Mr. Armstrong's Role Part 10 - "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1)

This post is a continuation of the last post in this series. This series of posts is a refutation of some points made in an article, "Just What is an APOSTLE?", published by Church of God in Wales (COGIW). In the first post in this series is a link to their website.

The COGIW article teaches that we should never question, correct, or change Mr. Armstrong's teachings, even if they conflict with the Bible.


In chapter 6, the COGIW article makes a point about the passage where Paul says, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1, KJV). According to the COGIW article, some have used this passage as an excuse to not follow an apostle sent to them by interpreting this verse to mean that we only follow the apostle to the degree that this apostle follows Christ. The article says that this cannot be the right interpretation because the Corinthians only knew of Christ through the apostle sent to them, Paul.

But let's examine this passage and related passages in more detail, letting the Bible interpret the Bible.

1 Corinthians 4:16 says, "Therefore I urge you, imitate me". The NIV also uses the word "imitate". The King James Version says, "be ye followers of me". There is no qualification in this verse.

But 1 Corinthians 11:1 may add a qualification. "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ". I say may add a qualification, because it is unclear in the English whether Paul meant, imitate me because I imitate Christ, or, imitate me to the extent and degree I imitate Christ. If he meant the second, that we are to imitate him only to the extent that he imitates Christ, then that is a qualification and a limitation on how we imitate Paul.

The Greek word translated "imitate" or "be followers" is the same in both passages, mimetes, Strong's number 3402, meaning imitator.

The COGIW article says that this cannot mean that the Corinthians were to imitate Paul only to the extent they saw him imitate Christ because they only knew about Christ from Paul. I do not agree. Yes, Paul brought them into contact with and knowledge of Christ. But their whole knowledge of Christ did not just come from Paul. They had access to the Old Testament prophecies about Christ. Even though not every person has the whole Old Testament, or even parts of it, they did have some access, just as the Bereans did, checking up in the scriptures to see if the things Paul said were true (Acts 17:10-11). They also no doubt had travelers from other congregations supervised by other apostles, such as Peter and the others. There was interaction and communication and fellowship between the various parts of the Church of God.

Paul was not their only contact. Peter refers to the writings of Paul in 2 Peter 3:15, saying, "and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation - as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you". Notice that Peter is writing this epistle, but he is addressing those who read Paul's epistles also, because he says, "Paul...has written to you". And many believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, which was clearly written to the Jews, not the congregations Paul was an apostle to.

So the Church of God as a whole was reading epistles from more than one apostle, in addition to having some access to the Old Testament prophecies and teaching about Christ.

Besides all that, the gospel accounts by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were being written, and as they were written, they were reproduced and distributed to the whole Church of God.

So the Corinthians had plenty of opportunity to learn about Christ other than what Paul told them. And Paul was not requiring them to follow him in doctrine if he did not follow Christ.

This is even more true for the time after Paul was dead. The distribution of the gospel accounts and the epistles of Peter, James, John, and Jude increased over time, and would have reached maximum distribution after Paul was dead. Then those who read about Christ from the Old Testament and the New Testament being distributed to them could compare that with what they remembered of Paul's spoken word and his epistles that were not canonized, and if Paul erred in following Christ in doctrine, the members were to NOT follow Paul in those instances since he was not following Christ.

Why do I mention the time when Paul was dead? Because the COGIW article is comparing Paul with Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Armstrong is dead. In other words, if you want to make Mr. Armstrong like Paul, we are in that period that compares with the period for the early Church in the first few decades after Paul had died. And during that time, the New Testament was made complete, and the members had opportunity to learn about Christ and Christ's doctrine from many other apostles and writers other than Paul.

But there is another more important reason why the COGIW argument is wrong, that Paul could not mean that the Corinthians were to follow him only to the extent he followed Christ because they only knew about Christ through Paul.

Paul was not just writing to the Corinthians. He was writing to us, whether he realized it or not. For it is God who is the real author of the Bible and every book that has been canonized and made part of the Bible.

It is God who speaks to us today through the writings of Paul, and it is God who inspired the words that Paul penned, "as I also imitate Christ".

Local context can be important, but there is always a universal context, the context of God speaking to us today. Paul was not just writing to the Corinthians. He was writing to us, because God made this letter a part of His word, the Bible, and God speaks to us directly through the Bible. The Bible is God speaking. It reveals the mind of God.

Paul's writings that were canonized as part of the Bible were not just for the Corinthians. Nor were they just for the congregations Paul had raised up. They were for the whole Church of God, past, present, and future. That means they are for us today. And today, Paul says to us, be followers of me as I follow Christ. And that sets the pattern of how we should view Mr. Armstrong. We are to follow him as he followed Christ! And that means, to the extent and degree he followed Christ. We do not follow him in instances of doctrine or behavior where he might not have followed Christ. And being human, he made mistakes.

It is not just Mr. Armstrong who has been our apostle. Paul is our apostle too. So is Peter, so is James, so is John. We know of their teaching from the things they wrote in the Bible. They are dead, but so is Mr. Armstrong.

It seems to me that the COGIW article tries to elevate the teachings of Mr. Armstrong above that of Paul, Peter, James, John, and all the writers of the Bible. But why? They are all dead, equally dead. In fact, the writings of the early apostles must be elevated above the writings of Mr. Armstrong because the only writings we have of those apostles are part of the Bible, and the Bible is free from error but Mr. Armstrong's teachings are not free from error.

Do you want to follow Mr. Armstrong, not just to the extent and degree he followed Christ, but follow Mr. Armstrong's teachings unconditionally because he followed Christ?

Then go back to Grace Communion International, or whatever Worldwide under the Tkaches changed the name of that organization to. Mr. Armstrong told us to follow Mr. Tkach. Then do it, if you want to follow Mr. Armstrong's every teaching unconditionally. Don't call yourself Church of God. You are doing away with the most important thing Mr. Armstrong taught, and rightly taught: Don't believe me, believe God, believe your Bible. He taught that by word, and he taught that by his example, an example he began to practice before he was ordained as a minister much less thought of himself as an apostle. But you want to throw that away.

There are some who claim to follow Mr. Armstrong, but do not do what he says. That reminds me of Christ's statement, "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46). Many in traditional churches of this world call Jesus Christ, "Lord". They praise His person. They use His name and profess to worship Him. But they don't do what He says. Isn't that how we are towards Mr. Armstrong if we praise his person and claim to follow him, but don't do what he says?

He said, don't believe me, believe the Bible. He said this many times, over and over. He also personally lived by this saying. He believed the Bible more than any man, even when he was an unordained lay member of the Church of God.

We should do what he said in this case because it is also what the Bible teaches.

He also said, shortly before his death, that if he died God would provide a new pastor general (who was Mr. Tkach though Mr. Armstrong had not named him yet), and we should follow that man if we want to be in the Kingdom of God. He said that one time, near the end of his life. He never qualified that, "as that pastor general follows Christ", or, "as that pastor general follows the Bible". He should have qualified his statement that way, but he didn't.

We should not do what Mr. Armstrong said in this case because it is contrary to the Bible. We were right to leave Mr. Tkach and not follow him when we saw that he was not following Christ and the Bible.

But any man who left Mr. Tkach at that time and today says we must not change Mr. Armstrong's teachings is being inconsistent, is he not? For if we have no right to change Mr. Armstrong's teaching in Mystery of the Ages, what right do we have to change his teaching about following Mr. Tkach unconditionally?

In the verses I quoted about "imitate me" or "be followers of me", there are two ways we can follow someone. We can follow their teachings, or we can follow their example, or both. The word, "follow", in the English, can mean either or both. The word, "imitate" seems to imply following the example of someone, imitating their example, their actions, their way of life, more than teachings and doctrine. Paul may not have been primarily talking about doctrine. He may have been primarily talking about his personal example and his way of life - his love, his service, his work, his diligence, his zeal, and his willingness to sacrifice and suffer for the sake of the gospel.

The context immediately surrounding 1 Corinthians 4:16, where Paul says, "imitate me", suggests that Paul might not be talking primarily about doctrine but a way of life, for the whole passage speaks of Paul's suffering, service, and way of life.

"For I think that God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; for we have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are distinguished, but we are dishonored! To the present hour we both hunger and thirst, and we are poorly clothed, and beaten, and homeless. And we labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we entreat. We have been made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things until now.
   "I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me. For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church" (1 Corinthians 4:9-17).

I do not say that Paul definitely was not including doctrine in how he wanted to be followed or imitated, only that the passage suggests emphasis on the example part, what we would call, "Christian living".

What about the second passage, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1)? The two verses just prior to this say, "Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved" (1 Corinthians 10:32-33). That again suggests to me that the context of "imitate me" is Paul's example of love and Christian living, that is, obedience to God's holy law of love, not what some may call doctrine. It is doctrine, yes, but it is the kind of doctrine one can teach by example. Paul seems to be saying, follow my example of pleasing all men, not seeking personal profit, but the profit of many that they may be saved. It is an example of an unselfish life, of loving our neighbors as ourselves, and Christ also taught this by His example. These things are not in dispute.

There is one more passage I want to quote that uses that same word, "imitate", and is translated from the same Greek word used in the other passages.

"And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end, that you do not become sluggish, but imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises" (Hebrews 6:11-12).

I quote this verse, which may have been written by Paul, but is inspired by God in any case, to show that it is not just Paul, or Mr. Armstrong, that we are to imitate, but a whole category of people who through faith and patience inherit the promises. We are to look to the good examples of others, in other words. And the Bible is full of such good examples.

Paul's statement to the Corinthians to imitate him is not a proof text that we should follow Mr. Armstrong's teachings because he is our apostle as Paul was the Corinthian's apostle. In fact, God, through Paul, is speaking to us today, that we should follow the good example of Paul as he followed the good example of Christ. And God, in the book of Hebrews, tells us to follow all the good examples of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. That can include Mr. Armstrong, but it is not limited to him.

How is Mr. Armstrong, now that he is dead, our apostle more than Paul is our apostle, Peter is our apostle, James and John are our apostles? They are dead too.

One might say, Mr. Armstrong is our apostle because it was through him that we learned the truth. But there is a whole generation of Church of God members that have not learned the truth from Mr. Armstrong because they came into the Church of God after his death. They learned the truth from other men who have been preaching the gospel on TV and in print since Mr. Armstrong died, Dr. Roderick C. Meredith being one example. Some of these members may learn the truth from TV broadcasts and booklets, comparing our teachings with the Bible, and finding out that the Church of God has the truth, then come into the Church without ever hearing of Mr. Armstrong or reading what he has written. Is Mr. Armstrong "their" apostle in some special sense? In what way? And how can Mr. Armstrong be "their" apostle more than Paul, Peter, James, and John?

And if Mr. Armstrong is not their apostle, because they did not learn the truth from him, yet they sit next to older members who did learn from Mr. Armstrong, does that mean that in one congregation you have two categories of members, those who must believe what Mr. Armstrong taught because they learned the truth from him and he is therefore their apostle, and those who do not have to believe Mr. Armstrong because they did not learn the truth from him but learned from others and therefore he is not their apostle?

That would be ridiculous. You do not have two categories of members sitting in one congregation, each category obligated to believe a different set of teachings.

God does not teach loyalty to a man, even an apostle, more than to the God of the Bible. God, through Paul, condemns that sort of thinking: "Now I say this, that each of you says, 'I am of Paul,' or 'I am of Apollos,' or 'I am of Cephas,' or 'I am of Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:12-13).

Today, one might say, "I am of Mr. Armstrong". But that would be wrong.

"For when one says, 'I am of Paul,' and another, 'I am of Apollos,' are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase" (1 Corinthians 3:4-7).

Mr. Armstrong was a worker in God's service, as the first century apostles were, and each of the first century apostles ministered to the churches of God at that time and minister to us today through their writings in the Bible, and each, along with Mr. Armstrong, will receive his own reward in the Kingdom of God.

Mr. Armstrong labored in God's service as the first century apostles did who wrote parts of the Bible, and I do not count Mr. Armstrong's work, diligence, sacrifice, and faith as less than the other apostles. Only God can judge that. Nor is the importance of the work God did through him in any way less than the importance of the work God did through the first century apostles.

But there is this difference, and we must be aware of it and keep it in mind as Mr. Armstrong did. The only writings we have from the first century apostles are their writings in the Bible. The Bible is the direct word of God to us, infallibly correct and free from error. None of Mr. Armstrong's writings are part of the Bible, and none of them are infallibly correct. Any of Mr. Armstrong's teachings can contain error. Therefore, to know if they are true, we must compare them with the Bible.

The Bible is God speaking to us personally and directly. The Bible is the word of God. Mr. Armstrong's writings are not the direct word of God. That puts the Bible above Mr. Armstrong's teachings. We know from the history of the Church while Mr. Armstrong was alive and shortly after his death, that he made mistakes in teaching and doctrine, not all of which he corrected. Therefore, the only way to know if Mr. Armstrong was correct in a particular doctrine is to check in the Bible, to "prove all things", and believe those things we can prove in the Bible. And if any doctrine or teaching of Mr. Armstrong is contrary to the Bible, that doctrine should be corrected in the Church of God.

We must always let the Bible correct our doctrines. That is the way of life Mr. Armstrong taught and practiced, and that is God's teaching in His word, the Bible.


TO BE CONTINUED

Mr. Armstrong's Role Part 9 - Mr. Armstrong Was Not an Apostle LIKE Paul, Peter, James, and John - There Are Differences

This post is a continuation of the last post in this series. This series of posts is a refutation of some points made in an article, "Just What is an APOSTLE?", published by Church of God in Wales (COGIW). In the first post in this series is a link to their website.

The COGIW article teaches that we should never question, correct, or change Mr. Armstrong's teachings, even if they conflict with the Bible.


Chapter 6 of the COGIW article talks about Paul's role as apostle to the Corinthians. Much of what the article says is true, regarding Paul. But not everything that applies to Paul and the New Testament apostles applies to Mr. Armstrong.

There are differences between the apostleship of Mr. Armstrong and that of the first century apostles as recorded in the Bible. Mr. Armstrong may well have been an apostle in God's sight, but he was not an apostle like Paul, or like Peter, James, John, and other apostles in the Bible. I think Mr. Armstrong himself recognized that.

Paul referred a couple of times to the signs of an apostle. Those were signs and "wonders", miracles and healings. They were a proof of his apostleship - evidence he could point to in order to prove that he was an apostle.

"For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient—in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ" (Romans 15:18-19).

"Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds (2 Corinthians 12:12).

Also, the book of Hebrews says, "For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?" (Hebrews 2:2-4).

The book of Acts testifies in many places that the preaching of the apostles was accompanied by public miracles. "And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed" (Acts 5:12-16).

Mr. Armstrong did not have those signs. Yes, he anointed and prayed over those who were sick, and many were healed. But those were private healings, not public signs and wonders used to convince those who heard him that his message was from God. Mr. Armstrong did not have the kinds of miraculous signs that accompanied the preaching of Peter, Paul, and the other apostles in the Bible.

And that is significant.

In New Testament times, a primary way God communicated with the Church was through the teachings of the apostles. The scriptures of the Bible were also used, but in a limited way for three reasons: (1) The Bible was not complete. The New Testament was in the process of being written. (2) Even the Old Testament scriptures were not widely available to everyone. The printing press had not been invented, and scrolls of the Bible were copied by hand. They were rare and expensive. (3) The proof of the Bible - fulfilled prophecy - didn't exist at that time because it was too soon for the prophecies to be fulfilled. Thus, even if one had all the expensive scrolls of the Bible available at that time, he would not be able to prove that the Bible is God's word. He would not be able to see the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy that knowledge would increase and men would run to and fro at the time of the end (Daniel 12:4) - that fulfillment only occurred in our time now. Nor would he be able to prove the inspiration of the Bible by the fulfillment of the prophecies about Israel, that the sons of Joseph would become a great nation and a company of nations.

So God used the apostles to give the message. But just as we need the proof of the Bible today, which God has given us, so in the first century the people needed some proof that the message was from God. So God gave the proof in the form of signs and miracles at the hands of the apostles. That was the evidence, the proof, for the people at that time that the message the apostles delivered was from God, not man.

Mr. Armstrong never had those signs because today God communicates primarily through the Bible. In place of signs and wonders, we have the fulfillment of prophecy, which proves that the Bible is the word of God.

Mr. Armstrong's role was therefore different from that of the early apostles. He did not receive direct revelation from God apart from the Bible as Peter and Paul and the other early apostles did. Peter, Paul, and other apostles in New Testament times received direct instruction from God in various ways - by word of mouth from Jesus Christ Himself, by visions, by dreams, or by other direct means through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Then God backed up that instruction with public miracles to show the people that the apostles were speaking the word of God. And some of those apostles wrote parts of the New Testament, adding that instruction to what the Old Testament gives us to give us the complete Bible today.

But Mr. Armstrong did not work that way, or rather, God did not work that way through Mr. Armstrong. God works things differently today. God first tested Mr. Armstrong to see if he would believe the Bible more than any man (and God tests us the same way). After Mr. Armstrong passed that test, God used Mr. Armstrong to point the Church to the Bible and to help us understand the Bible. And God allowed Mr. Armstrong to make mistakes, perhaps to demonstrate to us that Mr. Armstrong was fallible and his writings and teachings were fallible, unlike the Bible, which is perfect and free from error.

And there is a contrast, isn't there? The Bible is error-free. Mr. Armstrong's teachings and writings are not error-free. He made mistakes with doctrine, including the doctrine of Pentecost being on a Monday. He corrected that doctrine, but he never corrected what was probably his last big error: teaching in a sermon that we should follow the next pastor general (Mr. Tkach) if we want to be in God's kingdom.

When God speaks to us directly, He provides proof that the message is from Him. With the first century apostles, God spoke directly through them, and he also gave the proof - signs and wonders - that He was speaking through the apostles.

Today, God speaks to us directly through His word, the Bible, and He gives us the proof of fulfilled prophecy that the Bible is His direct message to us.

But God never gave proof that He spoke directly through Mr. Armstrong. Rather, by allowing Mr. Armstrong to make mistakes in doctrine, even a major mistake, God has dramatically demonstrated to us that He, God, was not speaking through Mr. Armstrong directly. Instead, God used an indirect approach to teaching us through Mr. Armstrong. He used Mr. Armstrong to point us to the Bible, and he used Mr. Armstrong to help us understand the Bible. It was an indirect approach because Mr. Armstrong only pointed us to the Bible for God's message, and it is the Bible that is the word of God, direct to each of us personally.

In the days of the New Testament apostles, God spoke directly through the apostles, and the word the apostles spoke was the word of God.

Today, the word of God comes to us direct through the Bible, not through Herbert W. Armstrong.

If God wanted us to believe the teachings of Mr. Armstrong without checking in the Bible to see if those teachings are true, He could have backed up Mr. Armstrong with dramatic and public signs, wonders, miracles, and healings. He did not.

There were healings, yes, but not signs that were associated with preaching the gospel. Those healings were not known outside small groups of members in the Church. But the miracles worked by the New Testament apostles were specifically associated with the preaching of the gospel. Not so with Mr. Armstrong.

Was Mr. Armstrong an apostle? That is up to God. When Christ returns, He will tell us if He and the Father named Mr. Armstrong an apostle and counted him as such. In my opinion, yes, Mr. Armstrong was an apostle, not to teach us directly by divine revelation from God, but to point us to the Bible. But because of that difference from the New Testament apostles, he is in a different category. His teachings are not to be regarded as the direct word of God like the teachings of Peter, Paul, James, and John. He didn't write any part of the Bible, the true foundation for the doctrines of the Church. Rather, Mr. Armstrong points us to the teachings of Peter, Paul, James, and John, plus all the other writers of the Bible.

The truth was not revealed to Mr. Armstrong as it was revealed to Peter, Paul, James, and John. Those first century apostles learned from Jesus Christ in person or by direct revelation from God. Mr. Armstrong learned from the Bible, from the writings of Peter, Paul, James, John, and many others.

Mr. Armstrong didn't write the Bible, or any part of it. God did not back up his teachings with public miracles. And he himself followed the Bible more than any man and taught his radio listeners to do likewise.

Mystery of the Ages does not carry the same authority for us as the epistles of Paul to the Corinthians and all the rest of the Bible.

That is a difference the COGIW article does not recognize.

Yes, God used Mr. Armstrong to do a great work. Yes, God used Mr. Armstrong to reach millions with the true gospel and the Ezekiel warning. Yes, God used Mr. Armstrong to restore much truth that was lost.

But that does not make Mr. Armstrong an apostle like the New Testament apostles, who received knowledge by direct revelation from God apart from the Bible. That does not make Mr. Armstrong an apostle who performed great signs and wonders to accompany his teaching. And that does not make Mr. Armstrong an apostle whose writings are infallibly correct and trustworthy, free from error, as the writings we have from the New Testament apostles in the Bible are.

The COGIW article makes a big point that Paul was an apostle to the Corinthians, that Paul laid a doctrinal foundation for the Corinthians, and that no man should try to build upon that foundation contrary to that foundation - not aligned with the foundation Paul had laid.

But the COGIW article neglects to mention that Paul not only laid a foundation for the Corinthians - in doing so he also laid a foundation for us, because we have his letters to the Corinthians in the Bible. The things Paul wrote in his letters are as much for us today as they were for the Corinthians in the first century.

And all of us, Mr. Armstrong included, have to align the walls of doctrine we build upon the foundation that Paul laid. Paul did not lay the entire foundation for us. The rest of the foundation was also laid for us by other Bible writers, apostles, and prophets: Peter, James, John, Matthew, Luke, Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and many others. They all helped lay the foundation of the Bible - each had his part to do - and we are to align with them, not Mr. Armstrong.

Paul wrote, "According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it" (1 Corinthians 3:10).

Was that warning only for the Corinthians? Is it not for us also? For as the Corinthians had to be in alignment with Paul's teachings, equally so we must be in alignment with Paul's teachings. For the letter to the Corinthians was not just Paul's message to the Corinthians, but God's message to the Corinthians and to us.

So if we see anything in Paul's letter to the Corinthians that contradicts Mystery of the Ages or any of Mr. Armstrong's other teachings, we must believe God, believe the Bible, believe Paul's letter to the Corinthians, and make corrections to the teachings of Mr. Armstrong. If he were alive, he would do the same.

We must be in alignment with the foundation laid by Paul and all the other writers of the Bible just as much as the Corinthians had to be in alignment. Mr. Armstrong taught us by word and example how to align with the Bible, not how to align with himself.


TO BE CONTINUED

Mr. Armstrong's Role Part 8 - How Can We Know if a Man Is an Apostle?

This post is a continuation of the last post in this series. This series of posts is a refutation of some points made in an article, "Just What is an APOSTLE?", published by Church of God in Wales (COGIW). In the first post in this series is a link to their website.

The COGIW article teaches that we should never question, correct, or change Mr. Armstrong's teachings, even if they conflict with the Bible.


In chapter 5, the COGIW article tries to make a point that if any minister or lay member tries to take apostolic gifts to themselves, they are trying to steal them. But how is that possible? By apostolic gifts, it seems that the article is referring to the setting of doctrine. This would include learning new knowledge from the Bible, believing the Bible as the Bible interprets the Bible, and correcting mistakes. It may also imply, though the article does not mention this, that preaching the gospel to the world is an apostolic gift, and that those who are not apostles are restricted from preaching the gospel. I mention this gospel aspect because I have found no evidence in their website that the Church of God in Wales (COGIW), which published this article, does anything of significance to preach the gospel to the world.

But that raises a question. How can one know if he is an apostle? If he does not know, then according to the COGIW article, he should not do what an apostle does, such as set doctrine for the Church and preach the gospel to the world (Again, I did not find anything in the article about preaching the gospel, but I suspect that COGIW does not believe anyone but an apostle should preach the gospel to the world).

Read Mr. Armstrong's autobiography. It is an important part of Church of God history, and there are many good lessons in it.

Mr. Armstrong began both preaching the gospel to the world and introducing changes in doctrine to the Church before he was ordained as a minister. He did not think of himself as an apostle at that time. But he preached the gospel in public campaigns with the Church of God Seventh Day. He also submitted papers to COG7D, which both added new knowledge and corrected error. The paper he submitted on new knowledge showed that the English speaking nations were part of the lost ten tribes of Israel. He says in his autobiography that he submitted another paper correcting an error in COG7D teachings. He submitted these papers to test COG7D to see if they would change their teachings. They would not. Yet, notice, Mr. Armstrong did this from the beginning, before he was a minister and many years before he thought of himself as an apostle.

He learned the truth about the holy days and began to keep them even though COG7D would not keep them. Perhaps that was what the other paper was about.

The point is, he began to preach the gospel and to set doctrine for himself and his family and to suggest that doctrine to the Church of God, before he was ordained as a minister or thought of himself as an apostle.

Was he stealing apostolic gifts? He had no evidence that God counted him as an apostle at that time. He wasn't even ordained.

It was only years later, once the work had grown, after many years of preaching the gospel and teaching doctrine to the Church from the Bible, setting the doctrine that would be the official teaching of the Church of God, that he saw the fruits and concluded that he was an apostle.

In other words, the work of setting doctrine and preaching the gospel came BEFORE any recognition of being an apostle.

So how is one to know? If we are forbidden by scripture from preaching the gospel to the world or from setting doctrine from the Bible unless we know we are an apostle, but also we cannot know if one of us is an apostle unless we see from the fruits of that man that he is preaching the gospel and setting right doctrine from the Bible, we are stuck. We cannot do the work of an apostle until we have proven we are or have an apostle, but we cannot know a man is an apostle until he does the work of an apostle. So we can never do the work of God.

For if Mr. Armstrong believed the teachings of COGIW, he could never have done the work of an apostle. He would have said, "I cannot set doctrine. I cannot correct doctrinal errors in the Church of God. I cannot introduce new knowledge I have discovered in the Bible. If I try to do these things, I am trying to steal the gifts of an apostle and I make myself a false apostle." And if he felt he needed to be an apostle before he could preach the gospel to the world, he would have said, "I cannot preach the gospel. If I try to do that, I am trying to steal the gifts of an apostle and I make myself a false apostle."

Fortunately for us, Mr. Armstrong never believed the things the COGIW article teaches, nor did he believe that only an apostle can preach the gospel to the world, but rather Mr. Armstrong believed the Bible.

And the Bible does not back up the COGIW article.

The Bible does not teach that one has to be an apostle to preach the gospel to the world. In fact, after the Church of God was scattered after the martyrdom of Stephen, the apostles stayed in Jerusalem, but the scattered Church preached the gospel everywhere (Acts 7:59-60, 8:1-4).

Moreover, there is no prohibition in the Bible against anyone other than an apostle from setting doctrine in the Church according to the Bible, except that those who are under the authority of a living apostle must submit to that apostle and not create division.

When Mr. Armstrong was alive and we were under his authority, we were not to contradict him and create division by undermining that authority. But we could submit suggestions to Mr. Armstrong, even in matters of doctrine, and he did not forbid that. He was himself willing to be corrected, provided such correction was from the Bible.

But now that he is dead, we are no longer under his authority. Why?

The authority Mr. Armstrong had, came from the Bible. He strived to live by the Bible, every word of it. When he discovered in the Bible that he made a mistake in doctrine, he made the correction, whether that discovery of error came from his own studies or someone pointed the error out to him. He allowed others to correct him and share their ideas with him, even about doctrine.

There was a process involved. When someone found an error in his doctrine, they could point it out to him, and when he understood it he could make the correction for the whole Church. He described that process in his article I believe titled, "Should We Listen to Others?"

It was a living process of doctrinal correction and change that helped to ensure that the Church grew in knowledge from the Bible and made needed corrections to eliminate error over time.

That process does not end with the death of the apostle.

Mr. Armstrong is no longer alive to preach the gospel, but we are to carry on his work. He is no longer alive to make corrections and additions to his doctrines, and we are to carry on with that work also.

And we must always remember that we have a living apostle, Jesus Christ, and as apostle He has the authority to make changes to doctrine through the existing ministry of the Church (Hebrews 3:1).

There is also precedence in the Bible for the work of one man to be continued by another. In fact, this precedence is given in regards to a man many say is a type of Mr. Armstrong: Elijah.

Elijah was given a commission by God. "Then the Lord said to him: 'Go, return on your way to the Wilderness of Damascus; and when you arrive, anoint Hazael as king over Syria. Also you shall anoint Jehu the son of Nimshi as king over Israel. And Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel Meholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place' " (1 Kings 19:15-16).

So Elijah was to anoint three men: Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha.

But Elijah did not anoint Jehu directly.

After Elijah was taken up by a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:9-12), Elisha directed an unnamed son of the prophets to anoint Jehu. "And Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets, and said to him, 'Get yourself ready, take this flask of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth Gilead. Now when you arrive at that place, look there for Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi, and go in and make him rise up from among his associates, and take him to an inner room. Then take the flask of oil, and pour it on his head, and say, "Thus says the Lord: 'I have anointed you king over Israel.' " Then open the door and flee, and do not delay.' " (2 Kings 9:1-3). See also 2 Kings 9:4-10.

God commanded Elijah to anoint Jehu, yet it was Elisha and a son of the prophets under Elisha's authority who actually carried on that work after Elijah was gone.

Likewise, the Church of God is to carry on the work of Mr. Armstrong even after Mr. Armstrong is dead, and that includes the learning of new knowledge from the Bible, correcting errors, setting doctrine, and preaching the gospel to the world.

The doctrinal foundation of the Church of God is the Bible. Mr. Armstrong pointed us to the Bible as the foundation, and he helped us understand it. But we are to believe the Bible, not Mr. Armstrong, just as Mr. Armstrong said to his radio audience, don't believe me, don't believe any man, believe God, believe your Bible.

Canon in the Bible is closed. Mr. Armstrong did not add to the Bible. In that sense, he did not lay a foundation, but pointed us to a foundation that was already laid centuries ago. His word is not infallible as the Bible is, as Church of God history has shown. His errors should be corrected.


TO BE CONTINUED

Mr. Armstrong's Role Part 7 - 2 Peter 1:20-21 and "Private Interpretation"

This post is a continuation of the last post in this series. This series of posts is a refutation of some points made in an article, "Just What is an APOSTLE?", published by Church of God in Wales (COGIW). In the first post in this series is a link to their website.

The COGIW article teaches that we should never question, correct, or change Mr. Armstrong's teachings, even if they conflict with the Bible.

Chapter 5 of the COGIW article starts by asking if God has given us anything to promote unity. It is leading up to the conclusion that adherence and loyalty to Mr. Armstrong and his teachings, even above loyalty to the Bible, is the solution.

But the author of this article seems to forget that God Himself scattered the Church, and He did it by causing Mr. Armstrong to appoint Mr. Tkatch as the next pastor general. Moreover, God allowed Mr. Armstrong to tell us that we need to follow that next pastor general if we want to be in the kingdom of God, which was clearly wrong. It was a serious mistake in doctrine and teaching that Mr. Armstrong made, one that he never corrected to the end of his life, perhaps the most serious mistake he made, and God let him make that mistake.

At the time the tribulation begins, there will be two main categories of the Churches of God. At least one group will be Philadelphian in character and spirit, and Philadelphians will go to a place of safety after having used the open door Christ gives them to finish the preaching of the gospel to the world. The other category is Laodicean and any other non-Philadelphian groups. They will go through the tribulation, having failed to preach the gospel (because they did not have an open door because of their lukewarmness) - see Revelation chapters 2 and 3.

We know that Laodicea will exist because it is the last era of the Church of God. We know Philadelphia will exist because they will finish the work and go to a place of safety.

And there will not be unity between Laodiceans and Philadelphians before the tribulation. The era is predominantly Laodicean, so they will be large, Philadelphia will be small.

When Christ returns, there will be perfect unity among all those in the first resurrection. Laodiceans will have repented in the tribulation, probably most or all being martyred. They will have repented of their lukewarm attitude and will no longer be Laodicean (or else, if they haven't repented, they will not be in the first resurrection).

The COGIW article then states that the Church of God is to be subject to the word of God (the Bible), but that word is not revealed to us individually with each person interpreting the Bible as he chooses.

This is a misleading statement. It is true that we should not interpret the Bible as we please, according to our own opinions. But neither are we to let Mr. Armstrong or any man interpret the Bible for us. Rather, we are to do as Mr. Armstrong taught us by word and example: let the Bible interpret the Bible.

And the statement that the truth of the Bible is not revealed to us individually is absolutely wrong. God must open our minds, each one of us individually, to help us understand the Bible as we prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and check the scriptures to see if the things taught to us are true (Acts 17:11).

But we are NOT to let a man interpret the Bible for us, any man, even Mr. Armstrong. That is what the Catholics do, and we are not to be like them, as Mr. Armstrong stated himself in an article I believe titled, "Should We Listen to Others?". We must not treat Mr. Armstrong like a pope. He himself would not want that, and the Bible teaches against that.

The article then quotes 2 Peter 1:20-21 to support its position that we are not to privately interpret the Bible.

Let's look at this passage closely.

Here it is, first, in the New King James Version: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Now in the King James Version: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

That is basically the same.

Now look at how the New International Version translates it: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

This is different. The NKJV and the KJV use the term "private interpretation" without reference to whether the private interpretation applies to the reader of the Bible or the prophet who wrote the prophecy. But the NIV applies it, not to the reader of the Bible, but to the men who wrote the Bible. In other words, the prophecies of the Bible did not come from the private understanding of the prophets, but God inspired them to write what they wrote by the Holy Spirit.

Which is correct?

I believe the NIV in this case has it right. Why? Look again at verse 21 in the NKJV: "for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit".

The context is how the prophets made their prophecies. They did not write according to their own opinions, rather, the Holy Spirit moved them to write their prophecies. The origin of the prophecies of the Bible is God, not man or man's opinions, understandings, or interpretation of events. That is the whole point of this passage.

Look at the word "for" at the beginning of the verse. That indicates a cause and effect relationship between what follows the word "for" and what precedes it. There is a connection. What follows the word "for" (prophecy came from God) explains or gives a reason for what precedes it (no prophecy is private). In other words, the reason no prophecy is of private interpretation or understanding is that prophecy came from God and not by the will of man. This is speaking of the prophet and the source of his prophecy. No prophecy is of private interpretation or understanding of the prophet BECAUSE prophecy came as the prophet was moved by the Holy Spirit, not from his own opinions, not from his private interpretation of events.

This makes more sense than to say that verse 20 is talking about the private interpretation of the reader while verse 21 is talking about the how the prophet received the prophecy.

But even in terms of the private interpretation of the reader, as I pointed out, neither the reader of the Bible nor Mr. Armstrong should privately interpret the Bible but rather let the Bible interpret the Bible.

This passage does not say that God does not reveal His truth to us today by opening our minds individually to understand the Bible as we let the Bible interpret the Bible, believe what God says, and strive to obey what God says. God certainly does reveal His truth to us today. Mr. Armstrong was a link in that process. He pointed us to the Bible and helped us understand it. But we have our part to play - to prove the truth from the Bible so our faith is in God and not man - and as we do so God opens our minds to understand the Bible. That is how God reveals His truth to us individually.

We must let the Bible interpret the Bible, and we must believe and strive to obey what God says in the Bible. That is what Mr. Armstrong did and that what we must do also.

There is another passage to consider.

Did Mr. Armstrong have authority over our beliefs? Did he have authority to command us to believe something, to have faith in some point of doctrine? He did not claim that authority in his article, "Should We Listen to Others?". And Paul did not claim that authority over the faith and beliefs of the Corinthians.

"Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand" (2 Corinthians 1:24).

Paul clearly states to the Corinthians that he did not have "dominion" over their faith. "Dominion" means rule, and "faith" is what we believe. He did not claim authority over what the Corinthians believed. He taught them, yes. But part of their beliefs came from the Old Testament scriptures, the Bible that was available at that time, and Paul had no authority to command them to believe him more than the scriptures. Their faith had to be towards God and not man.

That is even more true today when we have the Bible complete and widely available and can use fulfilled prophecy to prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

The COGIW article states that if each person interpreted the Bible privately, it would lead to confusion.

But as I pointed out, we are not to interpret the Bible according to our opinions, but we are to let the Bible interpret the Bible and we are to believe what God says.

Still, there are times when sincere members of the Church of God may understand a passage in the Bible differently than the ministry and leadership of the Church. This is because understanding does not come all at once. It is a learning process, and we know things only in part right now (1 Corinthians 13:9). We must also grow in knowledge (2 Peter 3:18), and that growth takes time. God tests us and gives more understanding to those who believe and obey him (Psalm 111:10), and that testing takes time. Mr. Armstrong did not learn everything at one time, and neither do any of us.

So does that create confusion and division?

It can, but it doesn't have to. It depends on how the member handles his disagreement.

If he brings the matter to a minister with a humble and teachable mind and discusses the matter respectfully, and does not discuss the matter with other members, it need not lead to confusion or division. It is when a member takes his disagreement to others in the congregation that confusion and division occur.

The ministry has authority over the official doctrines that are taught to the members (Ephesians 4:11-16, Matthew 16:18-19). That is their job, and the members have to respect that. No member should undermine the authority the ministry has to teach the membership by contradicting the teaching of the ministry.

But our faith must be towards God, not the ministry. The Bible is God speaking to us directly. If we see something in the Bible that contradicts what a minister teaches us, we must believe God rather than man.

If we talk to a minister about our disagreement with a doctrine, we should let the minister explain, and we should listen with an open mind. Perhaps we have made an error and the issue can be resolved.

But if not, wait for God to make the correction. Wait for God to open your mind to understand your mistake, or to open the minister's mind to understand his mistake. If necessary, wait till Christ's return. God is testing all of us. But in the meantime, don't create division by discussing your disagreement and promoting your idea with the membership. Teaching other members is the job of the ministry, not yours. If you teach members, teach within the established doctrines of the ministry. God will open the minds of the ministry and leadership when it is His time, and if they will not listen to God, God will judge them.

If the matter is of major importance, you may have to leave the fellowship you are in. It depends on the situation.

Believing the Bible individually, letting the Bible interpret the Bible and believing and obeying what God says, does not create confusion and division. Criticizing and contradicting the ministry does create division.

And if the leadership and ministry is so far off base in major doctrines and it is obvious they do not believe the Bible, it may be necessary for members to take a stand and leave the group. In that case, it is the leadership and ministry that is creating the confusion and division, not the members.

Members should not be afraid to take a stand and be willing to say, "If Mr. Armstrong says one thing and the Bible something else, I will believe the Bible, I will believe God". Members should not be afraid to openly say, "We need to preach the gospel to the world". These are absolutely foundational issues, and ministers who teach loyalty to Mr. Armstrong and his teachings more than to God and the Bible are themselves creating confusion and division. Likewise with ministers who say, "This is not the time to preach the gospel to the world, only an apostle can do that".

To say that if we find differences between Mr. Armstrong's teachings and the Bible we should believe the word of Hebert W. Armstrong more than the word of God, or that we should lie and continue to teach things we know are wrong, is heresy, according to everything the Church of God stands for. If we do that, we are making an idol out of Mr. Armstrong. We are breaking faith with God. That is a sin serious enough to cost us our salvation, if not repented of.

And if we delay repenting, God can take away from us the knowledge we have. We only know what we know because Mr. Armstrong was committed to believing the Bible more than man. God used a man who put the Bible first to point us to the Bible and help us understand it. He also taught that process when he said, don't believe me, believe your bible. But if we do not agree with that process, why should we have the knowledge that is the good fruit of that process?

We will reap what we sow. If we disbelieve God, He is likely to take from us the knowledge we have. He can remove His protection and let Satan deceive us.

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap" (Galatians 6:7).

The sin of not preaching the gospel to the world is also serious. It is a direct rejection of God's law of love that says we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. It is direct disobedience to the command to hold back those stumbling to the slaughter (Proverbs 24:11-12). It is a violation of Jesus's command, "Freely you have received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8).

Again, if we refuse to share with others the precious truth God has given us, why should we have the truth? Will not God take it away from us? We have that truth because others sacrificed so we could have it. Now that we have benefited from the sacrifices of others, if we refuse to do our part and also sacrifice so others can hear the truth, then we prove ourselves to be unworthy of the truth. We say to God, "I don't agree with the process of sacrificing to pass the truth on to others in the world". God can say, "Ok, then why should you benefit from a process you don't agree with? You only have the truth because others sacrificed for you. Why should I protect you from Satan's deceptions any longer?"

Some might say, only an apostle can preach the gospel.

That is total nonsense, according to the Bible and according to Church history.

"At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles....Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word" (Acts 8:1-4).

The Church was scattered. But the apostles remained in Jerusalem. But those who were scattered, not the apostles, preached the "word" - the gospel - everywhere.

So you do not have to be an apostle to preach the gospel.

Moreover, while Mr. Armstrong was alive he used various evangelists and ministers to preach the gospel to the world, and he intended the preaching of the gospel to continue after his death, as his letters show. At no time did Mr. Armstrong say, after my death, the preaching of the gospel is over, because only an apostle can preach the gospel. Rather, he made provision for the preaching of the gospel to continue on television with new TV presenters.

Read his autobiography. He was on fire to preach the gospel even before he was ordained as a minister, long before he thought of himself as an apostle.

Read chapters four and five in my book where I explain why the gospel still needs to be preached to the world and why the Church of God needs to be doing it.

Those who say we must not change or re-examine Mr. Armstrong's teachings are inconsistent if they left Worldwide while Mr. Tkach was pastor general. Why did they not stay with Mr. Tkach and follow him? Mr. Armstrong said they should. By leaving Worldwide, they directly disobeyed Mr. Armstrong's teaching. But now they say, we must not re-examine or question or change any of his other teachings, even if they are wrong, even if they contradict the Bible. That's lunacy.

They have succumbed to the temptation of idolatry, not to a physical image made of wood or stone, but to the memory and teachings of a physical man. They have put that man in place of God, and that is wrong.


TO BE CONTINUED

Mr. Armstrong's Role Part 6 - Mr. Armstrong Built Walls of Doctrine on the Foundation of the Bible

This post is a continuation of the last post in this series. This series of posts is a refutation of some points made in an article, "Just What is an APOSTLE?", published by Church of God in Wales (COGIW). In the first post in this series is a link to their website.

The COGIW article teaches that we should never question, correct, or change Mr. Armstrong's teachings, even if they conflict with the Bible.

The article builds a chain of ideas that leads to that conclusion. Unfortunately, many links in the chain are wrong.

The article promotes that idea that John the Baptist was an apostle or did an apostle-like work. The article tries to base that on the statement that Jesus Christ made that John was a prophet and more than a prophet. Yet, as I pointed out earlier in this series, just because Christ said that John was more than a prophet does not make John an apostle. "More than a prophet" can simply mean he is more than an ordinary prophet because he is also the prophesied Elijah to prepare the way for the Lord. And as I showed in the first post in this series, the surest definition of an apostle is one who is sent by God and called an apostle by Christ, and Christ never called John the Baptist an apostle.

From there, the article makes the claim that the prophesied Elijah to come in our day to restore all things must be an apostle. That is not true. There is no prophecy in the Bible that says that the Elijah to come must be an apostle.

Then, the article tries to build a case that each apostle lays a doctrinal foundation that no other apostle can lay. This implies that there are different foundations laid by different apostles, each for a different part of the Church of God. So Paul laid a foundation for the Gentiles, and Peter laid a foundation for the Israelites, and Mr. Armstrong laid a foundation for the Church of God in our time. There is an implication that the foundation Paul laid for the Gentiles was different and not suitable for the Jews, and the foundation Peter laid for the Jews was different and not suitable for the Gentiles.

Likewise, there is the implication Mr. Armstrong laid a doctrinal foundation for the Church today that is different from the doctrinal foundation for the Gentiles that Paul laid and the foundation for the Jews that Peter laid.

But I showed in the last post that there is only ONE foundation. That foundation is the same for all the Church of God, anywhere, anytime. That foundation is Christ and the Bible. It is the word of God that is the foundation. As Mr. Armstrong taught, Christ is the Word of God in person and the Bible is the word of God in print, the same word.

Paul helped to lay that foundation for the Gentiles because there was a division of labor between him and Paul. Peter helped to lay that foundation for the Israelites. They also helped lay that foundation for us today with their epistles which have become part of the Bible. Also, the prophets helped to lay that foundation for us with their writings in the Bible, men such as Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and many others.

It is the Bible that is the doctrinal foundation for the Church of God today. Mr. Armstrong recognized that and never elevated his writings above the Bible, but rather he himself submitted to the Bible and corrected his own writings when he found, in the Bible, that they were wrong.

In other words, the Bible itself is the foundation for everything Mr. Armstrong taught in his writings and speaking. And when Mr. Armstrong found that his teachings were not aligned with the Bible, he changed his own teachings to bring them into alignment with the Bible.

In the analogy of a building, the Bible is the foundation and Mr. Armstrong's teachings were the walls built upon that foundation. And when Mr. Armstrong saw that the walls he built were out of alignment with the foundation, the Bible, he changed the walls he was building to bring them into alignment with the foundation.

Mr. Armstrong did not build or lay a foundation, except in the sense that he pointed us to the true foundation, the Bible, and helped us to understand it. And Mr. Armstrong and his teachings were never the foundation.

If you want to apply the analogy of laying a foundation to the work Mr. Armstrong did, that is all right if you understand that he laid the foundation by pointing us towards that foundation, that is, the Bible. The foundation of the Bible was laid centuries ago. Mr. Armstrong pointed us to that foundation that was already laid.

The COGIW article, after teaching that each apostle lays a foundation for a particular part of the Church that the apostle is sent to, then says that Mr. Armstrong was an apostle sent to lay the foundation for the Church of God in our time, and no one should correct, re-examine, or change his teachings because no one else can lay a foundation for the Church in our time except the one apostle sent to this part of the Church of God.

Thus, I suppose according to the COGIW article, I should be more loyal to Mr. Armstrong's teachings and writings than to the teachings and writings of Peter, Paul, James, John, and all the apostles and prophets and writers of the Bible, and thus more loyal to Mr. Armstrong than to the God who inspired the Bible and made it His word.

Let's use the common sense God gave us. The Bible is God's word, perfect, free from error. It is God speaking to us directly. Mr. Armstrong's teachings are not necessarily free from error. God allowed Mr. Armstrong to make mistakes, some of which Mr. Armstrong corrected before he died and some of which he did not correct. Why would God want us to give priority to the writings of a man, which can contain error, over His own word, the word of God, which is perfect and infallibly free from error?

Faith includes believing God's word, as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Romans 4:3, James 2:23, Genesis 15:4-6). But where is the faith of those who say they will believe a fallible man more than God?

"It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes" (Psalm 118:8-9).

God makes a very clear distinction between trusting in God and trusting in man.

"Thus says the Lord: 'Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart departs from the Lord. For he shall be like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see when good comes, but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land which is not inhabited.
   "Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, and whose hope is the Lord. For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters, which spreads out its roots by the river, and will not fear when heat comes; But its leaf will be green, and will not be anxious in the year of drought, nor will cease from yielding fruit" (Jeremiah 17:5-8).

God pronounces a curse on anyone who puts their trust in man more than God. We must not trust Mr. Armstrong, who made mistakes, more than we trust the direct word of God, the Bible, which is free from mistakes and perfect.

The whole COGIW article builds on a word, "apostle". It puts meaning into the word that is not there, then it uses that word to say or imply things that are not true regarding Mr. Armstrong. It's whole theme is built only on a label. But if you simply look at Mr. Armstrong's life, look at the history of the Church, read the Bible, and read Mr. Armstrong's autobiography, you will see that even Mr. Armstrong never regarded his writings as higher than that of the Bible for members of the Church in our time, nor does God intend for us to trust Mr. Armstrong's teachings more than the Bible.

In chapter 4, the COGIW article states that Malachi predicts that there would be one individual, who would be an apostle, sent to the Church in the end time, and that God, through this individual, would lay a foundation for this part of the Church, and that no one else would be used by God to lay the foundation for us.

But this is false for several reasons, as I have shown.

Malachi does not predict an apostle.

Malachi does not predict one who would lay a foundation. The foundation has already been laid, and Malachi is part of that foundation, and so are the other prophets and apostles in the Bible. The Bible is that foundation, founded on the writings of the prophets and the apostles, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20).

The idea that no one else besides Mr. Armstrong would lay the foundation for us is absolutely wrong. God has used Peter, Paul, James, John, Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and many others to lay the foundation in the Bible. Mr. Armstrong only pointed us to these prophets and apostles. He himself only built upon the foundation laid by these men. If we use a building as an analogy, a true analogy would have Mr. Armstrong building the walls (his teachings) upon the foundation of the Bible.

Mr. Armstrong's role was to point us to the Bible and to help us understand the Bible. And because so much understanding had been lost, his teachings and writings have been very important in restoring lost truth and helping us understand the Bible. And if you want to say, in the analogy of a building, that he was laying a foundation, that is all right if you understand the right context for that statement, that the Bible must come first and override, as necessary, anything Mr. Armstrong taught that was in error.

I don't fault those who say that, in a sense, Mr. Armstrong laid a foundation. It depends on what they mean. If they mean that his teachings, though not necessarily perfect, help us understand the Bible, and that Mr. Armstrong restored a lot of foundational knowledge and doctrine from the Bible that had been lost - I have no problem with that. It is true. From the narrow view of the Church of God today and its body of doctrine it has inherited from the work of Herbert W. Armstrong, it is true, provided it does not put Mr. Armstrong's teachings above the Bible itself.

Some have said that this passage refers to Mr. Armstrong: "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this temple; his hands shall also finish it. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you" (Zechariah 4:9).

Whether Zerubbabel was a type of Mr. Armstrong and this verse can be applied to him, I do not know. But I know that the ultimate foundation for all the truth we have is the Bible. Call Mr. Armstrong's teachings a foundation if you want to, but it was not the kind of perfect foundation that the Bible is.

You can use different analogies in different ways to describe the same thing. You can use the same analogy to describe different things. The problem with the COGIW article calling Mr. Armstrong's teachings a "foundation" is the context for its statement and the meaning it puts into it. From the COGIW point of view, Mr. Armstrong's "foundation" is perfect and must not be questioned. In this they are wrong.

Mr. Armstrong did not lay a foundation in the sense that the COGIW article describes it.

The COGIW article says that apostles are sent to lay foundations, and not to re-lay foundations already laid by other apostles. Yet, if Mr. Armstrong laid a foundation in the sense the COGIW article describes, since Mr. Armstrong based his teachings on the Bible, he was re-laying the foundation laid by Peter, Paul, James, John and the other apostles and prophets.

Mr. Armstrong established a tradition and a pattern for us, to look to the Bible for answers. That is why, in Church of God Sabbath services today, you will find members bringing their Bibles and ministers quoting scriptures to prove their points as they speak, and the members looking up the scriptures and reading them from their own Bibles.

Mr. Armstrong set an example. He learned doctrine from the Bible. He always believed the Bible more than the teaching of men, from the time before he was ordained a minister. Long before he thought of himself as an apostle, he put the Bible first, and he continued to believe the Bible after he thought of himself as an apostle. He spoke to his radio audience saying, don't believe me, don't believe any minister, believe God, believe your Bible. And he practiced what he preached.

He always was willing to learn new truth from the Bible, and he was willing to admit he was wrong and change his teachings to be corrected by the Bible. And in doing this, he set an example for us, that we should do likewise.

If we follow Mr. Armstrong as a teacher, then we should follow his example as he followed Christ. "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher" (Luke 6:40).

In other words, a teacher teaches not only by word but by example.

Mr. Armstrong's teachings by word were not always perfect, but he set a right example when he corrected his own teachings to align more perfectly with the Bible. We should follow that example, letting the Bible correct our teaching.

Thus he established a tradition and a pattern of being willing to let the Bible correct his mistakes and teach him new knowledge, and we must do the same. Mr. Armstrong is no longer alive to correct his writings according to the Bible, but we should follow his example and correct our teachings according to the Bible.

The COGIW article states that those who come after a true apostle should not re-lay foundations and change doctrines laid by other apostles sent by Christ. Yet, the article says that Mr. Armstrong laid a foundation. And it is clear that Mr. Armstrong came after the apostles and the prophets who wrote the Bible. According to the article's analogy, Mr. Armstrong would be one who has "re-laid" the foundation laid in the Bible by Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, the gospel writers, and the prophets. Yet, the article says, this should not be done.

Did Mr. Armstrong change doctrines laid as the foundation of the Bible by Peter, James, Paul, and John and the other writers of the Bible? No, not intentionally, but he could have made mistakes. He has made mistakes, as Church of God history has shown. And he does not have the authority to change doctrines laid down by the writers of the Bible. He corrected his mistakes when he discovered them, and we should do likewise.

The COGIW article states that to avoid deception we have to be firmly rooted to the foundation God laid in our lives.

But what is that foundation we must be firmly rooted to in order to resist deception? It is not Mystery of the Ages or any of Mr. Armstrong's other writings or teachings. It is the word of God, the Bible.


TO BE CONTINUED