE LIVING GOD? You can prove it. Your eternity could depend on it! Your immediate future will surely depend on it. This is the End Time! Yes.”

-P.44

Yes. You can prove it. How?

(DEU. 18: 22) “When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.”

Simply ask yourself – did Jesus return in 1936, 1936-1954, 1972, 1980 and etc, or its immediate future? No. Case closed. There is nothing more to discuss. And, yes, your eternity could depend on this.

Current members of any Armstrongist group - any Church of God that descends from Herbert Armstrong or his teachings - I implore you -- take this seriously to heart and get out of there as soon as you can! Don't bury your questions. Ask them! These are not light matters to be brushed under a rug. Take this to heart and meditate on it.

If you have left, know for a fact that you are not alone. There is help for you. Just look at this list of supportive documents, kindly assembled by Que on your behalf. There are many people pulling for you. Contact me, I will personally see to it that you get the help you need.

Herbert W Armstrong's Doctrines and Fruit

Hi! I'm glad to see you're here for part two. (You can find part one of this series here.) I was a little afraid you wouldn't come back. At least not for a while anyway, what with all the false prophet business and questioning HWA's apostleship in my last post.

Guys, I know this is controversial stuff. I've approached this series with even more prayer and input than usual. At this point in the Church of God timeline, it's hard to find the right balance when discussing Herbert Armstrong. There's some people who hear about him nearly every week at church, and who believe he was an apostle God used to restore true doctrine. Others rarely hear his name, or came into the COGs decades after his death. To them, it's hard to understand why anyone would get worked up over HWA.

To be fair, those folks have a point. The modern COGs have largely left behind HWA's bombastic prophecies and date-setting, although speculative prophecy is still their calling card. The leaders of most COG groups have ditched HWA's trademark opulence. They've had no other choice, since each successive split chops their tithe base. They've largely excised Herbert Armstrong from the religious movement he started, holding to a handful of his doctrines and theories.  Then, when people criticize HWA, they feel justified in stating that HWA is tangential, even irrelevant, to their religious practices. I would know. I did it, too. For years.

It's not that simple, guys. It's not that simple both because of who and what HWA claimed to be, and because his teachings are still being perpetuated today.

HWA claimed to be an apostle divinely inspired by Jesus Christ, and said we would know his message came from God because his predictions would come to pass. Which they didn't. Since God didn't appear to back him up on his predictions, we have to question whether he really was an apostle, and thus ask if the rest of the message really came from God.

If the test he gave for his genuine apostleship failed, then the entire message must be re-evaluated. Problem is, it's not. It's being perpetuated. Even the failed prophecies! The COG groups who admit that he was wrong and rush to distance themselves from him still rely on the framework by which Herbert Armstrong misinterpreted prophecy. Is it any wonder why their predictions fail, too? They try to extract the man yet retain what he taught. Beloved of God, this is not good. We have a duty to reevaluate the entire system.

Today, I'd like to look at two more common arguments those in the COGs make when trying to explain why the man who pieced together their doctrinal foundation is not relevant to their beliefs. I know these things aren't fun. I know they aren't inspiring. They aren't particularly enjoyable for me to write, either. But they are things that you in the COGs, especially the young adults, need to hear and consider today. 

3. Herbert Armstrong must have been inspired by God to restore these truths, because no one else taught them.

It's true that Armstrong taught a very eclectic mix of beliefs. Many of them, however, can be traced back to others that were part of his religious background.

The COGs descend from the Millerite movement of the mid-1800s American midwest. Joseph Bates, one of the co-founders of the Seventh Day Adventist denomination, introduced the Millerites to observance of the Saturday Sabbath. He received this doctrine from the Seventh-Day Baptists. Armstrong references William Miller, a baptist preacher, as responsible for a resurgence in Sabbath-keeping in the American midwest (Mystery of the Ages, p. 288). But William Miller never kept the seventh day Sabbath. That was introduced by his followers, led by Ellen G. White. Most of the teachings that HWA espoused seem to have originated with people and organizations who emerged from the Millerite Movement.

William Miller is best known for his prediction that Jesus Christ would return on October 23, 1844, which resulted in what is known as the Great Disappointment. After the Great Disappointment many of Miller's followers refused to accept the obvious truth that his predictions had failed. They changed the narrative then forged ahead. The Millerite movement, now thoroughly Sabbatarian, took on the name Seventh Day Adventist in 1860.

At that very same meeting, an Elder in the Millerite movement by the name of Gilbert Cranmer officially broke away from the SDA church in protest over Ellen G. White and her visions. Cranmer gathered together a loosely knit group under the working name "General Conferences of the Church of God". Cranmer taught that the whole Law of Moses was never abolished and should still be observed. The group added the term "(Seventh Day)" to the name in 1923.

Herbert W. Armstrong was ordained by the Church of God (Seventh Day) in 1931. He later exited the COG-7 during a period of governmental splits in the organization to start his own congregation in Eugene, Oregon. (The Kingdom of the Cults, Walter Martin, p. 510-511).

It can be demonstrated that much of what Herbert Armstrong taught regarding prophecy came from William Miller. Just take a look at this prophetic chart from William Miller in 1843 and see if you recognize this from Armstrong's works and even modern publications in the COGs. It should appear quite familiar to you. So here we have Herbert Armstrong whose prophetic claims failed in no small part because he perpetuated the earlier failures of William Miller. Armstrong extracted the man William Miller yet kept his failed teachings. And the COGs are falling into exactly the same pit right now!

But William Miller isn't the only source from whom Armstrong borrowed.

G. G. Rupert was born a Methodist but later joined the Seventh Day Adventist movement. He went on to found the Independent Church of God. He believed Christians were required to keep the laws of the Old Testament, including Holy Days and dietary laws; taught church eras; and taught that Sabbath-keeping groups were the only true Christian churches. In 1917, Rupert started a periodical he called the "Remnant of Israel" which espoused a form of British Israelism, claiming the United States was descended from the tribe of Ephraim.

Many sources claim that Ambassador College employees found boxes of the "Remnant of Israel" publication in HWA's basement. If this is true, it would seem to support claims that Armstrong borrowed heavily from Rupert's writings. Similarities between HWA's writings and Rupert's writings, including topics, conclusions, and general writing style, lends considerable weight on its own. As we can see, Herbert Armstrong was demonstrably not the only one teaching what he did.

Some have set out to demonstrate that Armstrong plagiarized portions of many others' publications and passed them off as his own research. (See our article "This Has All Happened Before" for more details.) The most notable case is HWA's United States and the British Commonwealth in Prophecy, which was published in 1954, and appears to have largely plagiarized Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright, written by John Allen Harden in 1902. Joseph Tkach, Jr., a leader of the post-1995 Worldwide Church of God, had this to say about the booklet:

"In fact, it is no secret that Herbert Armstrong's "The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy" was copied from a book titled Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright by J. H. Allen. It is possible to run down almost the entire list of "new truths" supposedly revealed to Mr. Armstrong and point out where he got them and what preceded them." (Joseph Tkach, Jr., Transformed by Truth, Chapter 7).

WCG withdrew the United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy from circulation in 1990. Say what you want about the Tkaches, but you must recognize that they took a stand for what they believed, even though they knew withdrawing the booklet would be wildly unpopular among the WCG membership. They realized that one cannot simply remove the man yet retain the failed material. You can compare excerpts from both books here.

(For more on how many of the doctrines "revealed" to HWA were borrowed from the COG7, we recommend you read our articles "50 Truths part 1" and "50 Truths part 2".)

So is it a crime to write about the ideas and theories of others? Of course not. I'm clearly using research from other people in this post. Although I am citing it and giving others credit for their work. The problem comes when one passes off someone else's ideas and writings as his or her own. It's even more problematic when they claim the ideas came from God.

Herbert Armstrong never cited Rupert, Allen, Dugger, Dodd, White, Smith, the Watchtower Society or any of the other writers from whom he "borrowed" in his own writings. Remember, in his November 29, 1954 co-worker letter, he certified that his teachings came not from from man, but was revealed by Jesus Christ.

"No, I know of no one else who was thrust into the Ministry of Jesus Christ, untaught by man by the living Christ through His written word, in the manner in which I was." -Herbert W. Armstrong, Autobiography, p. 318-319.

When he said that he was "untaught by man" what he really meant was he was never formally trained as a preacher. He admitted that God spoke to him through the writings of other men.
Herbert Armstrong was not by any means the only one teaching what he did. Not by a long shot. If you really want to see something, we recommend you read the book Churches That Abuse by Ron Enroth. There are a great many groups out there with absolutely no connection to the COGs who teach strikingly similar things and make eerily similar claims to that of Herbert Armstrong, and this book documents several.

There is nothing inherently wrong with HWA learning doctrinal truth from other people. It's the model God created for His church. But there is a problem with him passing off the teachings of others as his own, claiming they came directly from God. Which leads to my next point.

4. Herbert Armstrong wasn't perfect. No one is. By your rationale, you would have rejected David - a man after God's own heart - as king of Israel because of his sins with Bathsheba.

And by this same rationale, would this same defense apply to Nimrod, or the Pope, or Ellen G White?

I don't think that Herbert W. Armstrong had to be perfect to start a church. There's only been one perfect man, and HWA wasn't Him. HWA wasn't perfect, and neither am I, neither is my pastor, neither is my Bible study leader... the list goes on. And includes everyone. All of us have sinned and fallen short of God's perfection. So I'm not going to ramble on about the Czar's golden flatware or Steuben crystal or $2,500 bottles of Remy Martin Lousi XIII cognac in the special baccarat decanter. I won't focus on the makeup flip-flop, the Pentecost controversy, or on the families destroyed by WCG's policy on divorce and remarriage in the years before HWA's own divorce.

I originally planned not to mention the most troubling accusation against HWA. But then I noticed that, in one of the Living Church of God articles I quote later, Rod Meredith states that those who accuse HWA of "major sins" often have no proof whatsoever. (Note that he said "often" and not "never.") I simply cannot let that statement go unchallenged. So I'll just include this link for those who are inclined to read about it. It's important to note that HWA never filed a libel suit against David Robinson for the claims he made in his book; he simply tried to prevent the book from being published, as the link's author also points out. The allegations were reported as fact during HWA's divorce proceedings with Ramona Martin. Even UCG's own Gary Antion is reported to have said he knew the claims were true since the 1970s. And with that, I will move on.

Matthew 7:15-17 tells us we will know a false prophet by his fruit. What was HWA's fruit like? What was he known for, the fruit of the spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control? As Christians, we are supposed to grow in the fruit of the spirit over the course of our lives. What does the fruit of his church look like? Gentleness, love, forbearance, kindness? Good, healthy trees don't grow bad fruit, Matthew 7:17 tells us. Did HWA gently tend the sheep in his care? Did he gather the lambs in his arms, as Jesus instructed the apostle Peter to do? Or was he a different kind of shepherd?

There are many examples of difficult words HWA wrote to the WCG membership. Perhaps the most troubling letter was written on March 2, 1967, addressed to the "Brethren and Co-Heirs of God." At this time, his wife, Loma, was critically ill with a bowel obstruction. Armstrong wrote that the Holy Spirit produced her tragic illness to awaken Church leadership and membership to the fact that they had become spiritually sluggish. It's a long letter, so please allow me to quote from the most relevant sections. The only changes I have made to these sections are to refrain from HWA's practice of capitalizing letters for added emphasis, only because it slows down my typing too much.

"Brethren, I have suffered as perhaps never before, with my wife lying there - with a bowel blockage that held locked inside of her putrid human waste - knowing that unless God grants her continued life by a miracle of healing, I would have to go it alone, without her. And Jesus has looked down upon His beloved wife, whom He loves, as I so deeply love my wife. And as I have seen my wife about to die unless purged of this physical poison, so Jesus sees His wife - our church - about to die for eternity, unless we are purged of our spiritual poison."

"It may be that God is still waiting for this spiritual awakening to spread through the whole church - on down to the last member - even you! before my dear wife can be delivered, and completely healed and restored to active, vigorous health."

"Many professing to be church members say, when a co-worker letter arrives, in a grumbling, complaining disgust, 'Oh, that's just another of Mr. Armstrong's requests for money,' and many don't even read the letter."

"Are you one of those? If so, let me burn your ears before the almighty God burns you in the Lake of Fire! If that has been your attitude - if you are only on the getting side, and shun helping, and giving to the cause of God, then I say to you on authority of Jesus Christ, if you don't repent and quickly, and change that hostile, despicable, detestable attitude, you do not belong in God's Church! You are some of the rotten, putrid, spiritual waste that has been plugged up inside the spiritual body of Christ's wife, just as the physical waste is plugged up in my dear wife's body! And the living Jesus is just as able to expel you from the spiritual body of his wife as He is to expel this physical waste from my wife's body."

So how has the Church been "falling down on the job," as HWA asserts? Well, the church was in the middle of a building campaign to expand Ambassador College and church mail processing facilities. Without more space for students or room to process mail, the work could not grow. Special offerings for the building fund - those over and above tithes and regular offerings - had dwindled to about half the amount from the previous year, even though membership was up by 30 percent.

"Think of it! How ashamed God must be with this, His Church!"

I have no words to follow up on the content of this letter, other than to urge you to heed the words of Hebrews 13:7. Remember what those who rule over you have taught you, whose faith you follow. Consider the outcome of their conversations and conduct. You can read the full text of the letter here if you wish.

So why am I writing all this? I must really despise Herbert W. Armstrong and harbor bitterness toward everyone the COG ministry. Not really. I was indifferent about the man for years. It's hard to work up a deep loathing in a matter of months. Even now, as I read his letter calling people I've known and loved "rotten, putrid spiritual waste," all I can really do is shake my head. And the ministers? Some of these guys were a big part of my childhood and teenage years. It sometimes pains me to quote men who, years ago, taught this shy young girl to play YOU basketball or shoot a rifle at youth camp.

Maybe it's because I think everyone in the COGs is a dummy? No, that's not it either. Remember, I was there for years. It took me almost two years to untangle the convoluted doctrinal web to the point I felt marginally comfortable leaving. In some cases, I'm still working on it. And I still have family there. A few of you folks even still consider me to be a friend.

I know. I must be really bored, so I sit around picking on HWA and the COGs all day. I need to get a life. I probably should just turn off my computer and watch "Dancing with the Stars" like everyone else. I've "thrown the baby out with the bathwater" and now I obviously don't have anything else going on. No, I assure you, that's not it either.

So why do I do it? Believe it or not, it's because I care about you. First of all, God loves you and calls after you. That is my primary motivation. Second, Galatians 4 and 5 have some strong words for those who believe observance of Sinai Covenant laws factor into their salvation. I'm concerned for your eternal spiritual welfare. 

I could just hang it up and use my computer to play Candy Crush Saga while the COGs come to nothing, like Gamaliel described in Acts 5:38. Surely, deep down, you know that's where the COGs are headed. But that doesn't mean I want you to suffer through the fallout. I've been through splits, and I've cried through the isolation. It's not going to get any better as time marches on, and deep-down you know. You hope it won't, but you know it will. My heart aches when I think of the future the youngest in my family have ahead of them. Herbert W Armstrong is primarily responsible for the doctrines and the interpretations and the points of view and the attitudes that have caused splinter after splinter. If holding to those is what God expects of you, what He requires for salvation, then it's worth it. Anything is. But what if it isn't? What if the teachings of HWA handed down through his disciples are not what God requires of you at all? What if the problems you see all around you, the splits, the egos at the top, the failed prophecies, the difficult scriptures, the anomalies with history and science, and all the rest, aren't because of a cosmic conspiracy against you but rather because the system itself is fundamentally flawed and it's just behaving as all fundamentally flawed systems do? Jesus came for you to have an abundant life, not the one that lies ahead of you in the COGs. 

Finally, I want you to experience the full blessings of the New Covenant. The blessing of salvation by grace, through faith in the shed blood of Jesus. The blessing of peace that surpasses all understanding. The blessing of truly understanding grace, and the restoration it allows in your relationships with others. None of these are possible while you are actively steeped in HWA's doctrines and his misconceptions about the historic Christian faith. In my next post, I will explore one of the biggest myths in the COG young adult mind - the belief that Herbert W Armstrong and his mistakes don't influence their churches today.

You can find part 1 of this series here. You can find part 3 of this series here.

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

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

True History of the True Church??

What I am about to show you are a few examples taken from my recently completed review of a booklet by Herman Hoeh titled “True History of the True Church” 1959 edition. (My deepest thanks to my friends who helped me edit this project.) Hoeh's booklet attempts to build a lineage back through time from Herbert Armstrong to the Apostles. It cites real history books and makes real falsifiable claims on history. This is not some debatable bit of doctrinal curiosity here. This is history – supposedly the “TRUE history.” We can look at this and see without a doubt if it is true or if it is not. If what Hoeh says is not true, then it cannot possible be the "true history." I think you will be shocked by what I have found.

I would like to share these few examples with you since my overall study is far too large to post here and let you see for yourself whether or not Hoeh was being truthful. These are some of the most blatant examples, but I assure you the rest was no different.

How this works is I am going to give you a "claim", which is a quote from Hoeh's book. Then we'll review the facts behind the claim. Then I'll summarize.

CLAIM:

“But how did Nimrod – ‘Peter’ – become associated with Rome? Because it was to Rome that Nimrod fled from his persecutors. The ancient name of Rome was ‘Saturnia,’ recorded by Pliny in his Natural History, bk. III.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.15

FACTS:

In The Natural History of Pliny (the Elder), Volume I – which contains Book III – starting on p. 191, Pliny begins describing the regions of Italy. He mentions various areas and cities until, on page 202, Pliny begins describing the city of Rome. On page 203, he states that within the massive walls of Rome there were 14 districts. The metropolitan area grew, however, and eventually spilled over all bounds and engulfed several surrounding towns. On page 204, Pliny mentions that within the first district, within the bounds of the then current city of Rome, there was one town engulfed which was called Saturnia. Pliny also mentions Janiculum (formerly Antipolis) which also forms part of the then current city of Rome.

The translators write in the notations on page 204, about Antipolis:

“Said to have been so called from having been ‘opposite’ to the ancient city of Saturnia. The Janiculus or Januculum was a fortress on the opposite bank of the Tiber, and a suburb of Rome, connected with it by the Sublician bridge.”

CONCLUSION:

This claim is false. Hoeh distorts what Pliny said. Rome was not formerly known as Saturnia. Rather, Rome had grown to engulf Saturnia and many other small towns.

CLAIM:

“Anacletus, an elder or bishop in the apostate church at Rome, dedicated the ancient shrine of the pagan Peter (or Nimrod) to the apostle Peter around 80 A.D., according to a record in the Liber Pontificalis (I, p. 125).”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.15

FACTS:

Anacletus, aka Cletus, lived during the time of the Apostles. Some records say Anacletus was bishop of Rome in 77-88, others say 80-92. The records just aren’t entirely reliable. There are even some records that split Anacletus into two different people (Cletus and Anacletus). But we should ask ourselves, why were these records so spotty? Simple! The persecution of Christians that began with Nero was still going strong, and it was deadly to be a Christian out in the open.

I’ve searched the Liber Pontificalis for entries about Anacletus dedicating a shrine, and I have found nothing. Nothing in volume I page 125. Nothing in the entire thing. I did, however, find reference to Anacletus building a tomb in Volume I, p. 9:

“He built and adorned the sepulchral monument to Peter, forasmuch as he had been made priest by the blessed Peter, and other places of sepulcher for the burial of bishops. There he himself was likewise buried near the body of the blessed Peter…”

Vatican hill was an ancient cemetery used by both pagans and eventually Christians. It was also used as farmland. It also housed the Circus of Nero (an arena for races and gladiator fights). Given that, it is impossible that an ancient shrine could have survived from Nimrod’s day for Anacletus to rededicate.

CONCLUSION:

This claim is false. Hoeh, I suspect willfully, misquotes the Liber Pontificalis. This tomb was built by Anacletus; he did not dedicate an ancient shrine.

CLAIM:

“Anacletus claimed to be the sole successor to Peter. He insisted that Rome should be the new headquarters of all the churches.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.15

FACTS:

History is so spotty that there are several versions of his placement in the Catholic list of Popes. Hoeh gives no source for this claim. I suspect there is no source. Hoeh only invents this claim to take down Anacletus, and that solely because of his involvement with Peter’s tomb.

CONCLUSION:

This claim is manufactured. There is absolutely no record of Anacletus making this claim. Later Popes (much later) made this claim, but that is no proof at all in regards to whether or not Anacletus made this claim. The notion that the Bishop of Rome would have made a claim like that in those days is laughable and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the order of things in the early church. In fact, at that time, it was the Greek east that was dominant – not the Latin west. And all Bishops were considered of equal rank.

I would remind you that the list of Popes is an attempt to link the Catholic Pontiff to the Apostles - and that is precisely what Hoeh is doing in this booklet. This claim is meant to discredit his competition.

CLAIM:

“This church [Smyrna] claims they are spiritually Jews.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.17

FACTS:

Here is God’s word:

(REV. 2: 9) …I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

They do not at all claim to be “spiritually Jews.” The Bible neither says that, nor does it intend that as its meaning. None of the most respected Bible commentaries support Hoeh. This is a blatant rewriting of the Bible. Hoeh inserts the word “spiritual” so that in your mind you will equate this to the phrase “Spiritual Israel.”

CONCLUSION:

This claim is false. Hoeh has added to the words of the Bible in order to change “Jew” into “Gentile Christian.”

CLAIM:

[Hoeh quotes Eusebius:]

“But before this time another most virulent disorder had existed, and long afflicted the Church; I mean the difference respecting… Easter. For while one party asserted that the Jewish custom (as to time) should be adhered to, the other (did not).

Accordingly, the people being thus in every place divided in this respect… no one appeared who was capable of devising a remedy… BECAUSE THE CONTROVERSY CONTINUED EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES… Constantine appeared to be the only one on earth capable… He convoked a general council…”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.18

FACTS:

When I read this, I get the sense that Eusebius is an indifferent reporter of benign fact. I showed this quote to a neutral third party, without any commentary from me, and their conclusion was the same as mine.

Here are the actual words of Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, book III, Chapter V, in section “Of the Disagreement Respecting the Celebration of Easter”. I will underline the areas that Hoeh left out.

“But before this time another most virulent disorder had existed, and long afflicted the Church; I mean the difference respecting the salutary feast of Easter. For while one party asserted that the Jewish custom should be adhered to, the other affirmed that the exact recurrence of the period should be observed, without following the authority of those who were in error, and strangers to gospel grace [Jews].

Accordingly, the people being thus in every place divided in respect of this, and the sacred observances of religion confounded for a long period (insomuch that the diversity of judgment in regard to the time for celebrating one and the same feast caused the greatest disagreement between those who kept it, some afflicting themselves with fastings and austerities, while others devoted their time to festive relaxation), no one appeared who was capable of devising a remedy for the evil, because the controversy continued equally balanced between both parties. To God alone, the Almighty, was the healing of these differences an easy task; and Constantine appeared to be the only one on earth capable of being his minister for this good end. For as soon as he was made acquainted with the facts which I have described, and perceived that his letter to the Alexandrian Christians had failed to produce its due effect, he at once aroused the energies of his mind, and declared that he must prosecute to the utmost this war also against the secret adversary who was disturbing the peace of the Church.”

Not only did Hoeh leave out all that I have here underlined, he added two sections in parentheses, and a third section at the end.

CONCLUSION:

What Hoeh does here is strategically rewrite Eusebius in order to cause it to say precisely the opposite of what it does say. Hoeh would leave us to understand that the static dating of Easter was disturbing the church. Hoeh removed or rewrote all of the references to how his own position is considered to be “evil” and “disturbing” in Eusebius’ sight.

CLAIM:

“Not even the persecutions of pagan Rome matched the terrible slaughter of Constantine’s ‘Christian’ Rome. From the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) to about the death of Constantine, the persecution raged for 10 long years as prophesied (see Rev. 2: 10, where a prophetic ‘day’ represents a ‘year’ in fulfillment – Numbers 14: 34).”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.18

FACTS:

Once again we see Hoeh’s claims are factually erroneous. The Great Persecution under Diocletian was the worst Roman persecution by far – even worse than that of Nero. Galarius and Constantine ended that.

In 311 AD, Galerius issued an Edict of Toleration, ending the persecution of Christians. Constantine restored confiscated property to Christians in the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. There was now religious freedom in Rome. He outlawed crucifixion in favor of hanging, he restored property to Christians, he freed Christian slaves, he allowed the Christian bishops to decide their own policy (he then enforced their policy in an effort to maintain peace and unity), and many other such benevolent things.

CONCLUSION:

This claim is shockingly false. Hoeh would paint Constantine as a horrible butcher. And why? He does this for no other reason than to invent a history favorable to his flawed presuppositions.

CLAIM:

“The names given to these people of God by their enemies were ‘Athyngani’ – meaning ‘those who understood prophecy’ – and ‘Paulicians’ – the followers of the apostle Paul.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.20

FACTS:

"Athyngani" means “untouchable.” Sándor Avraham, in his online study titled Myths, Hypotheses and Facts Concerning the Origins of Peoples, under section heading The True Origin of Roma and Sinti, says this:

“The Athinganoi were given such name in connection with their ritual purity laws, that regarded impure any contact with other people...”

Vasile Burtea's "The Roma in the Synchrony and the Diachrony of the Contact Population" [say that 5 times fast], under section 1.2 "The Motives and Passages of Migration" claims the phrase "Athinganoi" comes from the Greek and means, roughly, "untouchable."

Johann Lorenz Mosheim agrees, in his book "Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, Volume II" chapter V. This author and book are quoted by Hoeh in his booklet.

As for the Paulicians, they got their name from Paul of Samasota, Bishop of Smyrna (200-275 AD). Not the Apostle Paul.

CONCLUSION:

This claim is demonstrably false. After all of the reading Hoeh did - especially reading Mosheim - I find it impossible to believe that he didn't full well know this.

CLAIM:

“They [the Henricians] were charged by the Catholic Church with remaining faithful to the whole law of God and of observing the Sabbath (Ecclesiastical History, by Peter Allix, pp. 168-169).

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p. 22

FACTS:

Hoeh quotes the book “Ecclesiastical History” by Peter Allix. This turns out to be “Remarks Upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses”.

That’s Albigenses - not the Petrobrussians, Henricians, or Arnoldists.

The omission of the full title of this work seems utterly deceptive to me since Hoeh uses this quote in direct reference to Henry of Lausanne (founder of the Henricians) and Arnold of Brescia (founder of the Arnoldists) .. but the book is about the Albigenses. Peter de Bruys (founder of the Petrobrussians) and Henry of Lausanne (Henricians) are only mentioned in the book in regards to proving the Albigenses predated them.

To put it plainly, he is citing a book about one group and trying to apply it to other groups.

Hoeh only paraphrases, so there is no specific quote to confirm or deny. What I can do, however, is tell you that the word “sabbath” never appears in the work, and the “law of God” certainly does not refer to the laws of the Old Covenant (which is precisely what Hoeh understands this phrase to mean).

CONCLUSION:

I have found nothing in this book at all, or any other besides, to justify Hoeh’s paraphrase. All of these men were Catholic reformers, outraged by the excesses of the clergy. Peter de Bruys even sought the Pope's permission to preach.

CLAIM:

“Their [the Waldenses] enemies admitted that these people proclaimed the gospel of the Kingdom of God, that they baptized repentant believers and obeyed the whole law of God.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p. 23

FACTS:

William Jones, in his book "History of the Christian Church", specifically says, on p. 80 of his book, that they did not tithe. In fact, Jones relates this to us on p. 82:

“An impartial review of the doctrinal sentiments maintained by the Waldenses; the discipline, order, and worship of their churches, as well as their general deportment and manner of life, not to mention their determined and uniform opposition to the church of Rome, affords abundant evidence of the similarity of their views and practices to those held by Luther, Calvin, and the other illustrious characters, whose labours, in the sixteenth century, contributed so eminently to effect the glorious Reformation.” [emphasis mine]

Note: This is a book Hoeh quotes often. Andrew Dugger and C. O. Dodd in their earlier work "A History of the True Religion Traced from 33 AD to Date" quote from it 33 times. They all refer to it as "Jones' Church History."

CONCLUSION:

Hoeh is obviously not impartial. His claims are false.

The Waldensian church still exists today. They are part of the Presbyterian church. Ask them what their history is.

CLAIM:

“Through the preaching of Lollard and other helpers, hundreds were repenting. Thousands were learning for the first time that baptism means immersion – that the world’s religious holidays came from paganism and that Sunday was not the Sabbath.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, P. 23

FACTS:

Hoeh goes into some specific claims, but backs them up with nothing.

He mentions the Lollards. What do we know about them?

The Lollards were followers of John Wycliffe, another early Protestant. They rejected the excesses of the clergy. Once again we have a group who opposed tithing – they wanted the clergy to live off their own labor. Wycliffe only wanted to reform the Catholic Church.

CONCLUSION:

This claim is false. John Wycliffe was a Catholic reformer; certainly not an Armstrongist.

CLAIM:

“Several faithful congregations did not become members of the [Seventh-day Baptist] Conference because they would not submit to the new Protestant doctrines being introduced (see p. 246 of Belcher’s Religious Denominations).”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, pp. 23-24

FACTS:

The book Hoeh references is The Religious Denominations in the United States: Their History, Doctrine, Government and Statistics with a Preliminary Sketch of Judaism, Paganism, and Mohammedanism by Joseph Belcher. Upon turning to page 246, as referenced, I found that Mr. Belcher was not at all speaking of the Seventh Day Baptists. He was speaking about a subsection of Baptists that he calls “Six Principle Baptists.” Mr. Belcher even lists these 6 principles, and contrasts them with the Associated Baptists and the Freewill Baptists, so it is obvious that he is not speaking of the Seventh-day Baptist church.

CONCLUSION:

Hoeh infers Belcher was speaking about the Seventh-day Baptists; he was not saying that at all. Hoeh infers that Belcher was saying certain independent seventh day Sabbath observing groups were refusing to join the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference; he was not saying that at all. Hoeh infers that Belcher was saying the issue was over the introduction of pagan heresies (ie. Protestant doctrines); he was not saying that at all. Hoeh infers the refusal was more specifically over the Sabbath, or naming, or some such issue; it was not. Hoeh didn’t get a single detail correct except that there was one group who refused to join another.

I can see no possible way that this was done without complete foreknowledge and willful intent. For it to be anything besides would mean Herman Hoeh is either not the author, or he was suffering from some form of dementia.

CLAIM:

“The original Church of God brethren generally did not go along with the ‘inspired restimony’ of Ellen G. White. Finally, a meeting was held by some of the members in Battle Creek, Michigan, September 28 through October 1, 1860.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p. 24

FACTS:

Hoeh is referring to Gilbert Cranmer and his rejection of Ellen G. White. Hoeh is attempting to sever all ties with William Miller and the Seventh Day Adventists.

According to the Ellen G. White official estate website, in an article titled “Ellen G. White: A Brief Biography”, under section “Marriage of James White and Ellen Harmon”, John and Ellen White accepted the Saturday Sabbath in the latter half of 1846. According to the Seventh Day Adventist website, in an article on the history of the church, it states the name “Seventh-day Adventist” was chosen in 1860.

It was at this conference in Battle Creek, Michigan that one of William Miller’s followers, Mr. Gilbert Cranmer (an elder in Ellen G. White’s Adventist church) publically aired disagreements with Ellen G. White and her visions. Afterwards, Gilbert Cranmer took a chunk of people in Michigan with him when he left, and he formed the group that eventually became known as the Church of God (Seventh Day).

CONCLUSION:

This statement is false. Generally speaking, for several years the majority did go along with Ellen G. White. If they hadn’t, there wouldn’t be any “Seventh Day” in “Church of God (Seventh Day)”. Only a handful eventually broke away, and that was due to her odd visions and prophecies. But Armstrongism is a branch of Adventism and a descendant of Ellen G. White’s church. (Technically they still go along with her to this day.) In trying to deny this link, Hoeh inadvertently admits it. That tie is impossible to sever.

In closing…

One person can show every last verse in the Bible on a given topic, and as sure as the sun rises in the east there will be someone bound and determined to argue against it. It is the nature of people to feel so highly of their own opinions that some will never be convinced otherwise by any evidence. Mankind would kill their Savior before they re-assess their opinions and beliefs.

But this information I have laid out here is not speculation. It is a matter of historical fact. In one place Hoeh quotes an author, and I have checked that quote, and in the vast majority of instances his quote was incorrect. Some were not just incorrect, but grossly so. In some cases he left whole swaths of information out. In some cases he claimed things were said that were not.

This is not a matter of opinion. Did Hoeh misquote or did he not? It is a fact that he did! Therefore it cannot be the "true history."

The works are there, I have provided links, check for yourself. I deeply suspect, given the rare and inaccessible nature of the source material, that Hoeh and Armstrong hoped no one ever could or would double check.

Dear reader, you will have to read the full version of my study to get the full effect of Hoeh’s errors (or do a study of your own.) Several times Hoeh misquotes his sources. Several times he invents history. Several times his information is blatantly taken straight from the grossly flawed and fully debunked works of Alexander Hyslop. Several times his inventions are obviously designed to justify Herbert Armstrong and the things he has said or did. Indeed, the whole booklet was written to this end.

Some of the examples are so blatant, so egregious, that there is no possible way they were not deliberate, premeditated, and done with intent to deceive.

Taking in to account my recent review of Herbert Armstrong’s “Who is the Beast?” –where I saw much the same thing as I found here - I have no choice but to look at every work from these two compatriots with the highest degree of skepticism.

Current members of a COG, deeply sought after by God, please take this information to heart and consider the methods of the men who gave you what you now believe. Was it honest what they did? How much of what you now believe is based on the booklets and articles written by these two men? Did you do as the Bereans did and verify the information for yourself? I did not – until recently. And I am ASTOUNDED by the mistruth I found. Is that Godly fruit you’re eating, or rotten?

May God lead you to His truth. And may God have mercy on these men who have foisted such terrible lies on so many tens of thousands of people.