In my last two posts on this subject, I discussed the problem of people being offended with Mr. Armstrong or of their faith in God's truth being shaken because of mistakes they think he made or accusations against him that they hear.
In this post, I want to talk about the other ditch: making an idol out of Mr. Armstrong and viewing his writings as infallible, like the Bible.
Those whose faith in the truth is shaken by mistakes Mr. Armstrong has made or accusations they have heard against him and those who make an idol out of Mr. Armstrong and his writings, basing their beliefs and faith on his teaching, have this in common: both are failing to base their beliefs on faith in God's word, the Bible.
If they have been able to spend the time with the Bible to read the whole Bible and to become familiar with its teachings, and if they really believed the Bible, they will be able to know that servants of God, like Mr. Armstrong, can make mistakes in teaching, because that is what the Bible teaches. Of course, for those new in the truth, this can take some time as they study the Bible and grow in grace and knowledge (2 Peter 3:18).
Some say that the Church today cannot change Mr. Armstrong's doctrines or learn new knowledge from the Bible because, they say, only an apostle can put doctrine into the Church, and since, they say, we have no living apostle today, no one has the authority to put new doctrine into the Church.
This is wrong logic on several counts.
True doctrine does come from apostles and prophets who wrote the Bible (Ephesians 2:19-22, 3:1-5). Peter, Paul, John, James, etc. have the authority to correct us in our doctrinal beliefs and teach us new doctrinal knowledge through their writings in the Bible.
But even if one says we need a living apostle to put new doctrine into the Church, it is wrong to say we have no living apostle today.
It is God who decides who is an apostle, not man.
One leader of a Church of God fellowship may claim the title, "apostle", and another may not. Yet it is God who decides. One man may claim to be an apostle, and God may not count him as an apostle. Another man may not claim the title, only saying he is an evangelist, yet in God's eyes he may be an apostle.
And since it is God who decides who is an apostle, how can we know we have no living apostles in the Church on earth today? God may count some man as an apostle that we do not yet think of as an apostle. God can even count a man as an apostle who does not know himself that he is an apostle.
I think Mr. Armstrong was an apostle and doing the work of an apostle from 1934 on, or maybe starting earlier. Yet, he apparently did not think of himself as an apostle till much later, maybe the early 1950s.
I heard from an evangelist who knew Mr. Armstrong well that the suggestion that Mr. Armstrong was an apostle first came from Dr. Herman Hoeh, and that Mr. Armstrong was at first not sure. This would place Mr. Armstrong thinking he was an apostle after the starting of Ambassador College, because Dr. Hoeh was not on the scene before then. So from at least 1934 to the late 1940s or early 1950s, about 15 years at least, Mr. Armstrong was an apostle doing the work of an apostle, yet without knowing he was an apostle, nor did those who heard him know he was an apostle. But that did not stop God from using him because those who heard him looked up the scriptures Mr. Armstrong used to prove the truth of what he taught, and they believed the Bible.
How many apostles did the Church of God have who were alive from 1934 to 1986? Some would say one, but we had at least two living apostles during that time, and one of them is still alive and acting as an apostle today, and that apostle has the authority to put new doctrine into the Church of God today and to correct existing doctrines.
As Mr. Armstrong taught doctrine to evangelists who worked for him, who in turn taught pastors who taught the brethren in congregations, so God's living apostle today can put new doctrine into the Church of God by teaching it to evangelists who in turn teach it to pastors who teach it to brethren.
Who is that living apostle in the Church of God today? Whether or not we have other living apostles (there are times in the history of the Church when the Church had more than one apostle, for example, the first century), there is one apostle who always lives. That is the living apostle I am talking about - Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is an apostle (Hebrews 3:1, Ephesians 2:19-20), and as an apostle he has the authority to put doctrine into the Church of God, through evangelists and pastors, just as Mr. Armstrong did. Thus, Jesus Christ has the authority to put new doctrine into the Church through Roderick Meredith, David Hulme, or any evangelist Christ might choose.
Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong, as an apostle, never had more authority to put doctrine into the Church, using men like Mr. Meredith to write articles to explain doctrine, than Christ, as an apostle, has today. As Mr. Armstrong had authority to put doctrine into the Church and have Mr. Meredith explain that doctrine in sermons and articles, so Christ today has authority to put doctrine into the Church and have Mr. Meredith (or any man God may choose) explain it in sermons and articles, because Christ is every bit as much an apostle as Mr. Armstrong was, even more.
As Mr. Armstrong, as apostle, had the authority to correct his own mistakes in doctrine or change his own judgments, so Jesus Christ today, as the chief apostle, has the authority to correct Mr. Armstrong's doctrines or change his judgments. And just as Mr. Armstrong was able to teach new doctrines or judgments to the Church through evangelists, so Christ is able to teach new doctrines or judgments to the Church through the evangelists who lead organizations and Church of God fellowships.
An apostle can correct an apostle's doctrines. We know an apostle can correct an apostle's doctrine because Mr. Armstrong (an apostle) corrected Mr. Armstrong (an apostle). He corrected and changed his own doctrines, on Pentecost being a Sunday or Monday, on divorce and remarriage, and other things. If he can correct his own doctrines, then another apostle, an apostle living today, can correct Mr. Armstrong's doctrines.
Jesus Christ is our living apostle today, as always. Jesus Christ has the authority to correct Mr. Armstrong's doctrines.
How does Christ communicate such correction in doctrine to the Church? There is one difference between Mr. Armstrong's apostleship and Christ's apostleship as far as the way they communicate. Mr. Armstrong spoke (and wrote) to the Church verbally. We could hear his voice when he spoke to the Church in person or on recorded audio or video tape.
Jesus Christ does not communicate to the Church in words we can hear with the ear directly from Christ's mouth. But Christ communicates to the Church, in writing, through the Bible. He also communicates with us, as Mr. Armstrong did with the Church, through evangelists and pastors. Mr. Armstrong, for example, taught evangelists and pastors at Ambassador College so they would have the true doctrines to communicate to the Church. Likewise, Christ is able to teach evangelists and pastors today to give true doctrine to the Church. How? The same way He communicates with the membership, through the Bible and through the Holy Spirit which helps us understand the Bible.
So if Mr. Armstrong was wrong about a doctrine, Christ, as an apostle, has the authority to correct Mr. Armstrong's doctrine by communicating that correction to evangelists in the Church today by inspiring those evangelists to understand the Bible where the Bible shows that Mr. Armstrong was wrong.
So in matters of doctrine, what is the key? Suppose an evangelist says that a doctrine Mr. Armstrong taught is wrong and needs to be changed. Is the evangelist right or wrong? Obviously, if the doctrine Mr. Armstrong taught is true, then the evangelist is wrong and he should not contradict Mr. Armstrong about that doctrine. But if Mr. Armstrong did make a mistake and the doctrine he taught was wrong, then the evangelist is right to change it. If it is wrong and if Christ is inspiring the evangelist to understand, from the Bible, that it is wrong, then the evangelist HAS to obey Christ and correct the doctrine. And when I say evangelist, I am talking about men who lead Church of God fellowships today, like Mr. Meredith and Mr. Hulme, just using those men as examples, for there are probably many evangelists who lead Church of God fellowships I am not mentioning (I cannot try to name them all).
Think about this: If the authority for a servant of God on earth to put new doctrine into the Church depended on that servant holding the title of "apostle", wouldn't God put more exact criteria in the Bible for defining an "apostle"? But the Bible doesn't give an exact definition of the term. We see from examples in the Bible who is called an apostle and who is not called an apostle (Luke 6:12-13, Acts 14:14), but we do not see an exact definition we can apply today to know if a Church leader is an apostle in God's sight or not. Why? Because WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW. Christ is our living apostle, and he can put doctrine into the Church through evangelists in the Church.
So it doesn't matter if the administrative leader of a Church of God fellowship is, in God's eyes, an apostle, a prophet, a pastor general, a presiding evangelist, or just plain "pastor". If that man sees in the Bible that a doctrinal correction needs to be made, he should make the correction, teaching the membership new knowledge, and when he does that, assuming he is teaching accurately, it is God and Christ who are putting new knowledge into that fellowship because God inspired the Bible and through the Holy Spirit opened that leader's mind to see the new truth in the Bible. (I am talking about leaders of fellowships or organizations, leaders who report directly to Christ, not pastors serving congregations under the supervision of a human leader in a larger organization.)
How can a member, such as you or I, know if the correction is right or wrong? From the Bible. There is no other way. There are no shortcuts to Bible study. If an evangelist changes Mr. Armstrong's doctrine, he should give his biblical reasons for it. Then you and I can study the issue and determine the truth according to the Bible.
So the Bible is the key. Not Mystery of the Ages or anything Mr. Armstrong wrote. It can certainly be beneficial to study Mr. Armstrong's writings on any major issue as we have opportunity, but the real KEY, the PROOF, one way or another, is what the Bible says. Only the Bible has authority over what we believe.
To try to PROVE doctrine by what a MAN writes rather than the Bible, whether that man is Mr. Armstrong, Dr. Meredith, or any human being, is a subtle form of idolatry. Only the Bible has the authority to serve as proof of doctrine. God used Mr. Armstrong to help us find the answers in the Bible, but the authority over belief came from the Bible alone, not from Mr. Armstrong. That is why Mr. Armstrong said, "Don't believe me, believe your Bible."
We should not make an idol out of Mr. Armstrong or his writings. If we have something to say about doctrine, we should prove it from the Bible. Sometimes his writings can help explain something from the Bible, because he was a gifted teacher and was able to make the truth plain, but the PROOF must come from the Bible, and if it can't be proved from the Bible, then we cannot prove it by what Mr. Armstrong said or wrote either.
What about matters of judgment, such as the order of Church services, broadcasting on TV, and other things that are not directly taught by the Bible?
Christ has authority also to change these judgments, and it is even more likely He may change Mr. Armstrong's judgments if those judgments are based on changing conditions, and just as with doctrine, Christ can communicate His judgments to leading evangelists like Dr. Meredith by inspiring them, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to see the need to make the change.
I don't say every judgment of Dr. Meredith or any other evangelist is always inspired by Christ - all men can make mistakes. But such judgment changes can be inspired by Christ. Not every change in Mr. Armstrong's judgments is wrong just because it is a change.
How does Christ teach new doctrinal knowledge to the Church through leaders of fellowships? By the Bible and by the Holy Spirit to help them understand the Bible.
Just as Christ taught Mr. Armstrong doctrine through the Bible, so Christ teaches the Church today, through the Bible. God and Christ teach the Church, and taught Mr. Armstrong, by opening our understanding of the Bible and of spiritual principles by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Some say that Mr. Armstrong's doctrines cannot be changed because he was the Elijah to come, and these same people often say that it is vitally important to know that Mr. Armstrong was the Elijah to come.
Yet the Bible does not teach that it is important to know who the Elijah to come is. Mr. Armstrong never directly said (as far as I know) that he was the Elijah to come and may not have felt sure one way or another even to the end of his life.
Not knowing he was the Elijah to restore all things did not prevent Mr. Armstrong from doing the work of restoring lost knowledge that God gave him because it was only after he had restored much knowledge that he even considered that he might be the prophesied Elijah to restore all things.
What is important is that God knows who the Elijah to come is, and God will make sure he does the work He wants him to do. We don't have to know.
As I explain in my book, Preaching the Gospel, the context of statements in the New Testament show that knowing who the Elijah to come is was never something Christ said was important for the Church. The statements made by Christ and John the Baptist about the Elijah to come were made only in response to questions that generally arose from the scribes and Pharisees, who seemed obsessed with titles.
Personally, I think Mr. Armstrong was probably the Elijah to come. That is my opinion - I can't prove it from the Bible. But one of the things he restored was the way of life of letting the Bible correct us and teach us new knowledge. So even if he was the Elijah to come, we still should believe the Bible and let it teach us new knowledge and correct our mistakes.
Mr. Armstrong never taught that he was infallible or that his writings should have the same authority as scripture, and anyone who teaches that today is contradicting Mr. Armstrong and trying to change his teaching, the very thing they deny. They are also contradicting the Bible. They are doing what false churches and false ministers do today - they pretend to exalt the person of the messenger while rejecting his message. As false churches exalt the person of Christ but deny His message, so those who say Mr. Armstrong's doctrines cannot be changed exalt the person of Mr. Armstrong, but deny his message.
And they are making an idol out of Mr. Armstrong, whether they realize it or not.
The Bible teaches that all men, even true servants of God, make mistakes.
David sinned (2 Samuel 11:1-27, 12:1-13). Moses made mistakes (Numbers 20:12). Abraham did not trust God to protect him at times and did not tell the full truth about his wife (Genesis 12:10-20). Solomon wrote parts of the Bible, yet did not remain faithful and loyal to God (1 Kings 11:1-13). Judas preached the gospel and healed the sick, yet betrayed Christ and hanged himself (Matthew 10:1-8, 27:3-5). Paul rebuked Peter for his faults (Galatians 2:11-16). Paul and Barnabas had contentions over Mark (Acts 15:37-40). Christ rebukes many in the Church, including leaders, in five messages to the Church in Revelation (Revelation 2:1-7, 12-29, 3:1-6, 14-22). Nathan gave David a wrong answer (1 Chronicles 17:1-4).
"Cursed is the man who trusts in man And makes flesh his strength" (Jeremiah 17:5). "Do not put your trust in princes, Nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help" (Psalm 146:3).
Mr. Armstrong made mistakes in his teachings, even to the end of his life, and I can prove it.
Doctrine is teaching, and Mr. Armstrong made mistakes in his doctrine, that is, his teaching, even to the end of his life. AFTER publishing Mystery of the Ages, as one the the last things Mr. Armstrong taught, he taught the Church to follow Mr. Tkach if we want to be in the kingdom. I remember hearing that from Mr. Armstrong with my own ears. That was teaching, that was doctrine, and it was wrong.
Here is a quote from my book, Preaching the Gospel, that gives the details of Mr. Armstrong's statement about following Mr. Tkach. You can find the actual recording of that sermon on the Internet. Anyone in the Worldwide Church of God when Mr. Armstrong's sermon was played in all the congregations might remember it.
"Mr. Armstrong in the last months of his life reached a point when he knew he might die soon. He had time to make provision for the Church of God after his death. I remember hearing him give what may have been his last sermon. It was obvious that he knew he may die soon. He spoke of God providing a new pastor general to succeed him. This close to his death, it would have been a perfect opportunity for Mr. Armstrong to tell the Church, 'Don't let anyone change any of the doctrines I have taught you.' But he never said that. In fact, he implied just the opposite. He said, 'Your faith must not be in me, it must be in Jesus Christ. He's the head of the Church, I'm not. And if I were not here, there would be another who would become the pastor general. And if that should ever happen, if you want into get into God's Kingdom you will follow that pastor general. And you will remain united and you will remain one. And your eternity depends on that, every one of you, don't you forget it.' This was in the 1985 Day of Trumpets sermon."
This quote is from chapter 6 of my book, which you can find at http://www.ptgbook.org.
Christ ALLOWED Mr. Armstrong to make mistakes. Perhaps God allowed it to test us to see if we would believe the Bible more than Mr. Armstrong. I have already given the example of Mr. Armstrong teaching the Church to follow the pastor general who would come after him, who was Mr. Tkach. That was a mistake. Also, in Mystery of the Ages he taught that the prophesied end time events such as the Great Tribulation would come in twenty years. Twenty years have come and gone since Mystery of the Ages was published, and those events have not occurred. So Mr. Armstrong can and did make mistakes. Also, Mr. Armstrong corrected his own mistakes in doctrine more than once.
We should respect Mr. Armstrong and learn from him. God gave him gifts, not only in understanding Bible doctrine, but in teaching it and making the truth easy to understand. I still read his books and seek to learn from his writings.
But we must always believe the Bible first, and if we see from the Bible that he made a mistake, we should not hold his mistake against him, but we should correct the mistake, as he would if he were alive, following his example and teaching to let the Bible correct us and teach us new knowledge (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 3:18).
"Don't believe me, believe your Bible, believe God."
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
CHAPTER 6 - OBTAINING GOD'S HELP -- PRACTICING WHAT WE PREACH
Monday, March 11, 2013
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Let's Not Focus on Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong - Part 3
One of the accusations against Mr. Armstrong is that he was a false prophet who made predictions about the future that failed.
But Mr. Armstrong could not have been a false prophet because he was never a prophet at all, and he never claimed to be.
Mr. Armstrong taught, "Don't believe me, believe your Bible, believe God."
God gives examples in the Bible of how He communicated with His prophets. God spoke to Samuel with an audible voice, and the first time this happened, Samuel thought he was hearing the voice of a man calling him (1 Samuel 3:1-19). Christ spoke to Moses face to face (Exodus 33:11). Others experienced dreams or visions in which God spoke to them (Genesis 28:10-15, Ezekiel 1:1-3, 2:1-5, Daniel 10:1-14). Perhaps others received direct revelation from God in other ways.
But these things did not happen to Mr. Armstrong. He didn't learn the truth from God in this way. Instead, he learned the truth from the Bible, just as we should do.
Mr. Armstrong learned the doctrines he taught from the Bible, not by direct revelation from God as the prophets did. He was not a prophet.
Did God open his mind to understand the Bible? Yes. But God also opens our minds to understand the Bible. We learn the truth from the Bible as he did, by studying the Bible and being willing to believe what God says in the Bible. We should learn the truth that way and put our faith in God and His word, not Mr. Armstrong.
Did God teach us the truth through Mr. Armstrong or the Bible? The answer is, both.
For anyone to receive the truth in this age, God must open his or her mind to understand spiritual truth, or Satan will deceive that person. Only those called by God, drawn by God to Christ, can truly come to Him.
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44). "And the disciples came and said to Him, 'Why do You speak to them in parables?' He answered and said to them, 'Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand' " (Matthew 13:10-13).
"But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:10-11).
The rest of the world is blinded by Satan and cannot truly receive the truth and be converted at this time. "So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him" (Revelation 12:9). "But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them" (2 Corinthians 4:3-4).
God opens our minds, those of us called by God, to be able to understand the Bible. That does not make us prophets. God also opened Mr. Armstrong's mind to understand the Bible. What is the difference between how God opened Mr. Armstrong's mind to understand and how He opens our minds? The difference is degree, not kind. God gave Mr. Armstrong spiritual gifts for the work he was to do. God gave him wisdom and understanding in learning new doctrines in the Bible without a man to guide him. I do not have that gift to the same degree and neither do most of you, I would think. I would not have learned the true doctrines just by studying the Bible alone without the teaching of Mr. Armstrong to help me find the scriptures that apply to each doctrine.
But God does give us enough help to understand the scriptures for each doctrine as we study the Bible so we can prove the doctrines Mr. Armstrong taught.
So when I was studying whether or not man has an immortal soul, I read what Mr. Armstrong taught about it, and that is how I found the scriptures about that subject. I studied the scriptures, plus other scriptures I found, and God opened my mind to understand those scriptures, and I made the choice to believe God. In that way I was able to prove from the Bible that man does not have an immortal soul.
But opening our minds to understand the Bible does not make me, or you, or Mr. Armstrong a prophet.
Mr. Armstrong stated that he was not a prophet in the sense that God communicated truth to him directly and separately from the Bible. Whatever he taught from the Bible, we could see for ourselves in our own Bibles.
Mr. Armstrong never claimed to be a prophet in the sense of one to whom God speaks specially and directly, revealing personally a future event to happen or new truth, or new and special instruction direct from God, separate from and apart from what is contained in the Bible.
An account of Nathan the prophet can illustrate the difference between a man of God speaking his own opinion and a man of God delivering a prophetic message from God in his office as a prophet. Study the account in 1 Chronicles 17:1-15.
When Mr. Armstrong speaks of his own opinion, even if he makes a dogmatic statement about doctrine or about future events, he is like Nathan telling David to go ahead and build the temple. But if Mr. Armstrong was a prophet, God would give him direct messages as he gave to Nathan when he told him that David was not to build the temple. Has God ever given Mr. Armstrong such a direct message about doctrine or prophetic events? No. Therefore Mr. Armstrong was never a prophet. Did Mr. Armstrong ever claim that he received a special message from God by a vision, a dream, a voice, or a face-to-face meeting with God? No. Therefore he never claimed to be a prophet.
Mr. Armstrong sometimes made mistakes when he estimated how soon prophetic events would occur. But he never claimed to receive any message from God setting dates. Otherwise, why would he say he is not a prophet if he thought or claimed that God was giving him messages? Why would he say, don't believe me, believe your Bible?
Mr. Armstrong made mistakes in estimating how soon prophetic events would occur. He was wrong in many cases when he said in his writings that something would happen "in ten to fifteen years" or something like that. He made other mistakes too. As he has pointed out, he learned the doctrines of the Church little-by-little over a long period of time, and he had to correct his mistakes.
But you could always tell in reading his literature what he was teaching from the Bible and what was his human opinion and estimate. If you followed the FIRST PRINCIPLE of his teaching, don't believe me, believe the Bible, you would not be confused and could not be deceived.
When Mr. Armstrong taught, he gave his reasons, mostly from the scriptures, and if he said something that he did not prove from the Bible, then it is understood that it was his opinion, which could be mistaken. You could tell in his writings what was opinion and what was doctrine proved from scripture.
For example, I remember the front pages of Mr. Armstrong's book, The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy, saying something like this, "...events sure to happen in the next 10 to 15 years..." or something similar. I don't remember the exact number of years, but the copyright of the book was in the 1960s I think, or some date that made the statement turn out not to be true.
But those statements were not backed up with scripture in the rest of the book. That is how I knew they were Mr. Armstrong's opinion.
I remember that some of the dates the literature either stated or implied were wrong. But Mr. Armstrong never said that God gave him any message about exact dates. The literature proved the doctrines from the Bible. Anything not backed up by scripture was understood to be opinion. That is the way I understood it. So when I saw the front of the United States in prophecy book say these events were sure to happen in a certain number of years, all I had to do was read the book, look up all the scriptures, and remember that Mr. Armstrong said, don't believe me, believe the Bible. When I did that, I saw that no scripture set any exact date, nor did Mr. Armstrong say in the book that any scripture set any exact dates. From that, it was easy to see that the statement in the front of the book about x number of years was just opinion.
I had no trouble understanding from the literature I read what was doctrine from the Bible and what was human opinion.
Yet, Mr. Armstrong did make mistakes in his teaching, especially in estimating how long it would be until end-time events occurred. How should we react to that? How should we think about it? What lessons can we learn from his mistakes?
Should we judge Mr. Armstrong harshly because of these errors? Was Mr. Armstrong deliberately understating the time remaining till the tribulation? Or was he sincere? Was he careless in his conclusions?
Should Mr. Armstrong have been more careful? Yes, he should have been more careful. But the fact that he made these mistakes does not make him a false prophet.
Before we judge Mr. Armstrong for his errors, we should remind ourselves what Christ said about judging. "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you" (Matthew 7:1-2). None of us would like to be called a false teacher for the mistakes we make in the things we say or teach. And we all make mistakes.
If you see that Mr. Armstrong made a mistake, be merciful, as you want God to be merciful to you. Give him the benefit of the doubt. Cut him some slack, as they say. Just count it as an honest mistake that he made, and believe what the Bible really says.
Did God reject Nathan because he spoke incorrectly for God the first time when he told David it was all right for him to build the temple? No, because later God used him as a prophet to rebuke David for David's sin in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. And neither should we reject Mr. Armstrong as a teacher or lose respect for the office he held because he made human mistakes.
Even true prophets can make mistakes, even when they think they are speaking for God, if they speak from their own opinion rather than deliver a direct message from God, but we do not call them false teachers. When David spoke to Nathan the prophet about his desire to build a temple, he evidently wanted Nathan's view or he wanted God's view that Nathan, as a prophet, would give him. Nathan said, sure, go ahead, build a temple. Not maybe, but definitely, yes, do what is in your heart. That is pretty definite. Yet Nathan was wrong. It was not a message from God, but only Nathan's opinion. Evidently Nathan thought he knew God well enough to speak for him without a special message directly from God, but he was wrong, because that night God spoke DIRECTLY to Nathan and corrected him and gave him the message that David was NOT to build the temple (1 Chronicles 17:1-4, 2 Samuel 7:1-17).
Now, if Nathan, who really was God's prophet, could make an honest mistake speaking for God, trying to represent God, how much more can Mr. Armstrong, who never claimed to be a prophet, make honest mistakes? And as God did not rebuke or criticize Nathan for his mistake but merely corrected his mistake, neither should we criticize Mr. Armstrong or lose respect for him as a teacher because he made mistakes. And as I mentioned before, God later used Nathan to rebuke David in the matter of Uriah. So God did not reject him as prophet because he made a mistake, and neither should we reject Mr. Armstrong as a teacher, only we need to check up what he teaches in the Bible and put the Bible first.
Some have accused Mr. Armstrong of deliberately making false statements. But we cannot read his mind to know if he was sincere or not. Only God can do that.
When Mr. Armstrong wrote that certain prophetic events would happen in x number of years, and they didn't happen, he was wrong. But why did he say it? What was he thinking? That is something you or I can't answer. Did he believe himself these things would happen in x number of years? If he did, he was just making a mistake, but he was sincere. But if he did not believe it himself, then he was not telling the truth. Which is it? I do not know. Christ does, and it is none of my business anyway.
Have some people been deceived by the dates Mr. Armstrong implied or stated for end time events to occur? Not if they did what Mr. Armstrong said, "Don't believe me, believe your Bible." Not if they believed and obeyed what God said in the Bible to "prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
It is impossible for Mr. Armstrong to deceive someone about doctrine or prophecy if that person proves what he believes from the Bible.
If Mr. Armstrong taught in a book or booklet from the Bible that certain events were prophesied to occur, and if he seemed to set dates in the cover or text, anyone could look up the scriptures and see he was not saying, from scripture, that these things would happen by a particular date. Anyone who practiced what Mr. Armstrong said, "Don't believe me, believe the Bible", could see that, yes, the Bible shows that these things will happen, but the Bible does not say they will happened by a particular date. Anyone could see that such dates were the human estimates of Mr. Armstrong not proved by scripture.
The only ones who would be deceived by Mr. Armstrong saying that such-and-such event would happen by a certain date would be those who did not do what he said when he said, "Don't believe me, believe what you see in your Bible." I looked up the scriptures, I saw that Mr. Armstrong's dates were just his human estimates, so I was not deceived, nor was I offended when events showed that his estimates were wrong.
I suspect that many people who believed these dates and were later offended with Mr. Armstrong when things didn't happen by these dates, and then claimed to be deceived by him, were never checking their Bibles and believing their Bibles in the first place.
The key is to do what Mr. Armstrong said, don't believe him but believe the Bible, don't believe doctrine because he taught it, but check up in the Bible and believe whatever the Bible says. If he teaches from the Bible, look up every verse as well as other verses you can find, and if the Bible supports Mr. Armstrong's doctrine, then you know the doctrine is true, but if the Bible shows that Mr. Armstrong's doctrine, on any point, is wrong, then believe the Bible, not Mr. Armstrong. And if he adds statements about dates that he does not prove from scripture, you can know those dates are just his estimates. No one who follows that process can be deceived by Mr. Armstrong, or anyone else for that matter.
Truth is truth, no matter what the character is of the person who teaches it.
I am glad I took the time to prove doctrine from the Bible and did not assume that Mr. Armstrong was teaching the truth. I liked Mr. Armstrong, but I forced myself to be skeptical. I did not trust his word without proving it from the Bible, and when I proved things I really crossed every "T" and dotted every "I".
I am a witness, for what it is worth. I checked up. His doctrines generally are true, and if any major doctrine he taught is false, I haven't found it yet, though I have looked.
These are some of the truths I have proved for myself from the Bible, trusting and believing only the Bible, not Mr. Armstrong:
1) The Bible is God speaking.
2) The United States and other English-speaking nations are part of Israel, of the tribes of Joseph, and the coming tribulation will fall upon us.
3) God is not a trinity. The Holy Spirit is the power of God, not a person.
4) Man does not have an immortal soul, but the dead are asleep and unconscious in the grave, and the wicked will be destroyed in the lake of fire and will cease to exist forever.
5) God is calling and saving only a few now.
6) Christ will return soon to set up the Kingdom of God ruling the nations on the earth.
7) Baptism is by immersion in water after we are grown up and have repented.
8) God's Sabbath is the seventh day, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, and is still in force for the Church.
9) The annual feast and holy days should be kept and help to teach the plan of God.
And many other doctrines.
Prove the truth from the Bible, if you have not done so. Use Mr. Armstrong's writings or the writings of the Church of God fellowship you attend as a help, but put your trust and faith in the Bible alone, and believe what God tells you in the Bible.
Then nothing any man does or says will be able to shake your faith in the truth.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Why this Subject Is Important, Chapter 1
Proving that God Exists, Chapter 1
How I Researched these Truths, Chapter 1
Our Attitude and Approach Towards God's Word, Chapter 1
How to Understand the Bible, Chapter 1
But Mr. Armstrong could not have been a false prophet because he was never a prophet at all, and he never claimed to be.
Mr. Armstrong taught, "Don't believe me, believe your Bible, believe God."
God gives examples in the Bible of how He communicated with His prophets. God spoke to Samuel with an audible voice, and the first time this happened, Samuel thought he was hearing the voice of a man calling him (1 Samuel 3:1-19). Christ spoke to Moses face to face (Exodus 33:11). Others experienced dreams or visions in which God spoke to them (Genesis 28:10-15, Ezekiel 1:1-3, 2:1-5, Daniel 10:1-14). Perhaps others received direct revelation from God in other ways.
But these things did not happen to Mr. Armstrong. He didn't learn the truth from God in this way. Instead, he learned the truth from the Bible, just as we should do.
Mr. Armstrong learned the doctrines he taught from the Bible, not by direct revelation from God as the prophets did. He was not a prophet.
Did God open his mind to understand the Bible? Yes. But God also opens our minds to understand the Bible. We learn the truth from the Bible as he did, by studying the Bible and being willing to believe what God says in the Bible. We should learn the truth that way and put our faith in God and His word, not Mr. Armstrong.
Did God teach us the truth through Mr. Armstrong or the Bible? The answer is, both.
For anyone to receive the truth in this age, God must open his or her mind to understand spiritual truth, or Satan will deceive that person. Only those called by God, drawn by God to Christ, can truly come to Him.
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44). "And the disciples came and said to Him, 'Why do You speak to them in parables?' He answered and said to them, 'Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand' " (Matthew 13:10-13).
"But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:10-11).
The rest of the world is blinded by Satan and cannot truly receive the truth and be converted at this time. "So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him" (Revelation 12:9). "But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them" (2 Corinthians 4:3-4).
God opens our minds, those of us called by God, to be able to understand the Bible. That does not make us prophets. God also opened Mr. Armstrong's mind to understand the Bible. What is the difference between how God opened Mr. Armstrong's mind to understand and how He opens our minds? The difference is degree, not kind. God gave Mr. Armstrong spiritual gifts for the work he was to do. God gave him wisdom and understanding in learning new doctrines in the Bible without a man to guide him. I do not have that gift to the same degree and neither do most of you, I would think. I would not have learned the true doctrines just by studying the Bible alone without the teaching of Mr. Armstrong to help me find the scriptures that apply to each doctrine.
But God does give us enough help to understand the scriptures for each doctrine as we study the Bible so we can prove the doctrines Mr. Armstrong taught.
So when I was studying whether or not man has an immortal soul, I read what Mr. Armstrong taught about it, and that is how I found the scriptures about that subject. I studied the scriptures, plus other scriptures I found, and God opened my mind to understand those scriptures, and I made the choice to believe God. In that way I was able to prove from the Bible that man does not have an immortal soul.
But opening our minds to understand the Bible does not make me, or you, or Mr. Armstrong a prophet.
Mr. Armstrong stated that he was not a prophet in the sense that God communicated truth to him directly and separately from the Bible. Whatever he taught from the Bible, we could see for ourselves in our own Bibles.
Mr. Armstrong never claimed to be a prophet in the sense of one to whom God speaks specially and directly, revealing personally a future event to happen or new truth, or new and special instruction direct from God, separate from and apart from what is contained in the Bible.
An account of Nathan the prophet can illustrate the difference between a man of God speaking his own opinion and a man of God delivering a prophetic message from God in his office as a prophet. Study the account in 1 Chronicles 17:1-15.
When Mr. Armstrong speaks of his own opinion, even if he makes a dogmatic statement about doctrine or about future events, he is like Nathan telling David to go ahead and build the temple. But if Mr. Armstrong was a prophet, God would give him direct messages as he gave to Nathan when he told him that David was not to build the temple. Has God ever given Mr. Armstrong such a direct message about doctrine or prophetic events? No. Therefore Mr. Armstrong was never a prophet. Did Mr. Armstrong ever claim that he received a special message from God by a vision, a dream, a voice, or a face-to-face meeting with God? No. Therefore he never claimed to be a prophet.
Mr. Armstrong sometimes made mistakes when he estimated how soon prophetic events would occur. But he never claimed to receive any message from God setting dates. Otherwise, why would he say he is not a prophet if he thought or claimed that God was giving him messages? Why would he say, don't believe me, believe your Bible?
Mr. Armstrong made mistakes in estimating how soon prophetic events would occur. He was wrong in many cases when he said in his writings that something would happen "in ten to fifteen years" or something like that. He made other mistakes too. As he has pointed out, he learned the doctrines of the Church little-by-little over a long period of time, and he had to correct his mistakes.
But you could always tell in reading his literature what he was teaching from the Bible and what was his human opinion and estimate. If you followed the FIRST PRINCIPLE of his teaching, don't believe me, believe the Bible, you would not be confused and could not be deceived.
When Mr. Armstrong taught, he gave his reasons, mostly from the scriptures, and if he said something that he did not prove from the Bible, then it is understood that it was his opinion, which could be mistaken. You could tell in his writings what was opinion and what was doctrine proved from scripture.
For example, I remember the front pages of Mr. Armstrong's book, The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy, saying something like this, "...events sure to happen in the next 10 to 15 years..." or something similar. I don't remember the exact number of years, but the copyright of the book was in the 1960s I think, or some date that made the statement turn out not to be true.
But those statements were not backed up with scripture in the rest of the book. That is how I knew they were Mr. Armstrong's opinion.
I remember that some of the dates the literature either stated or implied were wrong. But Mr. Armstrong never said that God gave him any message about exact dates. The literature proved the doctrines from the Bible. Anything not backed up by scripture was understood to be opinion. That is the way I understood it. So when I saw the front of the United States in prophecy book say these events were sure to happen in a certain number of years, all I had to do was read the book, look up all the scriptures, and remember that Mr. Armstrong said, don't believe me, believe the Bible. When I did that, I saw that no scripture set any exact date, nor did Mr. Armstrong say in the book that any scripture set any exact dates. From that, it was easy to see that the statement in the front of the book about x number of years was just opinion.
I had no trouble understanding from the literature I read what was doctrine from the Bible and what was human opinion.
Yet, Mr. Armstrong did make mistakes in his teaching, especially in estimating how long it would be until end-time events occurred. How should we react to that? How should we think about it? What lessons can we learn from his mistakes?
Should we judge Mr. Armstrong harshly because of these errors? Was Mr. Armstrong deliberately understating the time remaining till the tribulation? Or was he sincere? Was he careless in his conclusions?
Should Mr. Armstrong have been more careful? Yes, he should have been more careful. But the fact that he made these mistakes does not make him a false prophet.
Before we judge Mr. Armstrong for his errors, we should remind ourselves what Christ said about judging. "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you" (Matthew 7:1-2). None of us would like to be called a false teacher for the mistakes we make in the things we say or teach. And we all make mistakes.
If you see that Mr. Armstrong made a mistake, be merciful, as you want God to be merciful to you. Give him the benefit of the doubt. Cut him some slack, as they say. Just count it as an honest mistake that he made, and believe what the Bible really says.
Did God reject Nathan because he spoke incorrectly for God the first time when he told David it was all right for him to build the temple? No, because later God used him as a prophet to rebuke David for David's sin in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. And neither should we reject Mr. Armstrong as a teacher or lose respect for the office he held because he made human mistakes.
Even true prophets can make mistakes, even when they think they are speaking for God, if they speak from their own opinion rather than deliver a direct message from God, but we do not call them false teachers. When David spoke to Nathan the prophet about his desire to build a temple, he evidently wanted Nathan's view or he wanted God's view that Nathan, as a prophet, would give him. Nathan said, sure, go ahead, build a temple. Not maybe, but definitely, yes, do what is in your heart. That is pretty definite. Yet Nathan was wrong. It was not a message from God, but only Nathan's opinion. Evidently Nathan thought he knew God well enough to speak for him without a special message directly from God, but he was wrong, because that night God spoke DIRECTLY to Nathan and corrected him and gave him the message that David was NOT to build the temple (1 Chronicles 17:1-4, 2 Samuel 7:1-17).
Now, if Nathan, who really was God's prophet, could make an honest mistake speaking for God, trying to represent God, how much more can Mr. Armstrong, who never claimed to be a prophet, make honest mistakes? And as God did not rebuke or criticize Nathan for his mistake but merely corrected his mistake, neither should we criticize Mr. Armstrong or lose respect for him as a teacher because he made mistakes. And as I mentioned before, God later used Nathan to rebuke David in the matter of Uriah. So God did not reject him as prophet because he made a mistake, and neither should we reject Mr. Armstrong as a teacher, only we need to check up what he teaches in the Bible and put the Bible first.
Some have accused Mr. Armstrong of deliberately making false statements. But we cannot read his mind to know if he was sincere or not. Only God can do that.
When Mr. Armstrong wrote that certain prophetic events would happen in x number of years, and they didn't happen, he was wrong. But why did he say it? What was he thinking? That is something you or I can't answer. Did he believe himself these things would happen in x number of years? If he did, he was just making a mistake, but he was sincere. But if he did not believe it himself, then he was not telling the truth. Which is it? I do not know. Christ does, and it is none of my business anyway.
Have some people been deceived by the dates Mr. Armstrong implied or stated for end time events to occur? Not if they did what Mr. Armstrong said, "Don't believe me, believe your Bible." Not if they believed and obeyed what God said in the Bible to "prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
It is impossible for Mr. Armstrong to deceive someone about doctrine or prophecy if that person proves what he believes from the Bible.
If Mr. Armstrong taught in a book or booklet from the Bible that certain events were prophesied to occur, and if he seemed to set dates in the cover or text, anyone could look up the scriptures and see he was not saying, from scripture, that these things would happen by a particular date. Anyone who practiced what Mr. Armstrong said, "Don't believe me, believe the Bible", could see that, yes, the Bible shows that these things will happen, but the Bible does not say they will happened by a particular date. Anyone could see that such dates were the human estimates of Mr. Armstrong not proved by scripture.
The only ones who would be deceived by Mr. Armstrong saying that such-and-such event would happen by a certain date would be those who did not do what he said when he said, "Don't believe me, believe what you see in your Bible." I looked up the scriptures, I saw that Mr. Armstrong's dates were just his human estimates, so I was not deceived, nor was I offended when events showed that his estimates were wrong.
I suspect that many people who believed these dates and were later offended with Mr. Armstrong when things didn't happen by these dates, and then claimed to be deceived by him, were never checking their Bibles and believing their Bibles in the first place.
The key is to do what Mr. Armstrong said, don't believe him but believe the Bible, don't believe doctrine because he taught it, but check up in the Bible and believe whatever the Bible says. If he teaches from the Bible, look up every verse as well as other verses you can find, and if the Bible supports Mr. Armstrong's doctrine, then you know the doctrine is true, but if the Bible shows that Mr. Armstrong's doctrine, on any point, is wrong, then believe the Bible, not Mr. Armstrong. And if he adds statements about dates that he does not prove from scripture, you can know those dates are just his estimates. No one who follows that process can be deceived by Mr. Armstrong, or anyone else for that matter.
Truth is truth, no matter what the character is of the person who teaches it.
I am glad I took the time to prove doctrine from the Bible and did not assume that Mr. Armstrong was teaching the truth. I liked Mr. Armstrong, but I forced myself to be skeptical. I did not trust his word without proving it from the Bible, and when I proved things I really crossed every "T" and dotted every "I".
I am a witness, for what it is worth. I checked up. His doctrines generally are true, and if any major doctrine he taught is false, I haven't found it yet, though I have looked.
These are some of the truths I have proved for myself from the Bible, trusting and believing only the Bible, not Mr. Armstrong:
1) The Bible is God speaking.
2) The United States and other English-speaking nations are part of Israel, of the tribes of Joseph, and the coming tribulation will fall upon us.
3) God is not a trinity. The Holy Spirit is the power of God, not a person.
4) Man does not have an immortal soul, but the dead are asleep and unconscious in the grave, and the wicked will be destroyed in the lake of fire and will cease to exist forever.
5) God is calling and saving only a few now.
6) Christ will return soon to set up the Kingdom of God ruling the nations on the earth.
7) Baptism is by immersion in water after we are grown up and have repented.
8) God's Sabbath is the seventh day, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, and is still in force for the Church.
9) The annual feast and holy days should be kept and help to teach the plan of God.
And many other doctrines.
Prove the truth from the Bible, if you have not done so. Use Mr. Armstrong's writings or the writings of the Church of God fellowship you attend as a help, but put your trust and faith in the Bible alone, and believe what God tells you in the Bible.
Then nothing any man does or says will be able to shake your faith in the truth.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Why this Subject Is Important, Chapter 1
Proving that God Exists, Chapter 1
How I Researched these Truths, Chapter 1
Our Attitude and Approach Towards God's Word, Chapter 1
How to Understand the Bible, Chapter 1
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Good News - Snow and Rain Reduce Drought Conditions
Weather forecasters have said that the recent snow and rain we have been getting is helping to reduce drought conditions that have plagued much of the country. Much needed moisture is being put back into the soil because the rain and the melt from snow.
Here are links to two weather videos about this:
http://www.weather.com/video/snow-puts-dent-in-drought-35395
http://www.weather.com/video/good-news-at-last-on-drought-35270
This is the good news I have been waiting for.
On July 19, 2012 I published a post entitled, "We Should Pray for Rain". Here is a link to that post:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/07/we-should-pray-for-rain.html
While we can see prophetic events happening, and drought conditions can be part of the prophesied punishment of the United States for its sins, we should not rejoice when we see disaster or harm come upon our country. Rather, we should pray for God to bless our nation and protect it.
"He who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished" (Proverbs 17:5).
"Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:1-4).
The snow that has been hitting the Midwest and large portions of the United States can certainly be a hardship, but the moisture it puts in the soil can help alleviate the drought, help our crops, and help our economy, which is in need of some help right now. It can delay any economic collapse to give us time to get the Ezekiel warning message out to all Americans and other English-speaking nations, to tell them their sins and give them the warning so they know what they are doing wrong and that they need to repent or face the punishment of the great tribulation.
"Cry aloud, spare not; Lift up your voice like a trumpet; Tell My people their transgression, And the house of Jacob their sins" (Isaiah 58:1).
"Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter" (Proverbs 24:11).
"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me: when I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:17-18).
"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Matthew 24:21).
"Alas! For that day is great, So that none is like it; And it is the time of Jacob’s trouble, But he shall be saved out of it" (Jeremiah 30:7).
But what about this verse? "Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them, nor make intercession to Me; for I will not hear you" (Jeremiah 7:16). See also Jeremiah 11:14, 14:11-12.
In my opinion, the time has not yet come when the principle of not praying for our nations applies. Why? Because the warning message has not gone out to everyone who will go through the tribulation. We have not finished the work as God has commanded. As I have often said, many Americans, Britons, Canadians, and Australians do not know that what they are doing is wrong. Many practicing Catholics use statues and holy pictures in worship and do not understand that God forbids such use of images. Catholics and Protestants do not understand that the seventh day Sabbath and the annual feasts and holy days should still be observed. They need a warning so they have a chance to repent before it is too late.
Now, once the warning goes out to everyone, and all those about to go through the tribulation have heard the warning from the Church, then if they do not repent, yes, I think Jeremiah 7:16, 11:14, and 14:11-12 may apply. But that time has not come.
Their blood is still hanging over our heads till we get the warning out to everyone, or until we can say we have done everything we possibly could do, gone all out to the max, to get that warning out.
Until then, we should pray for the good of our nation and our economy and not rejoice when we see disasters occur because we see prophecy being fulfilled.
So though I sympathize with those for whom the snow and rain is a hardship, I rejoice that God is giving us the moisture we need for our food crops. And I thank Him.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
CHAPTER 3 - THE EZEKIEL WARNING
Here are links to two weather videos about this:
http://www.weather.com/video/snow-puts-dent-in-drought-35395
http://www.weather.com/video/good-news-at-last-on-drought-35270
This is the good news I have been waiting for.
On July 19, 2012 I published a post entitled, "We Should Pray for Rain". Here is a link to that post:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/07/we-should-pray-for-rain.html
While we can see prophetic events happening, and drought conditions can be part of the prophesied punishment of the United States for its sins, we should not rejoice when we see disaster or harm come upon our country. Rather, we should pray for God to bless our nation and protect it.
"He who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished" (Proverbs 17:5).
"Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:1-4).
The snow that has been hitting the Midwest and large portions of the United States can certainly be a hardship, but the moisture it puts in the soil can help alleviate the drought, help our crops, and help our economy, which is in need of some help right now. It can delay any economic collapse to give us time to get the Ezekiel warning message out to all Americans and other English-speaking nations, to tell them their sins and give them the warning so they know what they are doing wrong and that they need to repent or face the punishment of the great tribulation.
"Cry aloud, spare not; Lift up your voice like a trumpet; Tell My people their transgression, And the house of Jacob their sins" (Isaiah 58:1).
"Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter" (Proverbs 24:11).
"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me: when I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:17-18).
"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Matthew 24:21).
"Alas! For that day is great, So that none is like it; And it is the time of Jacob’s trouble, But he shall be saved out of it" (Jeremiah 30:7).
But what about this verse? "Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them, nor make intercession to Me; for I will not hear you" (Jeremiah 7:16). See also Jeremiah 11:14, 14:11-12.
In my opinion, the time has not yet come when the principle of not praying for our nations applies. Why? Because the warning message has not gone out to everyone who will go through the tribulation. We have not finished the work as God has commanded. As I have often said, many Americans, Britons, Canadians, and Australians do not know that what they are doing is wrong. Many practicing Catholics use statues and holy pictures in worship and do not understand that God forbids such use of images. Catholics and Protestants do not understand that the seventh day Sabbath and the annual feasts and holy days should still be observed. They need a warning so they have a chance to repent before it is too late.
Now, once the warning goes out to everyone, and all those about to go through the tribulation have heard the warning from the Church, then if they do not repent, yes, I think Jeremiah 7:16, 11:14, and 14:11-12 may apply. But that time has not come.
Their blood is still hanging over our heads till we get the warning out to everyone, or until we can say we have done everything we possibly could do, gone all out to the max, to get that warning out.
Until then, we should pray for the good of our nation and our economy and not rejoice when we see disasters occur because we see prophecy being fulfilled.
So though I sympathize with those for whom the snow and rain is a hardship, I rejoice that God is giving us the moisture we need for our food crops. And I thank Him.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
CHAPTER 3 - THE EZEKIEL WARNING
Sunday, March 3, 2013
What Are the Characteristics of Philadelphian Christians?
Because the Church of God understands prophecy, end-time events, and the book of Revelation, we often speak or hear of Laodicea and Philadelphia. We know that Philadelphia is promised protection from the great tribulation and that Laodicea is not. We know that Christ rebukes Laodicea but praises Philadelphia.
Christ said, "Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man" (Luke 21:36). It is Philadelphia that is given the promise of escape. "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 3:10).
Being a Philadelphian Christian, having the character attributes Christ praises in His message to Philadelphia, is a worthy goal. Likewise, we should seek to overcome any wrong character traits and sins Christ describes Laodicea as having. God gave us these messages for our learning.
Bob Thiel used to teach that Living Church of God is Philadelphia, but he no longer teaches that. In one of my previous posts about Bob Thiel, I challenged him to list his criteria for evaluating if a Church of God fellowship is Philadelphian, and then state if his criteria has changed or if LCG has changed and no longer has the qualifications for Philadelphia according to Dr. Thiel's own criteria.
Here is a link to my post in which I challenged Bob Thiel about the criteria for Philadelphia:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2013/02/is-falling-away-doctrine-critical-issue.html
For example, one criteria I think Dr. Thiel used is holding fast to the "eighteen truths" God restored to the Church through Mr. Armstrong. Another may be giving priority to preaching the gospel. Another may be top-down governance. I don't want to go too far in trying to list his criteria for him because if I continue I am bound to make some mistakes in the way I represent his criteria - he needs to speak for himself and explain it in his own words. But from my perspective, LCG seems to still have the characteristics that once led Bob Thiel to conclude they are Philadelphia, or at least most of them.
In this post, I want to explain what I think are the characteristics of a Philadelphian Christian. I am discussing the subject of Philadelphia from a little different angle. I am not trying to just list the criteria for a Church of God fellowship that is Philadelphian, though the characteristics can apply to an organization. But I am also discussing what makes an individual member in any fellowship a Philadelphian Christian.
Christ commends Philadelphia in the message to the churches in Revelation, and Philadelphia can thus serve as a positive example in the Bible for us to learn from. We should strive to have the characteristics of Philadelphia, to please God, and also in hope that God will empower us to finish the work and count us worthy to be protected from the tribulation.
What are those characteristics?
"I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name. Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown" (Revelation 3:8-11).
Notice that Philadelphia is to "hold fast". What is Philadelphia to hold fast to?
Some say Philadelphia is to hold fast to doctrine, a set of doctrinal beliefs, such as the eighteen truths that God restored to the Church of God through Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong.
But Mr. Armstrong himself was Philadelphian before he restored the 18 truths. He had the zeal, the open door, and God blessed him. So this message said to Mr. Armstrong in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, "I have set before you an open door" and "hold fast to what you have". Yet he was in the process of discovering and restoring the 18 truths. That could not be what Christ said to hold fast to.
What did Mr. Armstrong have that he and other members of the Church were to hold fast to? They had the willingness to change their doctrinal beliefs to follow the Bible. Mr. Armstrong believed the Bible more than his traditions, the traditions he grew up with. He was willing to learn new knowledge from the Bible and to let the Bible correct his doctrines. He believed God. That is HOW he learned the 18 truths. If he were not willing to let the Bible teach him new knowledge and change his doctrines to follow the Bible, God could not have used him to restore the 18 truths. Nor could God have given him an open door. And we would not have those truths today, or at least not through him. God would have had to use somebody else.
Not only was Mr. Armstrong willing to change his beliefs, to admit error and be corrected by the Bible, but those who supported him in those years had to do the same. Thousands of people raised in mainstream religious traditions, and some who had no religion at all, had to admit they were wrong, let the Bible correct them, and believe the Bible. They had to be willing to learn knew knowledge from the Bible just like Mr. Armstrong.
It was only because Mr. Armstrong believed the Bible and was willing to change his doctrines that God could use him to build the Philadelphia era of the Church of God.
He who had the open door had to go to the public and teach them, in effect: "Don't believe me, don't believe any man, don't believe your traditions, but believe God - believe the Bible." But the man God chose to do this could not be a hypocrite. He had to practice what he preached. That is God's way.
God gave Mr. Armstrong an open door to preach a message to the public telling them that their traditions are wrong and they need to give up their traditions and follow what the Bible actually says. But before Mr. Armstrong could teach that he had to be tested to see if he was willing to do that himself. The story is in his autobiography.
I talk about this in my book, Preaching the Gospel. Basically, God tested Loma Armstrong when a Church of God member taught her about the Sabbath from the Bible. Mrs. Armstrong passed the test and gave up her Sunday tradition to follow the Bible. Then, God was able to use Mrs. Armstrong to test Mr. Armstrong. It was harder for him, but he also passed the test and believed the Bible more than the traditions he was raised in.
Then God used Mr. Armstrong to test the leadership of the Church of God (Seventh Day) to see if they would accept new truth. They did not. So God could not use that group to preach that message to the public. They never had the open door.
So God used Mr. Armstrong and gave him the open door, and that was the start of the Philadelphia era.
Willingness to learn new knowledge from the Bible and to let the Bible correct us in doctrine, giving up our traditions when necessary to follow the Bible, is a characteristic of Philadelphians. That is one of the things Philadelphia is to hold fast to.
Those groups and leaders who teach that Mr. Armstrong's doctrines should never be changed are only proving that they have given up that which Christ tells Philadelphians to hold fast to - willingness to learn new knowledge from the Bible.
A true Philadelphian Christian will believe the Bible more than his traditions, more than his opinions, and more than the leadership and the ministry of the organization he attends. He will respect the ministry and not cause division, but if he sees something in the Bible that is different from what the Church he attends teaches, he will believe the Bible more than the Church he attends. If it is not something major and foundational, he can quietly wait for Christ to make the correction. He will not take it upon himself to promote his opinions about scripture among the brethren or to contradict the ministry.
Basing our beliefs on the Bible is part of holding fast to what made Mr. Armstrong a Philadelphian. Christ also said, "you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name". Basing our beliefs on the Bible is also part of keeping Christ's word, for the Bible is the Word of God. Mr. Armstrong taught that the Bible is the word of God in print and Jesus Christ is the Word of God in person. Christ is called "the Word of God" in Revelation 19:13. Christ said, man should live by EVERY word of God (Matthew 4:4).
Another characteristic of Philadelphia is zeal for preaching the gospel to the world.
Christ promises Philadelphia an open door to preaching the gospel to the world (Revelation 3:8, Colossians 4:2-4, 2 Corinthians 2:12, 1 Corinthians 16:8-9). But that requires zeal to go through that open door.
What is the difference between a Church of God fellowship that has an active, effective work of preaching the gospel to the world and one that does not? It is not physical opportunity. All Churches of God have pretty much the same opportunity. We still have the freedom to go on TV and radio, to publish books and magazines, to set up websites and advertise them, and to hold public Bible lectures. It is not money. Generally, all Churches of God have a similar mixture of middle class, working class, and a few poor members. The average per-person income in each fellowship probably does not differ greatly.
What makes the difference is ZEAL. Those with zeal make the sacrifices to go through an open door, those without zeal do not. In fact, it is inspired zeal that really opens the door.
That zeal can be motivated by love for our countrymen who need a warning. They need to be told their sins (Isaiah 58:1). Many do not know what they are. They do not know they need to keep the weekly and annual sabbaths. They do not know that religious pictures and statues should not be used as an "aid" to worship. They do not know that Christmas and Easter are wrong.
They need to be told by the Church (not the two witnesses) what they are doing wrong and that they need to repent, BEFORE the tribulation begins, while there is still time to repent and escape. What good does it do to warn them while they are IN the tribulation? It is too late then. The two witnesses are given special power at the start of the tribulation. The people need a warning before then.
Even though most will not repent before the tribulation, they need to hear the warning now so they know that God was fair to warn them before it was too late, so they can accept responsibility for ignoring the warning instead of blaming God for not warning them. If they hear the warning now, it will be easier for them to repent in the tribulation. Why? They will say, "I remember the warning, but I ignored it - this is my fault, I should have listened."
But if we don't get the warning out now, what will they say during the tribulation? "I didn't know it was wrong to use holy pictures, to work on Saturday, or to keep Christmas and Easter. No one warned me. How was I supposed to know? God isn't fair to punish me for something that's not my fault."
Which is better? Which will make it easier for the people to repent? It is better that they know they were warned, so they can accept responsibility for ignoring the warning, which will make their repentance easier.
Accepting responsibility for our mistakes is a first step towards repentance.
Do we love our neighbors enough to be zealous to get the message of God's truth, the true gospel and the Ezekiel warning, out to them now? Do we have the zeal to make the sacrifices? Or do we say, "let the two witnesses do it" (when it is too late).
Giving Israel a warning now helps demonstrate God's fairness and glorifies His name.
Zeal for preaching the true gospel and the Ezekiel warning to the world and to Israel is a characteristic of Philadelphia Christians. Otherwise, the "open door" would not really be an open door. It is zeal that opens the door at a time when all groups have the money and freedom to publish the message, but some are not willing to sacrifice. That is one of the things Mr. Armstrong had from the beginning that Philadelphians are to hold fast to.
I also think Philadelphians are to hold fast to the understanding that we are not just to do what we are explicitly commanded to do, but we are to seek and do God's WILL in everything. We should want to please Him in all our decisions, to do what Christ would want us to do. That was Christ's FOOD, to do the Father's will and to finish His work (John 4:34).
A key test is our attitude towards Church governance. Some COG fellowships have top-down governance and some have voting. What does the Bible say?
If you are only looking for a specific command, there is none. You will not find, "Thou shalt not vote", in the Bible.
But if you are looking for God's will, God's desire, not just what He specifically commands, you will find a pattern in the Bible of how God selects leaders, and it is never by voting. If we are seeking to do God's will, we will learn from and follow that pattern as best we can. That pattern is governance from the top down. Following the pattern God shows us in the Bible is part of living by every word of God (Matthew 4:4).
Allowing Christ to select leaders in the Church of God, not the ministers selecting the leaders by voting, is part of keeping Christ's word and not denying His name (Revelation 3:8). Christ's name can refer to His authority, as when we pray to the Father in Christ's name - we are doing it by Christ's authority. We should accept Christ's authority to choose leaders in the Church of God and not try to choose those leaders ourselves by voting.
Mr. Armstrong understood that God's government is from the top down, and I think that is one of the characteristics of Philadelphia we are to hold fast to.
I think these are some of the characteristics of being a Philadelphian Christian.
But there may be an irony in that Philadelphian Christians may not be sure they are Philadelphian.
Christ praises and does not rebuke Philadelphia. That seems to indicate that Philadelphians have the true spiritual riches. Yet, thinking we are rich and increased in goods (spiritually) may be more an attribute of Laodicea, not Philadelphia. "Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'-and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked" (Revelation 3:17).
"Philadelphia" refers to brotherly love. But I have been told that "Laodicea" can mean "the people judge".
What is it that Laodiceans judge that they should not?
"The people judge" may refer to voting in the sense that the people who vote decide who will rule over them rather than submit to Christ's choice about who will rule over them.
But also, it can refer to an attitude of judging others and comparing ourselves with others.
Christ said, "judge not" (Matthew 7:1) and Paul warned against comparing ourselves with each other (2 Corinthians 10:12). We should compare ourselves with Christ, not other Church members. This is especially important prior to Passover when we examine ourselves. We should measure ourselves and compare ourselves with Christ.
Laodiceans may tend to compare themselves with other Church members, and because we all have faults, they can see the faults in others and thus justify themselves, thinking, "I am not as bad as that person". Looking at the faults of others in comparison to ourselves is a pretty good recipe for self-satisfaction, the feeling that we are ok as we are, spiritually "rich and increased in goods", and not know that we are spiritually blind.
But a Philadelphian should compare himself or herself with Christ. That is the antidote to self-satisfaction. None of us measure up to Christ's perfect example.
A Philadelphian therefore is likely to be more aware of his or her own shortcomings and faults, which is why a Philadelphian may not feel worthy of being counted as a Philadelphian.
I think that rather than considering ourselves to be Philadelphian, we should think of it as a goal to strive for but not yet achieved. We should look to Christ to see where we fall short, and focus on that so that we repent and overcome.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
CHAPTER 4 - WHY PREACH THE GOSPEL?
When and How to Judge, Chapter 5
CHAPTER 6 - OBTAINING GOD'S HELP -- PRACTICING WHAT WE PREACH
CHAPTER 8 - GOVERNMENT IN THE CHURCH OF GOD
Christ said, "Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man" (Luke 21:36). It is Philadelphia that is given the promise of escape. "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 3:10).
Being a Philadelphian Christian, having the character attributes Christ praises in His message to Philadelphia, is a worthy goal. Likewise, we should seek to overcome any wrong character traits and sins Christ describes Laodicea as having. God gave us these messages for our learning.
Bob Thiel used to teach that Living Church of God is Philadelphia, but he no longer teaches that. In one of my previous posts about Bob Thiel, I challenged him to list his criteria for evaluating if a Church of God fellowship is Philadelphian, and then state if his criteria has changed or if LCG has changed and no longer has the qualifications for Philadelphia according to Dr. Thiel's own criteria.
Here is a link to my post in which I challenged Bob Thiel about the criteria for Philadelphia:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2013/02/is-falling-away-doctrine-critical-issue.html
For example, one criteria I think Dr. Thiel used is holding fast to the "eighteen truths" God restored to the Church through Mr. Armstrong. Another may be giving priority to preaching the gospel. Another may be top-down governance. I don't want to go too far in trying to list his criteria for him because if I continue I am bound to make some mistakes in the way I represent his criteria - he needs to speak for himself and explain it in his own words. But from my perspective, LCG seems to still have the characteristics that once led Bob Thiel to conclude they are Philadelphia, or at least most of them.
In this post, I want to explain what I think are the characteristics of a Philadelphian Christian. I am discussing the subject of Philadelphia from a little different angle. I am not trying to just list the criteria for a Church of God fellowship that is Philadelphian, though the characteristics can apply to an organization. But I am also discussing what makes an individual member in any fellowship a Philadelphian Christian.
Christ commends Philadelphia in the message to the churches in Revelation, and Philadelphia can thus serve as a positive example in the Bible for us to learn from. We should strive to have the characteristics of Philadelphia, to please God, and also in hope that God will empower us to finish the work and count us worthy to be protected from the tribulation.
What are those characteristics?
"I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name. Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown" (Revelation 3:8-11).
Notice that Philadelphia is to "hold fast". What is Philadelphia to hold fast to?
Some say Philadelphia is to hold fast to doctrine, a set of doctrinal beliefs, such as the eighteen truths that God restored to the Church of God through Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong.
But Mr. Armstrong himself was Philadelphian before he restored the 18 truths. He had the zeal, the open door, and God blessed him. So this message said to Mr. Armstrong in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, "I have set before you an open door" and "hold fast to what you have". Yet he was in the process of discovering and restoring the 18 truths. That could not be what Christ said to hold fast to.
What did Mr. Armstrong have that he and other members of the Church were to hold fast to? They had the willingness to change their doctrinal beliefs to follow the Bible. Mr. Armstrong believed the Bible more than his traditions, the traditions he grew up with. He was willing to learn new knowledge from the Bible and to let the Bible correct his doctrines. He believed God. That is HOW he learned the 18 truths. If he were not willing to let the Bible teach him new knowledge and change his doctrines to follow the Bible, God could not have used him to restore the 18 truths. Nor could God have given him an open door. And we would not have those truths today, or at least not through him. God would have had to use somebody else.
Not only was Mr. Armstrong willing to change his beliefs, to admit error and be corrected by the Bible, but those who supported him in those years had to do the same. Thousands of people raised in mainstream religious traditions, and some who had no religion at all, had to admit they were wrong, let the Bible correct them, and believe the Bible. They had to be willing to learn knew knowledge from the Bible just like Mr. Armstrong.
It was only because Mr. Armstrong believed the Bible and was willing to change his doctrines that God could use him to build the Philadelphia era of the Church of God.
He who had the open door had to go to the public and teach them, in effect: "Don't believe me, don't believe any man, don't believe your traditions, but believe God - believe the Bible." But the man God chose to do this could not be a hypocrite. He had to practice what he preached. That is God's way.
God gave Mr. Armstrong an open door to preach a message to the public telling them that their traditions are wrong and they need to give up their traditions and follow what the Bible actually says. But before Mr. Armstrong could teach that he had to be tested to see if he was willing to do that himself. The story is in his autobiography.
I talk about this in my book, Preaching the Gospel. Basically, God tested Loma Armstrong when a Church of God member taught her about the Sabbath from the Bible. Mrs. Armstrong passed the test and gave up her Sunday tradition to follow the Bible. Then, God was able to use Mrs. Armstrong to test Mr. Armstrong. It was harder for him, but he also passed the test and believed the Bible more than the traditions he was raised in.
Then God used Mr. Armstrong to test the leadership of the Church of God (Seventh Day) to see if they would accept new truth. They did not. So God could not use that group to preach that message to the public. They never had the open door.
So God used Mr. Armstrong and gave him the open door, and that was the start of the Philadelphia era.
Willingness to learn new knowledge from the Bible and to let the Bible correct us in doctrine, giving up our traditions when necessary to follow the Bible, is a characteristic of Philadelphians. That is one of the things Philadelphia is to hold fast to.
Those groups and leaders who teach that Mr. Armstrong's doctrines should never be changed are only proving that they have given up that which Christ tells Philadelphians to hold fast to - willingness to learn new knowledge from the Bible.
A true Philadelphian Christian will believe the Bible more than his traditions, more than his opinions, and more than the leadership and the ministry of the organization he attends. He will respect the ministry and not cause division, but if he sees something in the Bible that is different from what the Church he attends teaches, he will believe the Bible more than the Church he attends. If it is not something major and foundational, he can quietly wait for Christ to make the correction. He will not take it upon himself to promote his opinions about scripture among the brethren or to contradict the ministry.
Basing our beliefs on the Bible is part of holding fast to what made Mr. Armstrong a Philadelphian. Christ also said, "you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name". Basing our beliefs on the Bible is also part of keeping Christ's word, for the Bible is the Word of God. Mr. Armstrong taught that the Bible is the word of God in print and Jesus Christ is the Word of God in person. Christ is called "the Word of God" in Revelation 19:13. Christ said, man should live by EVERY word of God (Matthew 4:4).
Another characteristic of Philadelphia is zeal for preaching the gospel to the world.
Christ promises Philadelphia an open door to preaching the gospel to the world (Revelation 3:8, Colossians 4:2-4, 2 Corinthians 2:12, 1 Corinthians 16:8-9). But that requires zeal to go through that open door.
What is the difference between a Church of God fellowship that has an active, effective work of preaching the gospel to the world and one that does not? It is not physical opportunity. All Churches of God have pretty much the same opportunity. We still have the freedom to go on TV and radio, to publish books and magazines, to set up websites and advertise them, and to hold public Bible lectures. It is not money. Generally, all Churches of God have a similar mixture of middle class, working class, and a few poor members. The average per-person income in each fellowship probably does not differ greatly.
What makes the difference is ZEAL. Those with zeal make the sacrifices to go through an open door, those without zeal do not. In fact, it is inspired zeal that really opens the door.
That zeal can be motivated by love for our countrymen who need a warning. They need to be told their sins (Isaiah 58:1). Many do not know what they are. They do not know they need to keep the weekly and annual sabbaths. They do not know that religious pictures and statues should not be used as an "aid" to worship. They do not know that Christmas and Easter are wrong.
They need to be told by the Church (not the two witnesses) what they are doing wrong and that they need to repent, BEFORE the tribulation begins, while there is still time to repent and escape. What good does it do to warn them while they are IN the tribulation? It is too late then. The two witnesses are given special power at the start of the tribulation. The people need a warning before then.
Even though most will not repent before the tribulation, they need to hear the warning now so they know that God was fair to warn them before it was too late, so they can accept responsibility for ignoring the warning instead of blaming God for not warning them. If they hear the warning now, it will be easier for them to repent in the tribulation. Why? They will say, "I remember the warning, but I ignored it - this is my fault, I should have listened."
But if we don't get the warning out now, what will they say during the tribulation? "I didn't know it was wrong to use holy pictures, to work on Saturday, or to keep Christmas and Easter. No one warned me. How was I supposed to know? God isn't fair to punish me for something that's not my fault."
Which is better? Which will make it easier for the people to repent? It is better that they know they were warned, so they can accept responsibility for ignoring the warning, which will make their repentance easier.
Accepting responsibility for our mistakes is a first step towards repentance.
Do we love our neighbors enough to be zealous to get the message of God's truth, the true gospel and the Ezekiel warning, out to them now? Do we have the zeal to make the sacrifices? Or do we say, "let the two witnesses do it" (when it is too late).
Giving Israel a warning now helps demonstrate God's fairness and glorifies His name.
Zeal for preaching the true gospel and the Ezekiel warning to the world and to Israel is a characteristic of Philadelphia Christians. Otherwise, the "open door" would not really be an open door. It is zeal that opens the door at a time when all groups have the money and freedom to publish the message, but some are not willing to sacrifice. That is one of the things Mr. Armstrong had from the beginning that Philadelphians are to hold fast to.
I also think Philadelphians are to hold fast to the understanding that we are not just to do what we are explicitly commanded to do, but we are to seek and do God's WILL in everything. We should want to please Him in all our decisions, to do what Christ would want us to do. That was Christ's FOOD, to do the Father's will and to finish His work (John 4:34).
A key test is our attitude towards Church governance. Some COG fellowships have top-down governance and some have voting. What does the Bible say?
If you are only looking for a specific command, there is none. You will not find, "Thou shalt not vote", in the Bible.
But if you are looking for God's will, God's desire, not just what He specifically commands, you will find a pattern in the Bible of how God selects leaders, and it is never by voting. If we are seeking to do God's will, we will learn from and follow that pattern as best we can. That pattern is governance from the top down. Following the pattern God shows us in the Bible is part of living by every word of God (Matthew 4:4).
Allowing Christ to select leaders in the Church of God, not the ministers selecting the leaders by voting, is part of keeping Christ's word and not denying His name (Revelation 3:8). Christ's name can refer to His authority, as when we pray to the Father in Christ's name - we are doing it by Christ's authority. We should accept Christ's authority to choose leaders in the Church of God and not try to choose those leaders ourselves by voting.
Mr. Armstrong understood that God's government is from the top down, and I think that is one of the characteristics of Philadelphia we are to hold fast to.
I think these are some of the characteristics of being a Philadelphian Christian.
But there may be an irony in that Philadelphian Christians may not be sure they are Philadelphian.
Christ praises and does not rebuke Philadelphia. That seems to indicate that Philadelphians have the true spiritual riches. Yet, thinking we are rich and increased in goods (spiritually) may be more an attribute of Laodicea, not Philadelphia. "Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'-and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked" (Revelation 3:17).
"Philadelphia" refers to brotherly love. But I have been told that "Laodicea" can mean "the people judge".
What is it that Laodiceans judge that they should not?
"The people judge" may refer to voting in the sense that the people who vote decide who will rule over them rather than submit to Christ's choice about who will rule over them.
But also, it can refer to an attitude of judging others and comparing ourselves with others.
Christ said, "judge not" (Matthew 7:1) and Paul warned against comparing ourselves with each other (2 Corinthians 10:12). We should compare ourselves with Christ, not other Church members. This is especially important prior to Passover when we examine ourselves. We should measure ourselves and compare ourselves with Christ.
Laodiceans may tend to compare themselves with other Church members, and because we all have faults, they can see the faults in others and thus justify themselves, thinking, "I am not as bad as that person". Looking at the faults of others in comparison to ourselves is a pretty good recipe for self-satisfaction, the feeling that we are ok as we are, spiritually "rich and increased in goods", and not know that we are spiritually blind.
But a Philadelphian should compare himself or herself with Christ. That is the antidote to self-satisfaction. None of us measure up to Christ's perfect example.
A Philadelphian therefore is likely to be more aware of his or her own shortcomings and faults, which is why a Philadelphian may not feel worthy of being counted as a Philadelphian.
I think that rather than considering ourselves to be Philadelphian, we should think of it as a goal to strive for but not yet achieved. We should look to Christ to see where we fall short, and focus on that so that we repent and overcome.
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
CHAPTER 4 - WHY PREACH THE GOSPEL?
When and How to Judge, Chapter 5
CHAPTER 6 - OBTAINING GOD'S HELP -- PRACTICING WHAT WE PREACH
CHAPTER 8 - GOVERNMENT IN THE CHURCH OF GOD
Friday, March 1, 2013
Unconditional Obedience - to Man
Pope Benedict promised unconditional obedience to the next pope.
Here is a link to information about that:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/28/us-pope-resignation-idUSBRE91Q0BH20130228
He may have made this promise to show that he does not expect to retain the power he has had as pope after the next pope is selected, and to show that he will not try to be the power in the background that tries to control the next pope. He is saying, in effect, that he will give up his power and fully submit to the next pope like all other Catholic clergy.
Yet, what he is promising, to obey the next pope unconditionally, is no different than what other Catholic clergy and the Catholic Church in general are expected to do.
The Catholic Church teaches that God, through the Holy Spirit, will guide the selection of the pope and the decisions that pope will make. Therefore, as the Catholic Church sees it, the decisions of the pope are like the decisions of God and should be obeyed unconditionally. That is why Catholics are able to believe that the pope is infallible in official decisions about doctrine.
Yet to promise to obey a man unconditionally is wrong. We must always obey God first (Acts 4:19, 5:29), and only obey man when such obedience does not conflict with obedience to God.
In Nazi Germany, everyone in the military was required to swear an oath to obey Adolf Hitler unconditionally. Those who swore to obey Hitler knew who it was they were swearing to obey. In this case, Pope Benedict is promising to obey a man whose identity is unknown because he has not been selected yet.
It reminds me of the matter of UCG's ethics agreement that UCG ministers are required to sign. As I understand it, that ethics agreement requires the ministers to promise to support the decisions of UCG's leadership.
I wrote about the dangers of signing an ethics agreement in a series of posts last year. Here are the links to those posts, in order:
Friday, March 16, 2012
Would Jesus Christ Sign UCG's Ministerial Code of Ethics?
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/03/would-jesus-christ-sign-ucgs.html
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Should COG Ministers Sign Ethics Agreements?
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/03/should-cog-ministers-sign-ethics.html
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Ethics Agreements Part 3 - Making Commitments
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/04/ethics-agreements-part-3-making.html
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
UCG Code of Ethics Agreement - Part 4
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/06/ucg-code-of-ethics-agreement-part-4.html
Now, one might say, a Church of God ethics agreement does not use the word "unconditional" regarding obeying the dictates of the Church leadership. Ok, but where are the conditions? Does it condition "support" only when such support does not conflict with the laws of God?
A promise to obey, even without the word "unconditional", is the same as a promise to obey unconditionally if there are no conditions in the promise to obey.
How can a minister promise to obey, without conditions, the human leadership of the organization that he is part of? This is done in the expectation that God will guide both the selection of the leadership and the decisions of the leadership so that such leadership will never carry out decisions that go against God's law.
Yet this expectation is contrary to the examples in the Bible and to Church of God history. Leaders in God's Church can and do sometimes make mistakes and bad decisions that go against God's truth and law, decisions a minister cannot actively support, promote, and teach without violating the spirit of God's law.
God has one standard, not separate standards for the world and for His people. "One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you" (Exodus 12:49). "You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a heavy and a light. You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small" (Deuteronomy 25:13-14). "Diverse weights and diverse measures, They are both alike, an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 20:10). What we teach the world and what we practice should not be two different things. If it is wrong for others to pledge unconditional obedience to their human leaders, it is wrong for us to pledge unconditional obedience to our human leaders. If there are conditions, such as, "only when such obedience or support does not conflict with the Bible", those conditions should be in the promise - otherwise the principle of unconditional obedience is understood and assumed.
Promising to obey and support the human leadership of a church, without the condition that one will obey only when such obedience does not conflict with God's law and word, is a danger and mistake, whether that church is a Church of God fellowship or one of the mainstream churches of this world.
Here is a link to information about that:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/28/us-pope-resignation-idUSBRE91Q0BH20130228
He may have made this promise to show that he does not expect to retain the power he has had as pope after the next pope is selected, and to show that he will not try to be the power in the background that tries to control the next pope. He is saying, in effect, that he will give up his power and fully submit to the next pope like all other Catholic clergy.
Yet, what he is promising, to obey the next pope unconditionally, is no different than what other Catholic clergy and the Catholic Church in general are expected to do.
The Catholic Church teaches that God, through the Holy Spirit, will guide the selection of the pope and the decisions that pope will make. Therefore, as the Catholic Church sees it, the decisions of the pope are like the decisions of God and should be obeyed unconditionally. That is why Catholics are able to believe that the pope is infallible in official decisions about doctrine.
Yet to promise to obey a man unconditionally is wrong. We must always obey God first (Acts 4:19, 5:29), and only obey man when such obedience does not conflict with obedience to God.
In Nazi Germany, everyone in the military was required to swear an oath to obey Adolf Hitler unconditionally. Those who swore to obey Hitler knew who it was they were swearing to obey. In this case, Pope Benedict is promising to obey a man whose identity is unknown because he has not been selected yet.
It reminds me of the matter of UCG's ethics agreement that UCG ministers are required to sign. As I understand it, that ethics agreement requires the ministers to promise to support the decisions of UCG's leadership.
I wrote about the dangers of signing an ethics agreement in a series of posts last year. Here are the links to those posts, in order:
Friday, March 16, 2012
Would Jesus Christ Sign UCG's Ministerial Code of Ethics?
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/03/would-jesus-christ-sign-ucgs.html
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Should COG Ministers Sign Ethics Agreements?
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/03/should-cog-ministers-sign-ethics.html
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Ethics Agreements Part 3 - Making Commitments
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/04/ethics-agreements-part-3-making.html
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
UCG Code of Ethics Agreement - Part 4
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/06/ucg-code-of-ethics-agreement-part-4.html
Now, one might say, a Church of God ethics agreement does not use the word "unconditional" regarding obeying the dictates of the Church leadership. Ok, but where are the conditions? Does it condition "support" only when such support does not conflict with the laws of God?
A promise to obey, even without the word "unconditional", is the same as a promise to obey unconditionally if there are no conditions in the promise to obey.
How can a minister promise to obey, without conditions, the human leadership of the organization that he is part of? This is done in the expectation that God will guide both the selection of the leadership and the decisions of the leadership so that such leadership will never carry out decisions that go against God's law.
Yet this expectation is contrary to the examples in the Bible and to Church of God history. Leaders in God's Church can and do sometimes make mistakes and bad decisions that go against God's truth and law, decisions a minister cannot actively support, promote, and teach without violating the spirit of God's law.
God has one standard, not separate standards for the world and for His people. "One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you" (Exodus 12:49). "You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a heavy and a light. You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small" (Deuteronomy 25:13-14). "Diverse weights and diverse measures, They are both alike, an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 20:10). What we teach the world and what we practice should not be two different things. If it is wrong for others to pledge unconditional obedience to their human leaders, it is wrong for us to pledge unconditional obedience to our human leaders. If there are conditions, such as, "only when such obedience or support does not conflict with the Bible", those conditions should be in the promise - otherwise the principle of unconditional obedience is understood and assumed.
Promising to obey and support the human leadership of a church, without the condition that one will obey only when such obedience does not conflict with God's law and word, is a danger and mistake, whether that church is a Church of God fellowship or one of the mainstream churches of this world.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Let's Not Focus on Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong - Part 2
Should we be concerned about Mr. Armstrong's alleged personal faults in his life that enemies of the Church of God accuse him of?
This is a continuation of my December 12, 2012 post, "Let's Not Focus on Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong - Part 1".
LINK:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/12/lets-not-focus-on-mr-herbert-w.html
From time to time, hostile critics of the Church of God and its doctrines make personal accusations against Mr. Armstrong. They do not necessarily attack and refute the doctrines he taught from the Bible. Instead, they accuse Mr. Armstrong personally. They say he sinned by violating biblical principles in one way or another.
Sometimes I receive emails from Church of God members who have heard or read of these accusations and are worried about them.
I did not know Mr. Armstrong personally, and I have no first hand information about any evidence that any of these accusations are true. I am not an eye witness to anything Mr. Armstrong did, except that I have read his writings and listened to his speaking.
I sense enough of a hostile attitude on the part of Mr. Armstrong's accusers that I am inclined to regard anything they say about him as totally untrustworthy and unreliable.
But in any case, should I care if Mr. Armstrong did anything wrong? Is it any of my business? Should I take time to investigate?
If I followed Mr. Armstrong's advice, don't believe me - believe the Bible, then I have already proved the doctrines I believe from the Bible. If that is the case (it is), why should I care now if Mr. Armstrong did something wrong?
What would be my motive for wanting to know? Morbid curiosity? It won't affect my faith in God, or the Bible, or the doctrines I have proved from the Bible, so why would I be interested? For the sake of gossip? To feed my vanity, to feel superior to Mr. Armstrong in some way, or to distract myself from my own sins?
Did not God inspire Paul to warn against comparing ourselves with ourselves (2 Corinthians 10:12)? Did not Christ warn against judging others (Matthew 7:1-5)?
If I wanted to learn about Mr. Armstrong's supposed sins, I could not rely on hearsay evidence or gossip, especially from those biased against Mr. Armstrong. Even the courts of this world have enough common sense not to allow hearsay evidence in a trial. In order to know if Mr. Armstrong did something wrong, I would want some strong, firsthand, solid evidence and verification. I could not rely on gossip, or "somebody told me that somebody told him that he read on the Internet that a minister who knew Mr. Armstrong said he saw Mr. Armstrong do such-and-such, so I know it is a fact...". I would have to seek out and interview reliable witnesses first hand. I would have to see original documents, if they related to the charge, not copies or descriptions of documents. I would have to hold a proper court. I would have to make careful and diligent inquiry (Deuteronomy 19:15-18, Deuteronomy 17:6).
But do I have any business judging Mr. Armstrong? Where does it say in the Bible that I have been given that job? Would I serve on a jury if I was assigned jury duty? Would I not ask for exemption based on my religious beliefs that Christ said, "judge not" (Matthew 7:1-5)? What a hypocrite I would be if I refused jury duty, yet set myself up to judge if Mr. Armstrong was guilty in one thing or another that his accusers charge him with! What he did or did not do is absolutely none of my business. Christ will judge him. I only need to check up his doctrines in the Bible and believe the Bible. And I need to respect the office he has held and obey the biblical command, "esteem them highly", referring to the ministry (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13). That's kind of hard to do if I am looking for his faults.
Someone took an inheritance issue to Christ to resolve, but Jesus said, "who made me a judge over you?" (Luke 12:13-14). Should I not follow Christ's example? Who made me a judge of Mr. Armstrong? I will judge his doctrines, because I have to, but I don't have to judge the man himself. Christ will do that.
I know from Mr. Armstrong's teachings and from the history of the Church that God has used him in a VERY powerful way. Mr. Armstrong has borne a lot of good fruit that far outweighs anything bad he might have done (Matthew 7:15-20). Even if he were an unrighteous sinner, I am a witness that he taught the Bible more accurately and preached the true gospel more effectively than anyone else in his time. And I do not believe he was an unrighteous sinner.
Of course he was not perfect. I don't know his faults, but God does. But the Bible shows that many servants of God had serious faults, and yet that did not prevent God from using them for His work.
Did Mr. Armstrong ever commit adultery with another man's wife, then have that man killed to cover it up, then marry his widow? I don't think so, but David did. Did he frequent whore houses? I don't think so, but Samson did, and Samson is listed in the faith chapter of Hebrews. Did he ever tell someone his wife was his sister because he didn't trust God to protect him from those who might want his wife? Abraham did that, and Isaac too.
How many times did David, a man after God's heart, tell a lie? I already mentioned the half-truth Abraham told about Sarah being his sister instead of his wife. But look at David. When he first fled from Saul, he told the priest, "I am on the king's business", but he wasn't. The priest gave him food and a sword, then later Saul killed the priest for it. David later admitted he caused the death of God's priest (1 Samuel 20:28-42, 21:1-9, 22:6-22). Then David fled and lived with the Philistines for a while. His men and he would go out raiding various cities and villages, some of which may have been allied with the Philistines, killing all the men and women so no one would be alive to tell on him, then go back to the Philistine ruler and say, "we went raiding the cities of Judah today", or something like that (1 Samuel 27:1-12).
I often think of the account of Gideon. Gideon did a great work with a few people (though it was God who did the work through Gideon). After Gideon saved Israel, the people asked him to rule over them. Then Gideon said, I will not rule over you but the LORD will rule over you. That was the right thing to say. So far, so good.
But then Gideon asked the people to give him their gold and he made an idol, and it became a snare to Gideon and to his house (Judges 8:22-27). Yet Gideon apparently will be in the kingdom, if I read Hebrews right (Hebrews 11:32-34, 39-40).
How many times in the Old Testament did servants of God swear? Yet, Jesus taught us, do not swear at all (Matthew 5:33-37).
Need I continue?
The thing about David lying has bothered me. Doesn't God care if we lie? God doesn't even mention David's lies as a sin! I have faced embarrassment and have risked my job by refusing to lie. But I look at the example of Christ, and not once did Jesus lie, not even a little bit.
My conclusion? We are all imperfect, but God uses us and works with us anyway. Christ set the perfect example, and we must follow Him. Yes, David should not have lied, but God forgave him for it.
And I don't doubt the Psalms David wrote because David had faults.
It is a deadly trap for any one of us to compare ourselves with others in the Church or to judge others if we don't have to judge them to make a decision. We end up thinking too well of ourselves when we look at the faults of others in comparison. "...But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise" (2 Corinthians 10:12). Judging others is a sure recipe for becoming Laodicean.
If I am a business owner and I need to hire someone and a Church member comes to me for a job, should I judge him? Yes, because I have to judge if he will be a good worker. If I am single and I am considering marrying a woman in the Church, should I judge her? Yes. I have to make a decision, is she converted? Are we compatible? If I am trying to decide where I should send my tithes or what Church of God to attend Sabbath services with, should I judge which Churches of God and which leaders or ministers are doing a good job and following Christ? Yes, because I have to know what name to write on the check and where to go for services. God has given me certain responsibilities to make decisions, and sometimes I have to judge someone to make a decision. But if not, should I just judge someone when I don't have to? I better not. I have a full time job judging myself to see my sins.
Here is the problem. If I judge another person, I am sure to judge that person more unfavorably than I would judge myself, because that is human nature. If I focus on somebody else, I can't help but compare myself with that person. I tend not to understand the faults of others, while at the same time I tend to excuse my own faults more than I should. And I never have all the facts about someone else. I never know what it is like to be that person twenty-four hours a day. When I compare myself with someone else, I am using the wrong yardstick. I should compare myself with Christ. If I compare myself with Christ, I have a better chance of seeing my faults. But if I compare myself with another Church member, I won't look so bad. Which is a pretty good recipe for thinking I am spiritually "rich and increased with goods" and I won't know I am poor, blind, and naked (Revelation 3:17).
Do you or I have a reason to judge Mr. Armstrong? Only his doctrines, and I can judge that by studying my Bible. I don't have to judge his behavior, so I will try not to. Maybe I can look at the history of how he has administrated the Church during his life, and I might look at and evaluate his mistakes in the sense of understanding how Christ is working with the Church, or in the sense of learning lessons that can be applied today, but I do not want to judge him personally as far as how he "measures up". I will just give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he did the best he could and leave it at that.
Doctrine, that is, the good fruits of truth (by their fruits you will know them - Matthew 7:15-20, Isaiah 8:20), is the best way to judge among groups that have different doctrines (Church of God, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.). But among groups that have the same doctrine, growth can be an indicator, not the only one, of which group God is working through most effectively. So first I judge by doctrine. The Church of God teaches the right doctrines from the Bible overall, not perfectly, but better than Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons or any other religion. Next, among the Churches of God, I still look at doctrine, because there are differences, but I also look at growth to see where God is working and who is doing the best job. But doctrine is more important than growth.
Now, in saying I have no right or good reason to judge Mr. Armstrong, I am not saying I think any of allegations against him have any truth in them. I am only saying that even if they might be true, I have no right or reason to try to investigate in order to judge Mr. Armstrong's personal character because it won't affect my doctrinal beliefs I have proved in the Bible. But in my opinion, Mr. Armstrong probably is not guilty of any of the sins of which he is accused.
I certainly do not trust the accounts of third parties about any accusations of wrong-doing against Mr. Armstrong, people who in many cases may have hated his guts, though they might not admit that. To me, their "testimony" is worthless, and worse than worthless.
We must not judge the truth of the Bible by the character of God's servants who preach that truth. We judge the truth by the Bible and by trusting God who inspired the Bible, that God is truthful and His word is true. We should never let the imperfections or the supposed imperfections of God's servants shake our faith in God Himself, or in His word, the Bible.
I believe what I believe not because I trust Mr. Armstrong, that he was righteous, but because I trust God and the Bible and I have proved the major truths of the doctrines of the Church of God in the Bible. I have proved that the United States and Britain are part of Israel. I have proved that man does not have an immortal soul. I have proved that we must keep the weekly Sabbath and holy days. I have proved that God is not a trinity. I have proved that God is reproducing Himself in mankind. Etc., etc.
Here is something to think about.
Who is the worst man in the Bible, the worst example?
It has to be Judas. Or, maybe the beast and the false prophet. God says plainly that the beast and false prophet will go into the lake of fire. But of men who have lived and died in the past, Judas is the only one of whom God says, he would have been better off never born (as far as I have found in the Bible). Sounds like he won't be in the Kingdom.
Yet, Judas preached the truth. He, along with the eleven, preached the gospel, healed the sick, and cast out demons. He probably baptized. He didn't seem different than the other apostles. That is why the disciples had to ask Jesus who would betray Him (Matthew 26:20-25, Mark 14:17-21, John 13:21-26).
Now, imagine you were one of the 120 disciples on the Day of Pentecost, and you had learned the true gospel from Judas personally. Suppose Judas preached to you, helped you, taught you the truth, and patiently answered your questions about the kingdom of God. Maybe you were healed of a horrible disease by the laying on of hands by Judas (Matthew 10:1-8).
Maybe you were crippled in your feet and couldn't walk, and Judas laid hands on you and said, "In the name of Jesus Christ, be healed and walk," and you were healed, and with joy you jumped up on your feet and embraced Judas and thanked him, and with a warm smile on his face he said, "See what God has done for you in the name of Jesus Christ - give God the glory and thanks," and then he taught you about the good news of the Kingdom, and when you believed and repented, he baptized you in the name of Christ, by Christ's authority (John 4:1-3).
Then later you learned that Jesus said that Judas would be better off if he had never been born and that Judas killed himself.
Would you doubt the gospel? Would you seek to be re-baptized by someone else?
Well, if you reacted the correct way, you would not doubt the gospel, not seek to be re-baptized, but realize that God used an imperfect human instrument, a piece of clay so to speak, to teach you the gospel, which is the truth that saves you. Your gratitude and loyalty would be towards Christ, who commissioned Judas and gave him the power to do good works, not towards Judas himself. You might have sorrow about Judas and his fate, but your faith in God and in what God did through Judas would not be shaken.
God uses many people as instruments to do His work, and He empowered them to do His work effectively. But each individual God uses this way will be judged for his personal faith and obedience to God's law, not just how powerfully God has used him to do good works. Some won't make it. "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' " (Matthew 7:22-23).
What about Solomon? He is not listed in the faith chapter in Hebrews. That doesn't mean he won't be saved, because Hebrews doesn't list everyone who will make it into the Kingdom, but when you read the account of Solomon's whole life, it does not seem to have a happy ending. Yet God inspired Solomon and used him to write Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and much or most of Proverbs, books of the Bible that are infallibly true, because God inspired them (2 Timothy 3:16-17, John 10:35). There is no guarantee Solomon will be in the Kingdom - he seriously sinned, as the Bible makes clear (1 Kings 11:1-13), but we don't doubt the books God inspired him to write.
Now, Mr. Armstrong's writings are not like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. Mr. Armstrong's writings contain errors. God did not make him infallible. They are not the Bible. But my point is that the faults of a man do not nullify or invalidate the righteous works God does using that man as an instrument.
So I have the assurance that, regardless of any false accusations made against Mr. Armstrong by his enemies, I do not need to be discouraged or troubled about the doctrines I have proved from the Bible, the work God has done through Mr. Armstrong, or the work that must still be done by all of us in the Church today (God has put a heavy responsibility on our shoulders, to warn the world, and we are accountable to God for how we fulfill our responsibility).
If anything discourages me, it will more likely be my own personal faults, problems, and sins, which God knows about. That can discourage me, not anything Mr. Armstrong has done.
If you are one you has been troubled or confused by accusations against Mr. Armstrong, my suggestion is, don't put your trust in those who accuse Mr. Armstrong of anything. Read his literature, look up the scriptures, prove the doctrines for yourself one way or another, and don't believe Mr. Armstrong, believe the Bible, as he said, "don't believe me, believe your Bible, believe God."
If you have never proved the major doctrines of the Church in the Bible, I encourage you to do so. Once you have done that, your faith will be in God and His word, not in Mr. Armstrong or in any man. Then nothing bad you learn or hear about Mr. Armstrong or any other minister in the Church will shake your faith in the truth because your faith will be in God and the Bible, not in any minister or in the Church.
But love and respect the ministry and the Church, realizing we are all human and make mistakes, and we should have compassion and mercy on each other as we want God to have mercy on us.
To be continued...
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
When and How to Judge, Chapter 5
Why this Subject Is Important, Chapter 1
Our Attitude and Approach Towards God's Word, Chapter 1
How to Understand the Bible, Chapter 1
The Source of Our Beliefs, Chapter 6
This is a continuation of my December 12, 2012 post, "Let's Not Focus on Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong - Part 1".
LINK:
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/12/lets-not-focus-on-mr-herbert-w.html
From time to time, hostile critics of the Church of God and its doctrines make personal accusations against Mr. Armstrong. They do not necessarily attack and refute the doctrines he taught from the Bible. Instead, they accuse Mr. Armstrong personally. They say he sinned by violating biblical principles in one way or another.
Sometimes I receive emails from Church of God members who have heard or read of these accusations and are worried about them.
I did not know Mr. Armstrong personally, and I have no first hand information about any evidence that any of these accusations are true. I am not an eye witness to anything Mr. Armstrong did, except that I have read his writings and listened to his speaking.
I sense enough of a hostile attitude on the part of Mr. Armstrong's accusers that I am inclined to regard anything they say about him as totally untrustworthy and unreliable.
But in any case, should I care if Mr. Armstrong did anything wrong? Is it any of my business? Should I take time to investigate?
If I followed Mr. Armstrong's advice, don't believe me - believe the Bible, then I have already proved the doctrines I believe from the Bible. If that is the case (it is), why should I care now if Mr. Armstrong did something wrong?
What would be my motive for wanting to know? Morbid curiosity? It won't affect my faith in God, or the Bible, or the doctrines I have proved from the Bible, so why would I be interested? For the sake of gossip? To feed my vanity, to feel superior to Mr. Armstrong in some way, or to distract myself from my own sins?
Did not God inspire Paul to warn against comparing ourselves with ourselves (2 Corinthians 10:12)? Did not Christ warn against judging others (Matthew 7:1-5)?
If I wanted to learn about Mr. Armstrong's supposed sins, I could not rely on hearsay evidence or gossip, especially from those biased against Mr. Armstrong. Even the courts of this world have enough common sense not to allow hearsay evidence in a trial. In order to know if Mr. Armstrong did something wrong, I would want some strong, firsthand, solid evidence and verification. I could not rely on gossip, or "somebody told me that somebody told him that he read on the Internet that a minister who knew Mr. Armstrong said he saw Mr. Armstrong do such-and-such, so I know it is a fact...". I would have to seek out and interview reliable witnesses first hand. I would have to see original documents, if they related to the charge, not copies or descriptions of documents. I would have to hold a proper court. I would have to make careful and diligent inquiry (Deuteronomy 19:15-18, Deuteronomy 17:6).
But do I have any business judging Mr. Armstrong? Where does it say in the Bible that I have been given that job? Would I serve on a jury if I was assigned jury duty? Would I not ask for exemption based on my religious beliefs that Christ said, "judge not" (Matthew 7:1-5)? What a hypocrite I would be if I refused jury duty, yet set myself up to judge if Mr. Armstrong was guilty in one thing or another that his accusers charge him with! What he did or did not do is absolutely none of my business. Christ will judge him. I only need to check up his doctrines in the Bible and believe the Bible. And I need to respect the office he has held and obey the biblical command, "esteem them highly", referring to the ministry (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13). That's kind of hard to do if I am looking for his faults.
Someone took an inheritance issue to Christ to resolve, but Jesus said, "who made me a judge over you?" (Luke 12:13-14). Should I not follow Christ's example? Who made me a judge of Mr. Armstrong? I will judge his doctrines, because I have to, but I don't have to judge the man himself. Christ will do that.
I know from Mr. Armstrong's teachings and from the history of the Church that God has used him in a VERY powerful way. Mr. Armstrong has borne a lot of good fruit that far outweighs anything bad he might have done (Matthew 7:15-20). Even if he were an unrighteous sinner, I am a witness that he taught the Bible more accurately and preached the true gospel more effectively than anyone else in his time. And I do not believe he was an unrighteous sinner.
Of course he was not perfect. I don't know his faults, but God does. But the Bible shows that many servants of God had serious faults, and yet that did not prevent God from using them for His work.
Did Mr. Armstrong ever commit adultery with another man's wife, then have that man killed to cover it up, then marry his widow? I don't think so, but David did. Did he frequent whore houses? I don't think so, but Samson did, and Samson is listed in the faith chapter of Hebrews. Did he ever tell someone his wife was his sister because he didn't trust God to protect him from those who might want his wife? Abraham did that, and Isaac too.
How many times did David, a man after God's heart, tell a lie? I already mentioned the half-truth Abraham told about Sarah being his sister instead of his wife. But look at David. When he first fled from Saul, he told the priest, "I am on the king's business", but he wasn't. The priest gave him food and a sword, then later Saul killed the priest for it. David later admitted he caused the death of God's priest (1 Samuel 20:28-42, 21:1-9, 22:6-22). Then David fled and lived with the Philistines for a while. His men and he would go out raiding various cities and villages, some of which may have been allied with the Philistines, killing all the men and women so no one would be alive to tell on him, then go back to the Philistine ruler and say, "we went raiding the cities of Judah today", or something like that (1 Samuel 27:1-12).
I often think of the account of Gideon. Gideon did a great work with a few people (though it was God who did the work through Gideon). After Gideon saved Israel, the people asked him to rule over them. Then Gideon said, I will not rule over you but the LORD will rule over you. That was the right thing to say. So far, so good.
But then Gideon asked the people to give him their gold and he made an idol, and it became a snare to Gideon and to his house (Judges 8:22-27). Yet Gideon apparently will be in the kingdom, if I read Hebrews right (Hebrews 11:32-34, 39-40).
How many times in the Old Testament did servants of God swear? Yet, Jesus taught us, do not swear at all (Matthew 5:33-37).
Need I continue?
The thing about David lying has bothered me. Doesn't God care if we lie? God doesn't even mention David's lies as a sin! I have faced embarrassment and have risked my job by refusing to lie. But I look at the example of Christ, and not once did Jesus lie, not even a little bit.
My conclusion? We are all imperfect, but God uses us and works with us anyway. Christ set the perfect example, and we must follow Him. Yes, David should not have lied, but God forgave him for it.
And I don't doubt the Psalms David wrote because David had faults.
It is a deadly trap for any one of us to compare ourselves with others in the Church or to judge others if we don't have to judge them to make a decision. We end up thinking too well of ourselves when we look at the faults of others in comparison. "...But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise" (2 Corinthians 10:12). Judging others is a sure recipe for becoming Laodicean.
If I am a business owner and I need to hire someone and a Church member comes to me for a job, should I judge him? Yes, because I have to judge if he will be a good worker. If I am single and I am considering marrying a woman in the Church, should I judge her? Yes. I have to make a decision, is she converted? Are we compatible? If I am trying to decide where I should send my tithes or what Church of God to attend Sabbath services with, should I judge which Churches of God and which leaders or ministers are doing a good job and following Christ? Yes, because I have to know what name to write on the check and where to go for services. God has given me certain responsibilities to make decisions, and sometimes I have to judge someone to make a decision. But if not, should I just judge someone when I don't have to? I better not. I have a full time job judging myself to see my sins.
Here is the problem. If I judge another person, I am sure to judge that person more unfavorably than I would judge myself, because that is human nature. If I focus on somebody else, I can't help but compare myself with that person. I tend not to understand the faults of others, while at the same time I tend to excuse my own faults more than I should. And I never have all the facts about someone else. I never know what it is like to be that person twenty-four hours a day. When I compare myself with someone else, I am using the wrong yardstick. I should compare myself with Christ. If I compare myself with Christ, I have a better chance of seeing my faults. But if I compare myself with another Church member, I won't look so bad. Which is a pretty good recipe for thinking I am spiritually "rich and increased with goods" and I won't know I am poor, blind, and naked (Revelation 3:17).
Do you or I have a reason to judge Mr. Armstrong? Only his doctrines, and I can judge that by studying my Bible. I don't have to judge his behavior, so I will try not to. Maybe I can look at the history of how he has administrated the Church during his life, and I might look at and evaluate his mistakes in the sense of understanding how Christ is working with the Church, or in the sense of learning lessons that can be applied today, but I do not want to judge him personally as far as how he "measures up". I will just give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he did the best he could and leave it at that.
Doctrine, that is, the good fruits of truth (by their fruits you will know them - Matthew 7:15-20, Isaiah 8:20), is the best way to judge among groups that have different doctrines (Church of God, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.). But among groups that have the same doctrine, growth can be an indicator, not the only one, of which group God is working through most effectively. So first I judge by doctrine. The Church of God teaches the right doctrines from the Bible overall, not perfectly, but better than Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons or any other religion. Next, among the Churches of God, I still look at doctrine, because there are differences, but I also look at growth to see where God is working and who is doing the best job. But doctrine is more important than growth.
Now, in saying I have no right or good reason to judge Mr. Armstrong, I am not saying I think any of allegations against him have any truth in them. I am only saying that even if they might be true, I have no right or reason to try to investigate in order to judge Mr. Armstrong's personal character because it won't affect my doctrinal beliefs I have proved in the Bible. But in my opinion, Mr. Armstrong probably is not guilty of any of the sins of which he is accused.
I certainly do not trust the accounts of third parties about any accusations of wrong-doing against Mr. Armstrong, people who in many cases may have hated his guts, though they might not admit that. To me, their "testimony" is worthless, and worse than worthless.
We must not judge the truth of the Bible by the character of God's servants who preach that truth. We judge the truth by the Bible and by trusting God who inspired the Bible, that God is truthful and His word is true. We should never let the imperfections or the supposed imperfections of God's servants shake our faith in God Himself, or in His word, the Bible.
I believe what I believe not because I trust Mr. Armstrong, that he was righteous, but because I trust God and the Bible and I have proved the major truths of the doctrines of the Church of God in the Bible. I have proved that the United States and Britain are part of Israel. I have proved that man does not have an immortal soul. I have proved that we must keep the weekly Sabbath and holy days. I have proved that God is not a trinity. I have proved that God is reproducing Himself in mankind. Etc., etc.
Here is something to think about.
Who is the worst man in the Bible, the worst example?
It has to be Judas. Or, maybe the beast and the false prophet. God says plainly that the beast and false prophet will go into the lake of fire. But of men who have lived and died in the past, Judas is the only one of whom God says, he would have been better off never born (as far as I have found in the Bible). Sounds like he won't be in the Kingdom.
Yet, Judas preached the truth. He, along with the eleven, preached the gospel, healed the sick, and cast out demons. He probably baptized. He didn't seem different than the other apostles. That is why the disciples had to ask Jesus who would betray Him (Matthew 26:20-25, Mark 14:17-21, John 13:21-26).
Now, imagine you were one of the 120 disciples on the Day of Pentecost, and you had learned the true gospel from Judas personally. Suppose Judas preached to you, helped you, taught you the truth, and patiently answered your questions about the kingdom of God. Maybe you were healed of a horrible disease by the laying on of hands by Judas (Matthew 10:1-8).
Maybe you were crippled in your feet and couldn't walk, and Judas laid hands on you and said, "In the name of Jesus Christ, be healed and walk," and you were healed, and with joy you jumped up on your feet and embraced Judas and thanked him, and with a warm smile on his face he said, "See what God has done for you in the name of Jesus Christ - give God the glory and thanks," and then he taught you about the good news of the Kingdom, and when you believed and repented, he baptized you in the name of Christ, by Christ's authority (John 4:1-3).
Then later you learned that Jesus said that Judas would be better off if he had never been born and that Judas killed himself.
Would you doubt the gospel? Would you seek to be re-baptized by someone else?
Well, if you reacted the correct way, you would not doubt the gospel, not seek to be re-baptized, but realize that God used an imperfect human instrument, a piece of clay so to speak, to teach you the gospel, which is the truth that saves you. Your gratitude and loyalty would be towards Christ, who commissioned Judas and gave him the power to do good works, not towards Judas himself. You might have sorrow about Judas and his fate, but your faith in God and in what God did through Judas would not be shaken.
God uses many people as instruments to do His work, and He empowered them to do His work effectively. But each individual God uses this way will be judged for his personal faith and obedience to God's law, not just how powerfully God has used him to do good works. Some won't make it. "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' " (Matthew 7:22-23).
What about Solomon? He is not listed in the faith chapter in Hebrews. That doesn't mean he won't be saved, because Hebrews doesn't list everyone who will make it into the Kingdom, but when you read the account of Solomon's whole life, it does not seem to have a happy ending. Yet God inspired Solomon and used him to write Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and much or most of Proverbs, books of the Bible that are infallibly true, because God inspired them (2 Timothy 3:16-17, John 10:35). There is no guarantee Solomon will be in the Kingdom - he seriously sinned, as the Bible makes clear (1 Kings 11:1-13), but we don't doubt the books God inspired him to write.
Now, Mr. Armstrong's writings are not like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. Mr. Armstrong's writings contain errors. God did not make him infallible. They are not the Bible. But my point is that the faults of a man do not nullify or invalidate the righteous works God does using that man as an instrument.
So I have the assurance that, regardless of any false accusations made against Mr. Armstrong by his enemies, I do not need to be discouraged or troubled about the doctrines I have proved from the Bible, the work God has done through Mr. Armstrong, or the work that must still be done by all of us in the Church today (God has put a heavy responsibility on our shoulders, to warn the world, and we are accountable to God for how we fulfill our responsibility).
If anything discourages me, it will more likely be my own personal faults, problems, and sins, which God knows about. That can discourage me, not anything Mr. Armstrong has done.
If you are one you has been troubled or confused by accusations against Mr. Armstrong, my suggestion is, don't put your trust in those who accuse Mr. Armstrong of anything. Read his literature, look up the scriptures, prove the doctrines for yourself one way or another, and don't believe Mr. Armstrong, believe the Bible, as he said, "don't believe me, believe your Bible, believe God."
If you have never proved the major doctrines of the Church in the Bible, I encourage you to do so. Once you have done that, your faith will be in God and His word, not in Mr. Armstrong or in any man. Then nothing bad you learn or hear about Mr. Armstrong or any other minister in the Church will shake your faith in the truth because your faith will be in God and the Bible, not in any minister or in the Church.
But love and respect the ministry and the Church, realizing we are all human and make mistakes, and we should have compassion and mercy on each other as we want God to have mercy on us.
To be continued...
Here are links to related chapters or sections in Preaching the Gospel:
When and How to Judge, Chapter 5
Why this Subject Is Important, Chapter 1
Our Attitude and Approach Towards God's Word, Chapter 1
How to Understand the Bible, Chapter 1
The Source of Our Beliefs, Chapter 6
Monday, February 18, 2013
Is the Great Deception to Come a "Falling Away?"
There have been a number of occasions in the history of the Church of God when members have fallen away from the truth. We know of at least two. In the early centuries of the Church, many fell away, and some of the beginnings of this are recorded in the New Testament (1 John 2:19, 1 Corinthians 11:19, 3 John 9-11). And in our time many members fell away from the truth after the death of Mr. Armstrong.
Besides those two occasions there may have been other occasions we do not know about in the last two thousand years. And there may be future occasions when Church members fall away once more.
We also know that a great worldwide deception with a false prophet showing signs and wonders will come upon the whole world (Revelation 13:11-15).
Some say that the term "falling away" in verse 3 of 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2 refers to one or more occasions when Church members fall away from the truth, and others say it refers to the coming worldwide deception.
Some say that the coming great deception of the world by Satan and the false prophet cannot be called a "falling away", and that is what I will address in this post.
This is the third post in this blog about the falling away issue. The first is
"The Falling Away in 2 Thessalonians 2:3"
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-falling-away-in-2-thessalonians-23.html
The second is "Is the Falling Away Doctrine a Critical Issue?"
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2013/02/is-falling-away-doctrine-critical-issue.html
Most of us have assumed that the great false prophet will teach all the beliefs, doctrines, and practices of an existing major religion that is not the true religion of the Bible. But the teachings of the false prophet may not be exactly the same as that of any religious body today. The religion of the false prophet may be far worse than any false religion that has ever existed on earth to this time.
When Satan knows that he has but a short time, I think he will go all out to turn mankind against God, more than he has ever done before. And he will make war against God's saints as he has never done before.
The religions of this world have a mixture of truth and error. Not everything they teach is wrong. False religions today are against God, but in a subtle way. Many of them acknowledge God's existence, they teach that God has all power, that He is all good, etc. They have a number of points of truth.
There are many churches in traditional Christianity that have points of doctrine we don't agree with but also have points of truth we share.
Take the Catholic Church as an example. While we do not agree with the Catholic Church on many points of doctrine, and we know they do not correctly understand the Bible, they do have many points of truth. They teach that God exists. They teach that God is all powerful and all wise. They teach that Jesus Christ is God, that He lived a sinless life, and that He suffered and died for us to pay the penalty for our sins so we can be forgiven, and that both God the Father and Jesus Christ love mankind. They teach against abortion, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc. And unlike some Protestant groups, they do not teach that the ten commandments are done away. I do not say that they understand, believe, and obey them perfectly. They do not understand that the second commandment is separate from the first and prohibits the use of images in worship. They think that the fourth commandment is about resting on Sunday. But they do at least acknowledge that the commandments have authority.
They do teach that Christians should practice forgiveness and kindness to others.
And believe it or not, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is the inspired word of God and is true. Where they are in error is in thinking that the Catholic Church and its traditions have the authority to interpret the Bible rather than letting the Bible interpret itself.
So they have a number of points of truth.
Can Catholics "fall away" from that part of the truth, or some of it, that they have? Of course they could, if God allows Satan to deceive them about those points of truth.
Could Satan lead the false prophet to teach heresy worse than anything taught by any so-called "Christian" church in the history of the world? Yes.
Could he lead the false prophet to teach traditional, mainstream Christian churches of this world to "fall away" from one or more points of truth they still have? Yes.
There may be indications in the Bible that the false prophet and beast will teach some things different from any Christian denominations in existence today. It won't necessarily be the Catholic religion as we have known it.
"Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done. He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all. But in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things. Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god, which he shall acknowledge, and advance its glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and divide the land for gain" (Daniel 11:36-39).
Notice, he shall not regard the "God [or god] of his fathers" (verse 37). That doesn't sound like he follows the mainstream, traditional "Christian" values he was raised in. "He shall honor a god of FORTRESSES" (verse 38). That sounds like some kind of war-god, a worship of and glorification of military force, not mainstream Christianity as we know it today.
We have seen something like this in modern times. In Germany, under the Nazis, there was something like a religion of this sort. It was not the Catholic Church. It was Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. They virtually worshipped military force. They openly glorified war. And the Nazis required the people to virtually worship Hitler.
The Nazi party was very much like a religion in those days. It was much more than a political party. And it was state-enforced. It was complete with ceremony, ritual, symbols, and emotional fervor. They even used the name of God and allowed use of religion, but within the framework of Nazi ideology. But it was very unchristian.
If Satan inspired Nazism, he may have been practicing a kind of dress rehearsal for what he has in mind for the future.
"He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, And shall intend to change times and law" (Daniel 7:25).
We may think of traditional Christianity trying to change "times and law" by substituting Sunday for the seventh day Sabbath. But Daniel 7:25 seems to be talking about a change that will be attempted in the future, not the substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath that happened centuries ago. The substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath that began almost two thousand years ago may be a small foretaste, a type.
At least today we still have the weekly cycle, unbroken since creation. But that could change.
I read an article many years ago about a proposal for calendar "reform". The idea was to change the calendar by making every month start with the first day of the week and every month be exactly four or five weeks. In each quarter there would be two 4-week months and one 5-week month, exactly 13 weeks each quarter. The new calendar would have two "world day" holidays each year that would not be counted as a day of the week. Thus, the weekly cycle would be broken. Imagine what that would mean. Today you tell your boss, "I can't work on Saturdays". Then, in six months, you have to say, "I can't work on Friday". Then, in another six months, you have to say, I can't work on Thursdays".
Perhaps something like this is what Daniel 7:25 is referring to.
What if the false prophet and beast teach, "God and Christ exist, but they are not always good. They can sometimes be evil - they are not perfect. They also make mistakes."
What? You say that can't happen, that mankind would never believe that? I'm not that sure. I don't want to underestimate Satan's power of deception. Mankind may be almost ready, at a subconscious level, to believe God is evil even now.
What could Catholic and Protestants fall away from? They could fall away from any point or points of truth they have. They could fall away from believing that God and Christ are all all-good, all-wise, or all-powerful. They could fall away from believing that the Bible is true even as interpreted by the Catholic Church or any church - they might just come out an openly say, the Bible is false and wrong. Even if they continue to teach that God inspired the Bible, they can teach that God inspired falsehoods to deceive people.
They could fall away from believing that Jesus never sinned. They could fall away from accepting the weekly cycle, continuous from creation.
Pick any point of truth that traditional mainstream Christianity has, and Satan could deceive members of mainstream churches into falling away from that point of truth.
So yes, it is possible that the great deception to come can be a "falling away", a departure from what was previously believed, and a more intensified rebellion against God that will come upon the whole world.
Some may say that most of Europe is non-religious, secular, materialistic, atheist. But there are still millions who consider themselves Christian, and if they fall away from the truth they have it will certainly be a great falling away.
Even the change from quiet atheism to a severely anti-God religion, a religion that worships and glorifies war and violence as a way of life, a religion that openly blasphemes God, can be a falling away in the sense that those who make this change will be more hostile towards God under their new religion than they were before as atheists.
Besides those two occasions there may have been other occasions we do not know about in the last two thousand years. And there may be future occasions when Church members fall away once more.
We also know that a great worldwide deception with a false prophet showing signs and wonders will come upon the whole world (Revelation 13:11-15).
Some say that the term "falling away" in verse 3 of 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2 refers to one or more occasions when Church members fall away from the truth, and others say it refers to the coming worldwide deception.
Some say that the coming great deception of the world by Satan and the false prophet cannot be called a "falling away", and that is what I will address in this post.
This is the third post in this blog about the falling away issue. The first is
"The Falling Away in 2 Thessalonians 2:3"
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-falling-away-in-2-thessalonians-23.html
The second is "Is the Falling Away Doctrine a Critical Issue?"
http://ptgbook.blogspot.com/2013/02/is-falling-away-doctrine-critical-issue.html
Most of us have assumed that the great false prophet will teach all the beliefs, doctrines, and practices of an existing major religion that is not the true religion of the Bible. But the teachings of the false prophet may not be exactly the same as that of any religious body today. The religion of the false prophet may be far worse than any false religion that has ever existed on earth to this time.
When Satan knows that he has but a short time, I think he will go all out to turn mankind against God, more than he has ever done before. And he will make war against God's saints as he has never done before.
The religions of this world have a mixture of truth and error. Not everything they teach is wrong. False religions today are against God, but in a subtle way. Many of them acknowledge God's existence, they teach that God has all power, that He is all good, etc. They have a number of points of truth.
There are many churches in traditional Christianity that have points of doctrine we don't agree with but also have points of truth we share.
Take the Catholic Church as an example. While we do not agree with the Catholic Church on many points of doctrine, and we know they do not correctly understand the Bible, they do have many points of truth. They teach that God exists. They teach that God is all powerful and all wise. They teach that Jesus Christ is God, that He lived a sinless life, and that He suffered and died for us to pay the penalty for our sins so we can be forgiven, and that both God the Father and Jesus Christ love mankind. They teach against abortion, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc. And unlike some Protestant groups, they do not teach that the ten commandments are done away. I do not say that they understand, believe, and obey them perfectly. They do not understand that the second commandment is separate from the first and prohibits the use of images in worship. They think that the fourth commandment is about resting on Sunday. But they do at least acknowledge that the commandments have authority.
They do teach that Christians should practice forgiveness and kindness to others.
And believe it or not, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is the inspired word of God and is true. Where they are in error is in thinking that the Catholic Church and its traditions have the authority to interpret the Bible rather than letting the Bible interpret itself.
So they have a number of points of truth.
Can Catholics "fall away" from that part of the truth, or some of it, that they have? Of course they could, if God allows Satan to deceive them about those points of truth.
Could Satan lead the false prophet to teach heresy worse than anything taught by any so-called "Christian" church in the history of the world? Yes.
Could he lead the false prophet to teach traditional, mainstream Christian churches of this world to "fall away" from one or more points of truth they still have? Yes.
There may be indications in the Bible that the false prophet and beast will teach some things different from any Christian denominations in existence today. It won't necessarily be the Catholic religion as we have known it.
"Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done. He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all. But in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things. Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god, which he shall acknowledge, and advance its glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and divide the land for gain" (Daniel 11:36-39).
Notice, he shall not regard the "God [or god] of his fathers" (verse 37). That doesn't sound like he follows the mainstream, traditional "Christian" values he was raised in. "He shall honor a god of FORTRESSES" (verse 38). That sounds like some kind of war-god, a worship of and glorification of military force, not mainstream Christianity as we know it today.
We have seen something like this in modern times. In Germany, under the Nazis, there was something like a religion of this sort. It was not the Catholic Church. It was Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. They virtually worshipped military force. They openly glorified war. And the Nazis required the people to virtually worship Hitler.
The Nazi party was very much like a religion in those days. It was much more than a political party. And it was state-enforced. It was complete with ceremony, ritual, symbols, and emotional fervor. They even used the name of God and allowed use of religion, but within the framework of Nazi ideology. But it was very unchristian.
If Satan inspired Nazism, he may have been practicing a kind of dress rehearsal for what he has in mind for the future.
"He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, And shall intend to change times and law" (Daniel 7:25).
We may think of traditional Christianity trying to change "times and law" by substituting Sunday for the seventh day Sabbath. But Daniel 7:25 seems to be talking about a change that will be attempted in the future, not the substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath that happened centuries ago. The substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath that began almost two thousand years ago may be a small foretaste, a type.
At least today we still have the weekly cycle, unbroken since creation. But that could change.
I read an article many years ago about a proposal for calendar "reform". The idea was to change the calendar by making every month start with the first day of the week and every month be exactly four or five weeks. In each quarter there would be two 4-week months and one 5-week month, exactly 13 weeks each quarter. The new calendar would have two "world day" holidays each year that would not be counted as a day of the week. Thus, the weekly cycle would be broken. Imagine what that would mean. Today you tell your boss, "I can't work on Saturdays". Then, in six months, you have to say, "I can't work on Friday". Then, in another six months, you have to say, I can't work on Thursdays".
Perhaps something like this is what Daniel 7:25 is referring to.
What if the false prophet and beast teach, "God and Christ exist, but they are not always good. They can sometimes be evil - they are not perfect. They also make mistakes."
What? You say that can't happen, that mankind would never believe that? I'm not that sure. I don't want to underestimate Satan's power of deception. Mankind may be almost ready, at a subconscious level, to believe God is evil even now.
What could Catholic and Protestants fall away from? They could fall away from any point or points of truth they have. They could fall away from believing that God and Christ are all all-good, all-wise, or all-powerful. They could fall away from believing that the Bible is true even as interpreted by the Catholic Church or any church - they might just come out an openly say, the Bible is false and wrong. Even if they continue to teach that God inspired the Bible, they can teach that God inspired falsehoods to deceive people.
They could fall away from believing that Jesus never sinned. They could fall away from accepting the weekly cycle, continuous from creation.
Pick any point of truth that traditional mainstream Christianity has, and Satan could deceive members of mainstream churches into falling away from that point of truth.
So yes, it is possible that the great deception to come can be a "falling away", a departure from what was previously believed, and a more intensified rebellion against God that will come upon the whole world.
Some may say that most of Europe is non-religious, secular, materialistic, atheist. But there are still millions who consider themselves Christian, and if they fall away from the truth they have it will certainly be a great falling away.
Even the change from quiet atheism to a severely anti-God religion, a religion that worships and glorifies war and violence as a way of life, a religion that openly blasphemes God, can be a falling away in the sense that those who make this change will be more hostile towards God under their new religion than they were before as atheists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
