Should We Hold Fast to What We Know Is True?

Should we hold fast to what we know is true?

Yes, but with a qualification.

Should we hold fast to what we know?  Should we hold fast to what we have proven?  Should we hold fast to what the Church of God has taught for a long time?

What do you mean by "hold fast"?  Does that mean you cannot defend what you know against contrary arguments?  Does that mean your mind is closed to any correction from God's word, the Bible?

Let's look at these questions in a little detail.

Should we hold fast to what we know is true?

Yes, as long as we can honestly defend what we think we know against contrary arguments.  We should understand why we know what we know and be able to defend what we know.  And we must always realize we are fallible - we can make mistakes - and therefore what we think we know may be wrong.

In other words, we must always be willing to examine and test what we think we know against new information and reasoning, information and reasoning that may show that we made a mistake, that what we thought we knew is not, in fact, the truth.

We can make mistakes.  History and experience prove that and the Bible proves that.

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part" (1 Corinthians 13:9).  

We must always be able and willing to correct our errors and learn new knowledge.

"but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18).

"Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning" (Proverbs 9:9).

"And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:9).

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you" (John 14:26).

"Better a poor and wise youth Than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more" (Ecclesiastes 4:13).   

Mr. Armstrong taught that it is harder to unlearn false knowledge than to learn new knowledge.  It is hard to give up what we believe, even in small points, but we must be willing to do so if God's word, the Bible, requires it.

We must always have an attitude of being willing to let the Bible correct us in our beliefs, no matter how sure we are that we "know" something.

Ultimately, it is the Bible we must hold fast to, not what we are sure we "know".

Put yourself in the shoes of a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or atheist.  If you are a Catholic or Protestant, you are sure you "know" that Sunday is the Christian day of rest and worship.  If you are a Jew, you are sure that Jesus is not the Messiah.  If you are an atheist, you are sure that you "know" that there is no God.

Why is this important?

These are the people we are trying to reach with the gospel and the Ezekiel warning.  Our message will have no effect if these people are not willing to re-examine what they think they know and be corrected and change.  They cannot respond to us without being willing to give up what they think they know and submit to God's word, the Bible.

We must be the same way.  The ability to make mistakes in our thinking is the same for us as for them.  We are all human.  The inability or unwillingness to admit error may be a sign of pride, vanity, egotism, and conceit.  It may be rooted in a belief that we cannot be wrong about something, that our thinking is so good and accurate that we cannot make a mistake in something we are sure about.

We must always be willing to sacrifice our attachments to what we think we know in order to let the Bible correct us.  We must acknowledge that God knows better than we do.

This is part of submitting to God and letting him rule our lives and our thoughts.  It is part of loving God with all our being.

" 'For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist,' Says the LORD. 'But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word' " (Isaiah 66:2).

"But He answered and said, 'It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" ' " (Matthew 4:4).

We should hold fast to what we know provided we remain willing to let the Bible correct us in what we know.  I might add that the facts of history and logic can correct us also.  As long as what we think we know holds up to Bible scrutiny and common sense, yes, we should hold onto it.  But as soon as the Bible shows that we may be wrong, we need to re-examine it and go by the Bible.

Should we hold fast to what we have proven?

We can make mistakes in what we have "proven".  We may not have had all the facts or put those facts together in the right way when we have proved something.

I was raised Catholic, and I attended a Catholic high school for four years.  We had religion class every school day.  One of the things we were taught was five proofs that the Catholic Church is the true church.  Perhaps it was some number other than five, I don't remember, and I don't remember what all those "proofs" were.  My point is, they thought they had proof of what they believed and taught.  Yet, now I know that those proofs were wrong.  Yet, they seemed plausible at the time, at least to the people who taught them.

Many people who have false beliefs think they have proved those beliefs, and we are just as human as they.  We can make mistakes.

Should we hold fast to what we have proven?  Yes, provided we are always willing to listen to correction and re-examine what we have proved.  If we have proved something, if it is true, if our proof is sound and accurate, we should be able to prove it again in the light of new information and reasoning.  If we cannot do so, then something is wrong.

I was in Worldwide when Mr. Tkach began making changes in doctrine.  I had been in the Church for several years.  Before coming into the Church of God I had proved the doctrines of the Church very thoroughly.

So how did I react to the changes?  Did I say, "I've already proved these things, so I know the changes must be wrong".  No.  I said, "If the changes are wrong, I should be able to prove once again, even in the light of new information or new arguments, what I believe, and if I cannot do that, then maybe I made a mistake - maybe I am wrong".

So I examined the arguments and new information from Mr. Tkach with an open mind, and I went to the Bible for answers.  And the Bible gave me the proof I needed, and I was able to prove, again, the truth of the doctrines of the Church.

While I was doing this, I did not change my practices.  While examining and researching the issues of the weekly Sabbath, and annual holy days, tithing, and clean and unclean meats with an open mind, I continued to keep the Sabbath and holy days, I continued to tithe, I continued to avoid unclean meats, etc.  I resolved to continue these things which I had already proved.  But I proved them a second time.

Look, I left the Catholic Church and came into the Church of God by examining all doctrinal issues with an open mind and believing what God says in the Bible.  If going to the Bible for answers with an open mind was the right approach when coming into the Church, why would it not be the right approach when dealing with the changes taught by Mr. Tkach?  If going to the Bible worked the first time, it should work again.  So that is what I did.

Should we hold fast to what the Church of God has taught for a long time?

We should only hold fast to what we can prove in the Bible.  How long the Church has taught it has nothing to do with it.  The Catholic Church has taught its doctrines for centuries, but that does not make those doctrines true.  The Church of God Seventh Day taught that God's annual holy days do not need to be observed, and they taught that for a long time, but that did not make it true.  Yet, they were part of the true Church of God.

It is the Bible we must hold fast to.


As I think about these things, it occurs to me that there may be three categories of Church members today:

a)  Those who were not raised in the Church but came in from other belief systems or other churches.  They heard Mr. Armstrong or the Church say, don't believe me, don't believe us, don't believe any man or church, believe God, believe your Bible.  They followed that advice, checked their Bibles, submitted to God's word, and gave up their former beliefs - the things they thought they "knew".  They let the Bible correct them, and they were willing to change.  They did not believe Mr. Armstrong or take his word for anything - they checked up as he said they should.  Only after proving the truth in the Bible did they accept and believe it.

b)  Those who were not raised in the Church but came in from other belief systems or other churches.  They heard Mr. Armstrong or the Church say, don't believe me, don't believe us, don't believe any man or church, believe God, believe your Bible.  But they did not do that.  They believed Mr. Armstrong, even though he said they should not do that.  They did not prove what is true in the Bible.  They may have referenced certain scriptures, but they never really proved the truth in a thorough way.  They just took Mr. Armstrong's word for it.  What he said sounded good, so they just accepted it.  They thought they found a shortcut and did not do the hard work of proving what is true in the Bible.  They trusted their "instincts", and their instincts, their feelings, told them Mr. Armstrong was true.  They also came into the Church.

c)  Those who grew up in the Church.  They were taught to prove what they believe in the Bible, and most of them tried and to some extent succeeded.  But how have they been tested?  It is easy to continue in the beliefs you were raised in.  Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims do it all the time.  That is how religions continue from generation to generation.  And most of these other religions teach their children "proofs" or reasons or evidence for their beliefs.

I have proved the truth of what I believe twice, once coming out of the Catholic Church and into the Church of God, and later in rejecting the changes taught by Mr. Tkach.  I am willing, if challenged, to do it a third and a fourth and a fifth time - to go to the Bible with an open mind and believe what God says.

I have often thought that there are advantages and disadvantages to growing up in the Church.  The disadvantage is the difficulty in really proving the truth in the Bible with an open mind and knowing you have proved it.  The advantage, of course, is living in and learning a right moral outlook and environment and being able to avoid the sins and consequences of sin that people who grow up in bad environments often do not avoid.


We do not always know things as much as we think we know them.  We think we know things, but we can make mistakes, and some of the things we think we know are not really true.  I am speaking of us in the general human sense, and it applies both in and out of the Church.  There is even a saying, "to err is human".

We should hold fast to the Bible more than we hold fast to the things we think we know.  We should let the Bible teach us new things and correct us when we are wrong.  And that process never stops.  We can never say, "I know everything perfectly now, so I don't need to be corrected or learn anything new".

"Better a poor and wise youth Than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more" (Ecclesiastes 4:13).

Should we allow ourselves to be enticed by men with their own ideas that contradict common doctrine in the Church of God?

If "enticed" means tempted to do wrong, no.  But keep in mind that thousands of radio listeners who heard Mr. Armstrong on radio and TV and read his writings could have looked at him as enticing them with his own ideas contrary to their Catholic or Protestant doctrines, doctrines long established in their churches.  But they kept an open mind and checked their Bibles and believed what God said.  If not for those thousands who had an open mind and who were willing to consider someone else's ideas, we would not be here.

The Jews and Gentiles in Paul's day had to learn new things, things which may have seemed very different from what they had believed.  But they set the example of how to deal with it by checking the scriptures.

"Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men" (Acts 17:10-12).

Let's make it part of our character and way of life to always look to the Bible for answers to doctrinal questions and let God teach us continually.  That is what we should hold fast to.

If we do that, we can preach to the public to believe God, believe the Bible, not any man or church or tradition, and to do so without hypocrisy.  Then God can give us a wide-open door for preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning with great power and effectiveness.  Then we can get the warning out to hundreds of millions of people who need it.  Then we can glorify God's name by demonstrating His fairness in warning people while they have time to repent and escape.

We will be able to do these things because we will be asking the public to do the same thing we are willing to do - put the Bible first even when it means giving up what we thought we knew.

Let's do it.

What Is Sound Doctrine?

At the end of this post I will comment on the election results.


We must respect our leaders - those God has put into office, under Christ, to teach us and rule us in the Church regarding matters of the Church.  We should respect the man, when possible, but if that is difficult because of faults a man has (and we all have faults) we must still respect the office.  We should obey those who rule over us, with the exception that we cannot obey a man if it means disobeying God.  We must obey God rather than man (Hebrews 13:17, Acts 5:29).

When someone teaches us, I think we need to be able to understand what they are saying without contradiction.  If their message seems to be filled with self-contradiction, if all the things they say are not consistent, we may need to ask questions.  It is sometimes possible we are misunderstanding something, and this can be clarified.  It may also be a warning sign that the person speaking or writing is hiding something and cannot give a consistent message.

Inconsistencies may need to be addressed.

A minister might say that we are to hold to a body of sound doctrine.  That sounds good, and I agree with it.  But you have to know what sound doctrine is.

There are some fellowships, more than one, that hold to the doctrines Mr. Armstrong taught at end of his life.  I say, at the end of his life, because he changed doctrine during his ministry.  For example, once he taught that Pentecost was on Monday.  When he realized his error, he corrected it.  No one counts a Monday Pentecost as a doctrine of HWA that we need to hold to.  We all realize that he made changes and corrected errors during his entire ministry.

One of the reasons some feel we should hold fast to Mr. Armstrong's teachings at the end of his life is that they view him, I think correctly, as the Elijah to come to restore all things, that is, to restore lost knowledge.  So they figure, he must have completed that by the end of his life, so his doctrines at the end of his life are complete and correct.  I agree that Mr. Armstrong was probably the Elijah to come to restore lost knowledge, but where I differ is that I believe his work of restoring knowledge and correcting error continues after his death, as I think the Bible shows.

So though I agree Mr. Armstrong was the Elijah to come, I think his Elijah work continues today, and all the doctrine he taught at the end of his life was not necessarily complete and correct.  Christ will show us, primarily through the Bible, what changes or additions still need to be made.

Some fellowships therefore say that Mr. Armstrong's teachings are the body of sound doctrine we should hold fast to.

But this is where the inconsistencies come into play, inconsistencies that should be clarified or explained, if possible.  It may not be possible.

The problem is, no fellowship holds fast to everything Mr. Armstrong taught.  They cherry-pick what they hold to and what they reject.

Suppose you have a fellowship that wants to hold fast to everything Mr. Armstrong taught.  The leader might say, "I am not smart enough to discover new knowledge".  Actually, Mr. Armstrong was not "smart enough" either, but God by His Holy Spirit guided him to discover truth in the Bible.  None of us are "smart" in that sense.  We need God to open our minds to His truth.

And that depends on attitude.  We must have an attitude of being willing to believe what we see in God's word, the Bible, and try to obey it.  We have to believe what God says.  God can work with the individual who does that regardless of their intelligence.  I would rather expect that a "dumb" person (dumb as far as IQ or natural intelligence is concerned) who trusts God and believes the Bible will have more spiritual knowledge than a "smart" person who doesn't follow the Bible.

So to say, I am not smart enough to discover new knowledge, is obviously true but is irrelevant.  God reveals spiritual understanding and knowledge to those who have His Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:10-16), and being "smart" has nothing to do with it.

And from a practical point of view, for a leader, if someone submits a proposal for change, the leader should have the spiritual wisdom and discernment to check in the Bible to see if it is true.  If he can't do that, how can he use the Bible to prove that Mr. Armstrong's teachings are true?  He also has the option to consult with other ministers, for in a multitude of counselors there is safety.  So he doesn't have to discover new knowledge for himself - God may reveal it to others who submit suggestions to him.  But he has to be willing to listen.  Loma Armstrong submitted to her husband the knowledge of the Sabbath before he was converted, and he eventually accepted it after research.  Mr. Armstrong submitted suggestions to Church of God Seventh Day, which they rejected but without good cause.

So getting back to my example, you may have a group that wants to hold to Mr. Armstrong's teachings.  But often not all of his teachings.

So the leader may start with a list of all the doctrines (doctrine just means teaching, everything that is taught by word or example, by spoken or by printed word) that Mr. Armstrong taught and held at the end of his life.

Then the leader goes through that list and throws out anything he doesn't like.  For example, Mr. Armstrong taught at the end of his life that it was wrong for a woman in the Church to wear makeup.  Well, if the leader doesn't like that doctrine, he can just throw it out.  Mr. Armstrong taught that we do not cast lots for decisions to know God's will in the Church today because we have God's Spirit to guide us.  If the leader wants to, if he thinks casting of lots is a good idea, he can discard that doctrine of Mr. Armstrong also.

Let's keep going.  This will get interesting.

Mr. Armstrong taught, near the end of his life when he knew he was likely to die soon, that if he died Christ would provide a new pastor general and we better follow him if we want to be in God's kingdom, and we better stay united.  He did not qualify by saying, "as he follows the Bible".  I heard him say this with my own ears.  Mr. Tkach became that pastor general.  So Mr. Armstrong's doctrine was, follow Mr. Tkach and stay in Worldwide - stay united.  Obviously we can't have that doctrine or we will all become Protestant, so throw that doctrine out.

Sometime around the late 1950's Mr. Armstrong published an article for the Church entitled, "Should You Listen to Others?", or maybe, "Should We Listen to Others?".  I don't remember if he used the word "we" or "you" in the title.  You can probably find it online.

I don't have the article in front of me, so I will paraphrase from memory rather than quote word-for-word.

In that article, Mr. Armstrong asks and answers the question, what should you do if you see something in the Bible that contradicts the teachings of the Church?  Should you blind your eyes to it?  No, he answers.  We love truth and hate error.  If we are wrong, we want to know.  Take it to your pastor or write to headquarters.  If you are wrong, we will explain it to you.  If we are wrong, we will make the change for the whole Church.

That was Mr. Armstrong's doctrine:  send corrections and changes to the Church and if the Church is wrong, the Church will change.

Well, a leader who is telling his group that he will not change anything Mr. Armstrong taught probably would not like that particular doctrine, so throw that one out.

Finally, Mr. Armstrong taught his radio listeners, don't believe me, don't believe any man or church, believe God, believe your Bible.

This is the most important doctrine of all, that we should not believe Mr. Armstrong, but rather we should believe what we see in our own Bibles.  It is most important because, from that doctrine comes all other doctrines.

Pick any doctrine of Mr. Armstrong that is in addition to or different from the doctrines of traditional Christianity:  the seventh day is the Christian Sabbath, keep the annual holy days, the plan of God as revealed in the holy days, the identity of the lost tribes of Israel, the soul is not immortal, God is not a trinity, etc.

Every one of them had its origin in the one foundational doctrine, don't believe me, believe your Bible.  This is what Mr. Armstrong practiced and taught to his listeners and this is what many of his listeners did before they came into the Church.

And yet, some want to believe Mr. Armstrong when he himself told his radio listeners, who became the early members of the Philadelphia era of the Church of God, DON'T believe me.  How do you resolve that contradiction?

In all fairness I have to point out that in the article I mentioned of Mr. Armstrong, he says in the article that it is different now for Church members, implying that the Church should believe Him.  I think that was his inconsistency, and he may have inadvertently sown a seed of the current problem.  You can read the article yourself and judge for yourself.  I don't think God has two standards, one for the Church and one for the world (Exodus 12:49, Numbers 15:15-16, Numbers 15:29, Deuteronomy 25:13-16).

In any case, a leader of a group can throw that doctrine out also.  Perhaps he can claim that the doctrine was only for a radio audience but not for Church of God members, if that is what Mr. Armstrong said.  But why should it be different?

And it was never different for Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong.  They always believed God more than any man or authority, even in the Church of God.

One might say, the rules are different for Mr. Armstrong because he was an apostle.

But he was not an apostle when he believed the Bible more than any man.  He was not an apostle, not even ordained as a minister, when he submitted suggestions for change in doctrine to the Church of God Seventh Day when he was attending with them as a lay member.

And Loma Armstrong was never an apostle, yet she brought the Sabbath doctrine to her husband, Herbert Armstrong, when that doctrine was contrary to established Christian tradition of this world, the only mainstream Christian tradition she or Mr. Armstrong knew.

She believed God rather than man.  Mr. Armstrong believed God rather than man.  He taught that to his radio listeners, and they, those who became Philadelphians in the Church, believed God more than man.

Mr. Armstrong was not "smart enough" to discover the Sabbath - his wife brought the doctrine to him.  He checked in the Bible and found out it was true.

So after all that, are we to go back to believing man more than God?

Can you see the inconsistencies of saying that we should hold fast to sound doctrine, yet define sound doctrine as following all the teachings of Mr. Armstrong, when even those who claim that pick and choose which of Mr. Armstrong's doctrines to keep and which ones to discard?

All right.  What is sound doctrine?

Sound doctrine is the doctrine that is taught by God's word, the Bible.  Not Mystery of the Ages.  The Bible.

And to know what that doctrine is requires Bible study and a willingness to always learn, always let God correct us, always let God teach us new things.  Let the Bible interpret the Bible, and let the Bible correct us.

Abraham believed God, and God accounted his faith as righteousness (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, James 2:23, Galatians 3:6).  

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments. His praise endures forever" (Psalm 111:10).

There is no other way to know sound doctrine.

I am not trying to be overly harsh.  Sometimes, what appears to be inconsistent is really not, once an explanation is given.  But we should seek an explanation.  Even in the Bible are apparent contradictions.  We call them "apparent" contradictions because we know that God's word is true and cannot contradict itself.  We seek explanations and usually find them sooner or later.  The apparent contradictions often disappear once we see where we have misunderstood something.

Thus it is with the speaking and writing of our Church of God leaders and speakers.  There may appear to be contradictions, but we can ask for and receive clarifications that help us understand.

But hiding our eyes from the matter does no good.  If a pastor speaks in a sermon, he is speaking to me, the listener.  But if I hear inconsistencies, then I cannot understand what is being said to me.  Communication breaks down.  If I am to understand what is really said, I must have an explanation.  There must be dialogue.

Trying to resolve things that we fail to understand is not disrespect or rebellion.  Questioning is sometimes necessary in the learning process.


A quick update on the election results.

Donald Trump has won the election.  Republicans will have control of the Senate and probably the House of Representatives.

The United States is a nation in decline, but I think that decline would happen faster if Trump had lost.  God is being merciful.  I think we have more time.

Also, had the Democrats won there would be more chance of a national law to allow women to have abortions in all states, and the United States would be more guilty in God's sight for voting for such an outcome.  The election might be viewed as a rejection of abortion, and that may give us room for more of God's mercy and a little more time.

Things can move forward to give Europe more power.  President Trump and J. D. Vance seem to be more isolationist in regard to protecting Europe from Russian aggression.  They appear reluctant to give the Ukraine the help it needs to win.  This may provoke Europe into increasing its military strength.  All this can fit into the framework of Bible prophecy.

Church Governance, Philadelphia, and How Much Time Is Left?

 

The Question of Governance


I was in Worldwide when the ministers and members who were to make up the United Church of God, most of them, left Worldwide because they did not accept the doctrinal changes Mr. Tkach was making.  I did not immediately leave Worldwide at the time the changes started or when UCG formed, but I left later.  But I was studying and watching and thinking about everything that was happening, and I was aware that soon I would probably have to leave if things kept going in the direction they were going.

But when I first learned that a group of ministers left Worldwide to form United Church of God, I was very curious about how they would be governed.  To me, it seemed like they had a dilemma.  This was not a case of a leader forming a new group and other ministers and members coming to him to build and increase the group.  This was a case of a large number of ministers leaving in mass with no clear leader.  Perhaps Mr. David Hulme served a leadership role more than most, but even he did not have the standing and reputation to be the clear leader over the other ministers and having authority from Christ to direct UCG with top-down governance.

So what will they do, I asked myself.  Mr. Armstrong taught top-down governance in the Church.  We knew no other way.  And it was clear that the ministers forming UCG wanted to stay together and form one group.  But there was no clear leader.  At the time, it seemed to me like a problem without a solution.

Well, they organized as a democracy with the ministers voting, or "balloting" as they called it, to elect a leader of the group every certain number of years.  There may have been other elected officials and layers in the organization like a council - I do not remember the details.  But authority came from the voting of the ministers.  That surprised me, I think, but I couldn't disagree at the time too much because I couldn't think of any alternative.  Probably, many of them couldn't think of an alternative either.

But since then I have thought about it and studied governance in the Bible more than I did before.

As a result, years later, around the time of the split in UCG when COGWA formed, I added a chapter, chapter eight, to my online book, Preaching the Gospel - see blue link near the upper right corner of this blog.  That chapter goes through the teaching and examples of God's governance in the Bible.  It shows that Mr. Armstrong was right - God's governance is from the top down, always.

But I also thought a great deal about how the UCG ministers could have organized without voting, thus preserving the principle of top-down governance, yet before it became clear who one top leader should be.

It is God, through Christ, who must choose the leader.  When God does this, He makes His choice known to the Church.  But how?

Some might suggest choosing a leader by drawing lots, asking God to guide the selection, as the apostles did to choose a replacement for Judas in Acts 1:15-26.

But I remember, when Mr. Armstrong was alive, the Church of God teaching that we do not use that method today because we have the Holy Spirit.  The apostles in Acts 1 did not have the Holy Spirit and the discernment the Holy Spirit could give them, so they had to cast lots at that time.  But we do not continue that practice.  This is what was taught in the Church.

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Armstrong never cast lots to make a decision, but he certainly relied on Christ to guide his decisions.

I can think of reasons why some may want to cast lots.  One thing that comes to mind is that king David had lots cast when he wanted an answer to a question from God, yet David had God's Spirit (1 Samuel 16:13, Psalm 51:11).  When scripture says David inquired of the Lord, this is referring to the casting of lots, for that is how they inquired of God at that time (1 Samuel 23:1-5, 1 Samuel 23:9-13, 1 Chronicles 24:3-5).  Also, some UCG ministers may have felt that God did not guide Mr. Armstrong's decision to appoint Mr. Tkach as his successor.  They may have felt, especially in the heat of the moment, that Mr. Armstrong simply made a mistake.  So they went with voting, perhaps figuring God would guide their voting by His Spirit to produce the correct results.

I do not say that the casting of lots is definitely wrong.  But I am inclined to think that it is not the best way.  I could be wrong.  In any case, it would definitely be a new doctrine since Mr. Armstrong was alive.  He never cast lots (as far as I know) and he did not cast lots to choose Mr. Tkach, perhaps one of the biggest decisions he made.  Practicing the casting of lots would be a change in doctrine from what Mr. Armstrong taught and practiced, a new doctrine in the Church of God.

Actually, as I have written over the years in other posts in this blog, I do not think the appointment of Mr. Tkach was Mr. Armstrong's mistake.  I think Christ appointed Mr. Tkach as Mr. Armstrong's successor and caused Mr. Armstrong to discern Christ's will in this matter.  I am sure Mr. Armstrong did not understand Christ's reasons.  But he made the right appointment.

No doubt Mr. Armstrong thought Christ wanted Mr. Tkach because Mr. Tkach would be faithful.  But that was not Christ's reason.  Christ, I am sure, appointed Mr. Tkach as pastor general after Mr. Armstrong for the opposite reason - Christ knew Mr. Tkach would not be faithful to the overall body of truth Mr. Armstrong taught, and Christ wanted to scatter the Church because we had become Laodicean.  This is how Christ spit or vomited us out of His mouth, which He promised to do in Revelation 3:16.  Though harsh, this scattering serves a purpose of waking us up and testing us, and this has been happening since the death of Mr. Armstrong almost forty years ago.

So with top-down governance, how does Christ make His choice for a leader known?

Please read chapter eight of Preaching the Gospel, where I go through many examples in the Bible.

There are two ways God makes His choice known: by appointment by the preceding leader or by fruits.  In the Bible there is also the third way when prophets are available, as when God spoke directly to the prophets or had them case lots - see how God made his choices of kings Saul and David known.  But we do not have prophets at this time in the Church today and we do not cast lots.

So the choices are: appointment from the leader as Mr. Armstrong appointed Mr. Tkach and as Dr. Meredith appointed Mr. Weston, or observe by fruits, as much of the Church saw from the fruits of Dr. Meredith after he left Worldwide, showing that God had chosen him to lead Global Church of God, and ministers and members with discernment gathered to Dr. Meredith when they saw the fruits.

One of the fruits of Dr. Meredith is that he immediately, within weeks, began a zeal-inspired effort to go on TV or radio to revive God's work of preaching the gospel.  Those Philadelphian-like members who had their hearts in the work (John 4:34) saw this and gathered to Dr. Meredith rather than to the few other leaders who left Worldwide previously, but who were not focused on a message to the world, just a message to the Church to support themselves.

Dr. Meredith was the first to revive God's work of preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning to Israel and to the world.  This did not go unnoticed by many members and ministers in the Church of God.  This is how God made his choice of Dr. Meredith known - by fruits, not appointment.

So how does this apply to a succession question in the Church today or to a new group forming that must come to know God's choice for leader?

If it is by fruits, it is a process and it takes time.  God blesses the one He chooses and causes him to bear good fruit (Joshua 3:7, Matthew 7:16-20, Matthew 12:33).

But what does the Church, or a new group whether large or small, do in the meantime?

What I will suggest may at first seem awkward or cumbersome.  But I think it is a good path to understand God's choice for leader in the absence of an appointment from a previous leader.

"But the LORD said to Samuel, 'Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart' " (1 Samuel 16:7).

With a new group, there is a tendency to want to immediately choose a name, incorporate, and set up central governance, with a leader to govern the group under Christ.  This is what UCG did.  And they built that process into UCG so that now, when a leader dies, there is voting to find a new leader.  But that tends to mask what God decides by showing of fruits.  Ministers in that system are governed by the voting of men, and you can't tell who is being led by Christ in a powerful way.  They have to do what they are told by men, and you can't see what they would do when they report to Christ directly - so you don't fully see their fruits.  You see the results of voting, but not the results of decisions each man makes which show the fruits of that man - whether Christ is leading him and he is following Christ, or not.

So I offer this suggestion as food for thought.

Here is what United Church of God ministers could have done when they left Worldwide.

They could have built, at first, a loose "organization", based on voluntary service and cooperation rather that the authority of a ruling counsel and leader legally installed and empowered by voting.

Each ordained minister, probably including local elders since they are ministers, could do one of two things - start a small group or attach to another minister who starts a small group.  Group names can be temporary, so the name of a small group is not important.  Using "Church of God at" and then the name of a city or suburb would work fine, like "Church of God at Springfield" or something like that.  Meetings can start in the living room or basement of the minister.  If incorporation is needed, go ahead, else postpone it.  Tithes and offerings can be paid to the minister whether tax deductable or not.  You may be able to register the church name with a bank and have tithes paid to that name even without incorporation.

So you would have a fellowship of small groups led by pastors who are willing to form and lead a small group.  Those ministers who are not willing can work for the pastor of one of those groups.  So you might end up, in the case of UCG ministers, with twenty or fifty small groups.

But they will cooperate, not by force and authority, but willingly in an attitude of wanting to help fellow pastors.  Cooperation between groups and their pastors will be based on love, not force and not legal authority.

They will have a network of communication, by phone, by mail, and by email.

Pastors can get advice from other pastors.  "For by wise counsel you will wage your own war, And in a multitude of counselors there is safety" (Proverbs 24:6).  One of the first things pastors will perhaps want advice on is, how do I incorporate?  Some pastors may have some knowledge of this.

Over time, some ministers will specialize in different aspects of church administration, feeding the flock, and preaching the gospel, and will be the primary "go to" for advice and knowledge on a particular topic.  They will become known to the whole collection of ministers as knowing a certain subject.  They will give advice to other pastors, but not rule them.

Over time, their fruits will become known.  And by their fruits, it will become known who Christ is leading and blessing.  It will become known which men have the wisdom and love from God to run the whole collection of groups.

Over time, the groups will start to come together.  If a pastor is bearing good fruit, other pastors will join him.

This is how Christ will make His choice and the Father's choice known.  Not by voting.  Not by casting of lots.  By fruits.

In time you will have one group, probably incorporated as a tax-exempt church, with a good name representing the whole group, and with tax-exempt status for all donations.

This is what UCG could have done.

Yes, it is a sacrifice for the ministry.  It is more complicated at first, probably harder than just voting for a leader and letting him make all the decisions.  But it is more biblical in my opinion than voting.

Those are my thoughts, for what they are worth.

A couple of more points before I close this section.

Do not despise the power of a loose organization of many small groups.  You may get more productivity, more energy, more imagination, creativity, and resourcefulness, from the people in those small groups who may feel the need to "step up" to fill a gap of what needs to be done, maybe at first beyond their comfort zone.

You might think that it is safer to have one big legally organized group with central authority for making decisions.  In this world it is not.

Liberals in this country are trying to destroy Christianity and religion.  Satan is trying to destroy the Church and the work of preaching the gospel.  The courts are available to them.  So is technology controlled by large corporations like Google, Youtube, Facebook, etc.  Already some of our message can be "edited out" by corporations intent on promoting the liberal, anti-God agenda.

If we are organized as small groups, a lawsuit against one cannot hurt the others.  But if we are one big group, we are a big target.  Let one pastor make a mistake that opens the door for a lawsuit, and the whole large group can be hurt.  Investments in copyrights, office equipment, vehicles, television and radio contracts, hall rental contracts, etc. can be jeopardized by an expensive lawsuit.  The work can be blocked.  And if lawsuits threaten the stations that carry our programs, they can simply refuse to carry our programs out of concern for their own legal and financial safety.  They may require us to give the politically correct answers on questionnaires about what we teach before they will give us a contract.

The other thing to think about, for those who think nothing can function without strong central authority, even temporarily, is, how do people at a job or a group of friends go to lunch?  Do you have to have a ruler in charge to tell people what restaurant to go to, what time to leave, how many cars to take and who rides with who, etc.  Of course not.  Five or six or more people in an office will simply talk it out and come to a consensus.  This happens all the time.  And we are supposed to have God's Holy Spirit and love each other as Christ loved us!  So why can't we cooperate voluntarily and help each other out?

But overall, this will be a temporary period for Christ to show the leader or leaders by fruits, and then if they come together later in a large organization led by one man as Mr. Armstrong led the Church of God, that man will have proven, by fruits, that Christ has appointed him as leader.



Does God Work Through Rebellion?


During the days when Worldwide was leaving the doctrines Mr. Armstrong taught, one pastor who later went with UCG was trying to stem people from leaving for other groups that were forming.  Apparently he wanted everyone to stay in Worldwide until UCG was ready to form.  He said that God does not work through rebellion.  I found out later that he was wrong, and I found out from the Bible.

Does God ever work through rebellion?

Surprisingly, yes, in a sense.

Did Jeroboam rebel against Solomon and Solomon's son Rehoboam?

Yes.  The Bible calls his action to establish a separate northern kingdom, separate from Rehoboam and the line of David, rebellion, that is, he "rebelled" (1 Kings 11:26-27).

Was this rebellion from God?  God told Jeroboam that He would give him ten tribes (1 Kings 11:31).  Yes, the rebellion was from God.  God even said, this is from Me (1 Kings 12:21-24).

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.  For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household' " (Matthew 10:34-36).  

Sometimes someone has to leave a Church of God group because of problems in that group and because of reasons of conscience.  Whether a minister is fired or quits, the main thing is that a separation is necessary.  And with a minister it often results in that minister starting a group or finding employment in an existing group.  Sometimes that last option is not possible.  So a new group starts.

An ordained pastor does not have the option, I think, to just retire from pastoring and get a regular job with a company of this world.  The calling of God is irrevocable (Romans 11:29).  He is a minister of Jesus Christ, ordained to that office by God, and he cannot abandon his flock and his duties.  He has to serve Christ.  If there are no employment options in the various fellowships, he may be forced by circumstances and conscience to form a new group to serve anyone who needs to be served by him.

A few years ago, a number of people were forced by conscience to leave a group over the issue of singing and masks.  For many of them, they had to do it.  Whatever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23, see also 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 and Romans 14:1-23).  

These things happen from time to time, and God holds us responsible for our choices and for our motives that inspire those choices.  And sometimes, regardless of who is right, God sees a need to create a separation, as He did with ancient Israel in the matter of Jeroboam and Rehoboam and in the Church in the matter of Paul and Barnabus (Acts 15:37-40).

We are commanded to warn the wicked and preach the gospel (Proverbs 24:11, Ezekiel 3:17-21, Matthew 28:18-20).  We have to do it or we are in trouble with God.  Paul said, woe to me if I do not preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:16).  God says, if He makes us the watchman and we do not warn the wicked, He will require the blood of the wicked at our hand.  In other words, murder-guilt will be upon us.

He also says, keep yourself far from a false matter (Exodus 23:7).

Christ had His harshest words for hypocrisy (Matthew 15:3-9, Matthew 23:13-36).  As I have said before, we must practice what we preach.  We cannot say to the public, don't believe us, don't believe any man, believe God, believe the Bible, while we say to our members, believe Mr. Armstrong, believe Mystery of the Ages, we will not change doctrine, we will not learn anything new, we will not correct any errors Mr. Armstrong made, we will not believe the Bible first - if the Bible says one thing and Mr. Armstrong said something else, we will believe Mr. Armstrong, not the Bible.

If that is what you practice, a way of life opposite to the way of life Mr. Armstrong himself practiced, forget preaching the gospel.  Don't expect an open door.  Christ is not mocked.  And forget the place of safety.  How can you be there?

Recently, a minister said that you cannot teach (in the millennium he meant) that which you do not live (in this life and age he meant).  In other words, we have to live by God's way of life now if we want to be teachers of that way of life in the millennium.  I agree with that.  God is merciful with our problems and none of us is perfect in this life, but we have to try to live God's way of life the best we can now.

But I would expand this principle to include this:  we cannot teach the world the gospel and the warning message and ask them to believe the Bible more than their religious leaders if we do not do the same.

God hates hypocrisy.

We must be willing to learn new knowledge if we tell the world to learn new knowledge.  God hates unequal weights and measures (Deuteronomy 25:13-16).  We must apply the same standard to ourselves as we apply to the world (Leviticus 24:22).  If they have to change, we must be willing to change.  We have to be willing to learn new things.

"Then He said to them, 'Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old' " (Matthew 13:52).  



How Much Time Do We Have Left?


I want to talk about how much time we may have left, because this can have relevance to how we think about preaching the gospel.  Some may think that time is so short that we will not be able to preach the gospel to all Israel.

I have noticed that we are approaching the fortieth anniversary of the death of Herbert W. Armstrong.  Many of us have learned from the Church that forty is a number of trial and testing in the Bible.  I have not heard or read anything about this, but I am sure I am not the only one to think about this.  Probably many in the Church have wondered, whether they talk about it or not, is the Church in a forty-year period of trial and testing?  And what happens after the forty years are complete?

The idea I am describing is this.  Mr. Armstrong has been our teacher for many years.  He taught us by word and by example.  A student should be like his teacher (Luke 6:40).  We should live the same way of life as Mr. Armstrong lived when he lived by what God said in the Bible.  We should follow his good example.

But by the time he died in January 1986, how well have we learned?  How well has the Church of God learned?

So perhaps (this is speculation, but I am probably not the only one to think about this) God has planned a period of forty years after the death of Mr. Armstrong to test the Church to see how well we learned from the instruction and example of Mr. Armstrong.

So what happens after God has tested us?

I have been hearing some people talk here and there about the tribulation beginning in maybe a year or two.  Before now, the most I heard anyone say was, soon.  But now some are becoming specific - maybe a year or two.

Perhaps those people are thinking of the forty years after Mr. Armstrong's death as being a period of testing to see who will go to a place of safety.  At the end of the forty years, the tribulation will begin, and those who passed the test will be protected and the rest will go through the tribulation.

There is nothing wrong with that kind of speculation, provided we don't take our speculations and opinions too seriously.  We all know we don't know when the end will come, but I know of nothing in the Bible that says it is wrong to estimate or have opinions about these things as long as we know that we don't really know.

So in the spirit of iron sharpens iron, I will also share my opinion.

I tend to think the idea of forty years of trial and testing after the death of Mr. Armstrong is probably right.  But I don't think the testing is for determining who will go to a place of safety at the end of the forty years.

The place of safety is exactly connected with open door.  They are both in the same message to Philadelphia.  You don't have one without the other.  And no one right now has a wide-open door for reaching the hundreds of millions of the tribes of Israel.

I think we are being tested to see who will be counted as Philadelphian, and at the end of the forty years God will begin to give Philadelphians a wide-open door for finishing the work with great power, greater than Mr. Armstrong did - a really wide open door to reach all Israel - all four hundred million or so from all the tribes including those who live among us and will go through the tribulation with us but may not be descended from Israel exactly.

This will take time.  Then, maybe after a time cycle of 19 years, the work will be done, and Philadelphia will go to a place of safety, or maybe the time cycle will go right to the time of the return of Christ and will include the work of the two witnesses during the tribulation.

So I am estimating that we may have about 15 to 20 years before the end.  That is "soon", but a different flavor of "soon" than only one or two years.

But there is no need for you to think, "I have plenty of time to get ready".  No, you don't know.  You might die today.  For you, the end may come now (Matthew 24:48-51).  I pointed this out in my message for Trumpets.  We need to fear God.

I repeat, this is speculation.  I know I can be completely wrong.  I try not to take my own opinions too seriously.  No one should.

But don't assume we will not have time to finish the work.

A lot has to happen before the tribulation begins, and these things will probably take time.

The Church has taught for years that a German-led Europe will attack the United States.  I agree.  But it will take time for Europe to become strong and the United States to become weak.  I don't see how that can happen in a year or two.

Whatever our problems as a nation, we are still the most powerful nation on earth.  And Europe is weak.  For Europe to attack the United States, today, is nearly impossible.  We could wipe Europe out of existence and they know it.

Look at history.  Before Hitler came to power, Germany had been well on its way to re-arming.  It was getting stronger even before Hitler came to power.  He came into power I believe in January 1933, and then re-arming continued and even accelerated, as I understand it.  Even so, it was almost seven years before Hitler attacked Poland at the beginning of September 1939.  And Poland was only half the size of Germany, and Germany had the help of the Soviet Union to finish the job.  Germany kept getting stronger after that.

To build a strong military takes time.  And for the United States to become militarily weak will take time.

It will also take time for the Church of God to get the true gospel and Ezekiel warning out to all Israel.

I think the idea of forty years of testing of the Church after Mr. Armstrong is very plausible.  If that motivates you and inspires you with a sense of urgency, great.  It inspires me and helps motivate me to push harder to draw close to God and pass the test.

But I think the reward at the end of it will be an open door for the gospel and the Ezekiel warning.  I want to be among those who will have an open door.  I want to contribute.

It may be that there will be a call to go to Petra while the gospel has still not gone out to all Israel.  If there is an open door to warn all Israel but more time is needed to finish going through that open door, I do not think I would be inclined to believe the word to go to Petra.  Rather, I hope I will have the courage to stay in the United States and continue to support the warning work.  The place of safety is fine, but getting the warning to all Israel is more important.

"He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it" (Matthew 10:39).



The Characteristics of Philadelphia


We are in the Laodicean era.  That is part of why we are scattered.  It is pretty obvious.

But there are and will be some Philadelphians, a relatively small number, even in the Laodicean era, to finish the work and go to a place of safety after it is done.

They may be scattered.  They may be few in number.  Perhaps none of the existing fellowships right now is fully or even mostly Philadelphian.  Philadelphians may not be a majority in any group.

And they can increase.  There is still time for some Laodiceans to repent and draw closer to God and be counted as Philadelphians.  I think maybe I am in that number.  I do not count myself as a Philadelphian - I have too much to overcome.  But there is still time, and I am determined to draw closer to God.  I am trying.  Being Philadelphian for me is a goal - I am not there yet as far as I know.

But at some point Philadelphians have to come together from their present scattered condition.  They will need to be gathered to do a great work.  Christ will accomplish this, probably through imperfect human leaders.

It will probably be necessary to recognize Philadelphia when we see it.  Not everyone will, I am sure.

So for those who are interested (if you are still reading this long post to this point, thank you for your patience), here are my thoughts about the characteristics of a Philadelphian remnant Church of God.

I will share three points.  I have posted about all of these before.  These are not in priority order - I don't know what the priority would be.


1.  There will be top-down governance.  I have already covered this and chapter eight of my book goes into more detail.  Philadelphians will not choose their leader by voting.  Christ will choose the leader.


2.  There will be zeal for the gospel and the Ezekiel warning.  I have covered this in other posts in this blog and in my book, but I will highlight some points.

All Israel, all the nations that come from the lost tribes, everyone, needs a strong warning.  Some may think, God only calls a few and the rest can't repent anyway so the warning does not help them.  But they need the warning even though they are not called.  They will begin to repent in the tribulation, but they need a warning before the tribulation so they can accept responsibility for ignoring the warning and know that God was fair to warn them.  To repent they need to trust God.  They need to believe in God's fairness and righteousness.  Giving the uncalled a warning now helps their repentance later.

And even though the majority of Israel is not called in this age, some may try to respond to our message the best they can, and God may spare them from the worst of the suffering (some will suffer more than others) and let them live into the millennium.  Jonah was reluctant to preach to Nineveh (like the Church in our time, maybe?), but God made him do it, and Nineveh repented.  The Ninevites were not called to conversion, but they repented to some extent, maybe to save their skins, but they changed their behavior and God spared them from punishment.  Interestingly, God does not usually give population numbers for cities, but in Nineveh's case the number named was more than 120,000 - Revelation 7 gives the number 144,000 as 12 tribes times 12,000 from each tribe.  On the basis of 12,000 per tribe, the population of Nineveh as given could represent ten tribes.  See the whole book of Jonah and chapter 7 of Revelation.  Coincidence?

Some may say the two witnesses will get a warning out.  But they only receive power when the tribulation starts (Revelation 11:1-12).  It is too late for anyone to heed a warning then to escape the tribulation, for it will already have started.  The Church of God needs to get the warning out now.

Traditional Christians, Catholics and Protestants who keep Christmas and Easter, especially need a warning because no one has told them that what they are doing is wrong.

Failure to get the warning out can jeopardize the people's salvation because it can make their future repentance harder if they think God is not fair.  Getting the warning out shows God's mercy and fairness and glorifies His name and reputation.  For all eternity, God's creation will praise and thank Him for His righteousness, wisdom, power, and love for getting a final warning out to the people.

The Church of God is not a social club and should not be run like a social club.  Summer camp, winter weekends, adventure hikes are all good, in balance, but our main zeal, time, and money should be invested in getting God's message out to the masses.  If we invest more in social activities than helping Israel, that is a warning sign that we are off track.

If we fail to warn the wicked, God will require their blood at our hands (Ezekiel 3:17-21).

But to succeed, we must have an open door (1 Corinthians 16:9, 2 Corinthians 2:12, Colossians 4:2-3, Revelation 3:7-8).  And if we want that open door, we must not be hypocrites preaching what we do not practice (Luke 11:44-46).

And this leads me to my final point about Philadelphians.


3.  There will be a willingness to learn new knowledge from the Bible, and members will be taught to believe the Bible more than the Church.  Along with this teaching, there will be teaching to not contradict the leadership and ministry in conversation with other members.  These two things must go together.

If you have the first but not the second, you have chaos.  You have division with everyone promoting their own ideas.  But if you have the second without the first, you have idolatry towards the Church, towards Mr. Armstrong, or towards the current leadership and the ministry, giving them the faith that belongs only to God.  And you have hypocrisy and no open door.

I have posted about this so much, no doubt some readers are getting tired of it.  But no one has shown me wrong by the scriptures.  And it is important, because without these two doctrines we fail to deliver the warning and the blood of the people can be required at our hand.  These two doctrines are two parts of point three.  Call them point 3A and point 3B.  To repeat, point 3A:  Be willing to learn new knowledge from the Bible and teach the brethren to believe the Bible more than the Church, and point 3B:  Teach the members to not contradict the ministry in conversation with other Church members.

There are two ways to avoid division.  You can teach the brethren to believe Mr. Armstrong's interpretation of the Bible, the Church's traditions, and the ministry's interpretation of the Bible.  Or, you can teach the brethren to let the Bible interpret the Bible and believe the Bible first, more than the Church, and also teach them not to spread their ideas and contradict the ministry.  I think the second way qualifies Philadelphia for an open door to finish the work and go to a place of safety.

We have to be willing to put the Bible first over the teachings of the Church if we are to preach the Ezekiel warning and avoid God's judgment for failing to warn the wicked.  Unless we do, we cannot say to the public, without being hypocrites, "Don't believe us, don't believe any man, believe God, believe your Bible".  

I don't think Christ will give a wide-open door to hypocrites.  And without the open door there is no place of safety, for both are promised in the same message.

We need to deliver the true gospel and Ezekiel warning messages to all Israel before the tribulation begins, or we may bring blood guilt upon ourselves.

To preach an effective message to the public, we cannot say, don't believe your ministers, believe our ministers.  We have to say, don't believe us or any man, believe God, believe the Bible.  That is the only way our message will be credible.

To be effective, we need Christ to give us a wide-open door for preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning.

We also need the wide-open door, and go through it, to qualify to go to a place of safety.

We cannot expect Christ to give the open door to hypocrites who tell the public to believe the Bible more than any man or church, but tell our members to believe Mr. Armstrong, or our Church of God traditions, or our leaders and ministers more than what they see in their own Bibles.

So to have the open door and go through it and avoid the God's judgment against those who fail to warn the wicked, and to be able to go to a place of safety, we need to teach the members to believe their Bibles more than Mr. Armstrong and the Church, and we need to be willing to change doctrine, correct errors, and learn new doctrinal knowledge from the Bible.

To avoid division while teaching the members to believe what they see in the Bible more than the Church, we must also teach the members to not contradict the Church and ministry in conversation with other members.  They can discuss their differences with the ministry, but keep the matter confidential from other members and avoid discussing it with them.


These are the characteristics I think will be present in a fellowship that is Philadelphian in character.  Those who have these characteristics will be the ones to finish the work with power and go to a place of safety.

This is my opinion, but it is based on scripture.  Other posts I have published in the past go into more detail, and I will continue to post about these things in the future.

We are each and all of us being tested.  Let's pass the test.

Last Great Day 2024 - Learning the Give Way of Life

Immediately after the seven-day Feast of Tabernacles comes the Last Great Day, sometimes referred to in the Bible as the eighth day of the Feast (John 7:37-39, Leviticus 23:34-36).  This is a one day festival, a holy day.  We rest on that day and assemble for services.

This day represents the general resurrection, also called the white throne judgment, when the vast majority of people who have ever lived will come up in a resurrection to physical life once again (Ezekiel 37:1-14, Revelation 20:11-15).  This will include everyone who has never had a change to be converted in their first life.  

No one can be saved apart from Christ, and faith in Christ and His gospel message is a requirement for conversion (John 11:25-26, Acts 8:36-37, John 8:23-24, Acts 4:9-12).  There have been billions who have lived and died without ever hearing the true gospel and the name of Christ.  Those people will have a chance for salvation.  Even those who have heard the truth but not accepted or understood it because Satan has blinded them will be included.  They will be brought back to physical life (Ezekiel 37:1-14).  They will be judged for what they have done in this life (Revelation 20:11-15).  They will be pronounced guilty (Romans 3:23).  But they will also hear the true gospel and have a chance to believe the gospel and repent and be forgiven and converted and receive God's Holy Spirit.  They will learn that Christ suffered and died to pay the penalty for their sins.

If they repent and are converted, they will have a period of time to prove their repentance and practice God's way of life.  They can then receive eternal life and be saved and live forever in God's kingdom in happiness and joy.  This period of time may be one hundred years (Isaiah 65:20).

This will show God's love and fairness that no human being will be excluded from God's salvation due to circumstances of time and place of birth over which we have no control.

Those who are in the general resurrection will be able to compare the happiness of that time when Satan is not around with the suffering of this present time in which they first lived.  They will be able to see that God's way is better than Satan's way.  They will make their choice, one way or another.

I have no doubt that many today who do not believe in God doubt His existence because they see the suffering and injustice in this world and cannot imagine how a just and loving God could permit it.  Probably they notice that traditional Christianity does not provide any way those who never heard of Christ can be fully saved in God's plan since they have not become converted Christians.

But God has made a perfect plan that the atheists and those in traditional religion know nothing about.  God is teaching mankind the lesson, through experience, that God's way is best.

Those in the white throne judgment will also learn a lesson of love, of outgoing concern for the good of others, of the give way of life.  They will learn it from the example of those who lived in the millennium and worked to provide the food, clothing, and shelter that the billions will need to be given when they first come up out of their graves.  They will learn that they have been provided for by the labor and sacrifice, motivated by love, of the people who lived during the millennium.  That should be a lesson for them, that they should love others as others have loved them.

How great is God's wisdom and how great is His love to have made such a perfect plan as this for the salvation of all people!

Feast of Tabernacles 2024 - Changing the Physical Environment

After Atonement comes the Feast of Tabernacles, a seven day festival to celebrate the kingdom of God and the millennial rule of Christ and the saints on the earth.  The first of the seven days is a holy day, a day of rest and assembly.  Traditionally, on the other days we assembly every morning for services.  The eighth day, the Last Great Day, is a day of rest and we have double services.  I will cover that more in the next post.

After Christ returns and the saints are resurrected to immortality, as represented by the Day of Trumpets (1 Corinthians 15:50-57, Revelation 11:15-19), and after Satan is put away as pictured by Atonement (Revelation 20:1-3), Christ and the saints will rule the earth for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4).  Our rule will bring happiness to mankind.  The Feast of Tabernacles represents the happiness of both the millennium and the kingdom of God for eternity.  To help us picture this, God gives us our second tithe to enjoy during the Feast, money we can spend for festival expenses, food, drink, entertainment, and recreation.

There are many scriptural passages that refer to the happiness and joy of that time.  Here is a list of some of them:    Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 39:25-29, Zechariah 8:23, Isaiah 9:6-7, Isaiah 11:1-16, Isaiah 12:1-6, Isaiah 2:2-4, Isaiah 25:6-8, Isaiah 35:5-10, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Psalm 98:4-9, Micah 4:1-4, Habakkuk 2:14, Isaiah 65:24-25, Psalm 22:27-31, Psalm 47:1-2, Psalm 97:1, Jeremiah 23:5-8.

After the millennium, there will be a general resurrection as pictured by the Last Great Day, a time when billions of people will be brought back to life.  This will be a massive number of people that will have to be clothed, housed, and fed.  Eventually, they will be able to provide for themselves from their labor, but to start off they will need help for a time.

It is during the millennium that the people on the earth will prepare to help those who come up in the general resurrection.  They will not just be growing food, building houses, and making clothing for themselves but also for those who will come up in the general resurrection.

This will be an opportunity for them to learn the give way of life by practicing it.  They can practice the way of loving their neighbors as themselves by sacrificing, laboring, and contributing to the massive work of preparing for the billions who will come up in a general resurrection.

During the millennium the environment will be changed.  Deserts will have water (Isaiah 35:1-2, 6-7, Isaiah 41:18-20, Isaiah 43:19-20, Isaiah 51:3).  The nature of animals will be changed (Isaiah 11:6-9, Isaiah 65:25).  Waste areas will flourish.  A great deal of work will be involved in changing the environment and ecology.  It is not just a matter of making aggressive animals tame.  If animals no longer kill animals for food, their diets will change.  They will have to eat plants.  That means other changes will be required in the digestive system, teeth, etc., as well as instincts.  Also, reproductive instincts and processes will have to change so that there is not overpopulation of species that are no longer eaten.  Foxes can be changed to not kill rabbits, but what happens to the rabbit population without predators to keep it in check?  Too many rabbits will destroy the plant cover, then the rabbits will starve.

And whatever changes are made to the plants and animals will have to be made to their DNA so the changes are passed on from generation to generation.  Everything will have to be planned in detail to produce a well-functioning, balanced, and stable ecology.

Changing the environment will be a big job.  Who will do it?

Christ has been given all power and authority over the universe (Matthew 28:18), and no doubt He will do it.  But we, the resurrected saints, will be His wife.  Christ will rule the earth, but we will help Him in ruling the earth - we will rule with Him.  Likewise, will we also assist Him in making the changes to the animals, bringing water to the deserts, and any other changes that need to be made to the earth?  I think that is a possibility to consider.

Mr. Armstrong has taught, I believe in Mystery of the Ages and The Incredible Human Potential, that he believed it was man's destiny to bring life to the planets of the universe.  So the resurrected saints will have to know about physical life and its complexity and how to work with DNA or other means to work with life in all its variety.  We will also need to know how to change the surface of a planet to make it hospitable for life, having the right temperature and atmosphere and bodies of water for example.

Perhaps working with the environment on earth for the millennium may be a starting point for us to begin to learn about these things.  Perhaps Christ will have us assist Him in making these changes just as we assist Him in ruling the earth.

This is something we can consider the next time we review the scriptures about the wolf dwelling with the lamb and the lion eating straw like the ox (Isaiah 11:6-9).  Perhaps this may be an interesting topic to talk about as we discuss God's truth in the spirit of iron sharpens iron.

"As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17).

"Then those who feared the Lord spoke to one another, And the Lord listened and heard them; So a book of remembrance was written before Him For those who fear the Lord And who meditate on His name.  'They shall be Mine,' says the Lord of hosts, 'On the day that I make them My jewels.  And I will spare them As a man spares his own son who serves him' " (Malachi 3:16-17).

 

Atonement 2024 - Why Did Lucifer Sin?

Atonement is an annual holy day.  It is a day of rest, assembly, and fasting.  We go for 24 hours without food or drink from sunset to sunset.  It is commanded in Leviticus 23:26-32.  Its meaning is described in Leviticus 16:1-34 and Revelation 20:1-3.

It represents the putting away of Satan, but it also, like Passover, represents the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  Both we and Satan share in our guilt for our sins.  He tempts us into sinning, so he shares in the responsibility for our sins, but we make the choice.  Christ paid the penalty for our share of the guilt (Leviticus 16:15-19), but Satan pays his own penalty for his share of the guilt (Leviticus 16:20-22).

Satan is the ruler of this evil society (Luke 4:5-7, John 14:30) and deceiver of mankind (Revelation 12:9).

After Christ returns and the saints are resurrected, pictured by the Day of Trumpets, Satan is bound and put away and not allowed to deceive or tempt mankind, pictured by Atonement.  This lasts through the millennium.  With Christ ruling the earth and Satan not around anymore, there will be peace and happiness for a thousand years all over the earth.

There are two passages in the Old Testament that describe Satan's history and nature, in Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-19.

Satan, originally named Lucifer, was not created evil.  He was perfect in his ways, for a time, until he sinned (Ezekiel 28:15).  This can raise the question, why did he sin?  Did he not know the consequences for himself?

Apparently not.  But he could have known.

Did not God warn him?  Did God not tell him if he turned to sin, to vanity and self-centeredness, that he would suffer the penalties of sin, his mind would be corrupted and he would be miserable forever?

It is evident in the Bible that it is part of God's loving nature to warn.  God's warnings fill the Bible from God's warning to Adam about the consequences of taking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17) to warnings to anyone who adds to or takes from the book of Revelation (Revelation 22:18-19).  So God, who does not change (Malachi 3:6), must have warned Lucifer and all the angels about the consequences of sin.  God's motive was love.

So how could Lucifer not know?

To know what God reveals requires two things - God must teach us and we must believe God.  It takes both instruction and believing the instruction for us to learn.  Without belief, instruction does no good.

For Lucifer to believe God's warnings, he would have had to exercise faith to believe what God said.  Without faith in God's word, he couldn't know for sure.  Without faith, he couldn't know for sure if God was telling him the truth.

He had no experience with sin, either his own sin or anyone else's sin.  Apparently, Lucifer was the first being to sin.  Before that, there was no sin and no chance for Lucifer to learn by experience or observation.

He had not suffered.  As long as he was perfect in his ways, as long as he lived righteously, he knew nothing but happiness.  He didn't know what suffering was.  To understand and know God's warnings about the misery that would come upon him if he turned to vanity, he would have to believe what God told him.  He would have to take God's word that the warning was real.

That was his choice.

He could have believed God, believed God's warnings, and avoided sin.  But he didn't.

Instead, he turned to vanity, perhaps as an experiment.  Maybe he wanted to try vanity, to try the pleasures of sin, to see and observe how things turned out.  Would he be more or less happy?

If Lucifer was the first to sin, and apparently he was, there was no person or outside force to tempt him.  God did not tempt him and the angels did not tempt him.  He had not sinned, so there was no evil nature within him to make him sin.

It was a deliberate, thought-out choice by Lucifer.

He should have believed God.  He should have trusted his Maker.

Instead, he practiced the way of vanity.  Maybe this was the first scientific experiment.  Lucifer decided to try vanity, to try sin, to see if it made him happier.  So he ignored God's warnings.  He chose the "scientific method" in a sense rather than the word of God, just as he teaches mankind today.  Don't believe God, he thought.  Try things, observe the results, and draw your own conclusions.  Find out for yourself from experience.  Then follow your own reasoning.  Isn't this the way of life this world follows?

This is the way of Adam and Eve when they took the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:1-7).

There was a time when Solomon tried seeking pleasure to see the result (Ecclesiastes 2:1-16).  It did not produce a good result for Solomon either (Ecclesiastes 2:17-20, 1 Kings 11:1-40).

We should believe God, as Abraham did (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6-9, James 2:23, Isaiah 51:1-3).  We should walk by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7, Habakkuk 2:4).

After Lucifer sinned, the penalties God had warned him about took effect.  His mind became twisted.  His vanity corrupted his wisdom (Ezekiel 28:17).  His mind became filled with hate and resentment.  He became God's enemy, and God changed his name to what he had become - Satan.  He became a liar and the the father of lies (John 8:44).  He became a murderer (John 8:44).  His evil nature makes him miserable.

Can he go back?

No.  He would have to think clearly to do that, and he can't anymore.  He can no longer think right to even try to go back.  His mind is now perverted, and he cannot think rightly to straighten it out.  His choice has become permanent.  This is what God had warned him about, but he didn't believe God.

Perhaps this is why God places such an emphasis on faith.  He wants us to believe what He says.  He doesn't want another Lucifer in His kingdom.  He wants faith, the willingness to believe what He says, to be a permanent part of our character.

After Lucifer sinned and became Satan the devil, he set about persuading the angels under his authority to follow his example.  They did, most or all of them, apparently a third of all angels created (Revelation 12:3-4), and they suffered the same penalty.  Their minds became twisted and perverted.  They became demons, unclean spirits.

How did he do this?  Probably, it took time.  Mr. Armstrong has taught that Satan no doubt worked on individual angels one at a time at first, persuading each that God was unfair to them, arousing bitterness and resentment in them, and then it would spread to the others.  There could have been a long history of quarrels and conflicts among the angels on the earth as this played out over time.

After seeing what happened in Worldwide after Mr. Armstrong died, I can imagine another stage in the process that would precede and prepare the ground for building resentment and bitterness in the angels on earth over imagined injustices.

Satan first had to weaken the foundation of the way of life the angels had been living when they followed God's instruction.  What was that foundation for the right way of life?  Love.  Mr. Armstrong called it the "give way of life".  Having an outgoing concern for others.  That was the exact opposite of selfishness, self-centeredness, and vanity.  Satan had to weaken that foundation in the angels' way of life.

Maybe he did that a little at a time.

In Worldwide, the doctrinal changes that followed the death of Mr. Armstrong were sometimes justified by someone saying that Mr. Armstrong told his successor in private to make the changes.

Satan could have done something similar with the angels regarding the give vs. the get way of life.  He could have started with a slight change in doctrine.

I have no doubt that God taught all the angels directly the give way of life and that Lucifer's job was to continue to teach this way of life to the angels, just as in the Church of God Mr. Armstrong set doctrine and had the ministry teach it to the brethren.

But Lucifer, now become Satan the enemy of God, could have started to subvert the teaching of the give way of life little by little in his teaching and supervising and ruling the angels on the earth who were under his authority.

He could have continued teaching the give way of life, but not 100%.  He could have introduced compromise here and there.  He could teach maybe 1% the get way of life and 99% the give way of life.  And when questioned by the angels under him, "Didn't God teach us that we should live 100% the give way of life at all times?", Satan could have replied something like this.  "You are right, we should all mostly live the give way of life, the way of love, as God taught us.  But that doesn't mean all the time.  God talked to me personally about this and told me to teach you that a little bit of the get way of life, a little bit of selfishness and looking out for ourselves, can be a good thing - it leads to a more balanced, less extreme life.  The main thing is to live the give way of life most of the time, but not always.  Yes, God told us to live the give way of life 100% all the time, but He said this for emphasis.  He did not intend you to do this literally all the time.  A little bit of 'sin' can be a good thing, if done in balance."  

This could undermine God in the eyes of the angels under Satan in two ways.  It would introduce sin into their way of life, even only a little bit, and this would begin to produce a penalty, a loss of wisdom and perversion of mind, the same perversion of mind Lucifer went through went he first sinned.  But it would also slander God, accusing Him in a subtle way of lying to the angels when He told them to live 100% the way of love, the give way of life.  Though Satan could seem to be supporting God, his hidden message would be, you can't always trust what God says.

Then, little by little, Satan could teach the angels more and more of the selfish, vain, self-centered get way of life.  They would be weakened more and more.  Their minds would become corrupted as they became more and more vain and selfish.

Then, they would be ripe for Satan to begin building resentment and bitterness over imagined unfair treatment, one angel at a time, then watching it spread till all the angels were totally corrupted.

Of course this is speculation.  The Bible doesn't give this kind of detail.  But I think most people who were in the Church during the period that changes were being made after 1986 can remember and imagine how this is possible.  This is something like how changes were justified.  So it is possible.

The lesson for us is, don't compromise with God's word.  Obey Him 100%, always.  Sometimes one scriptural passage can help explain and balance another scriptural passage, but our doctrines and our lives have to be based on God's word.  Live the give way of life.  Serve the brethren.  Put sin out of our lives.  Do God's work.  Trust and believe God.  Study the Bible and live by every word of God.  Put zeal into it.

" 'For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist,' Says the Lord.  'But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word' " (Isaiah 66:2).

"But He answered and said, 'It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" ' " (Matthew 4:4).

If we do these things, we will succeed in God's purpose for us.  We will effectively do His work and we will be in His kingdom.

Trumpets 2024 - We Don't Know When Our Master Comes

The fall holy days are about to begin, beginning with the Day of Trumpets.  Trumpets is an annual holy day and feast day.  We are to observe it as a day of rest and assembly, like the weekly Sabbath, but meals can be prepared.  Trumpets is commanded in Leviticus 23:24-25, but its meaning is made clear in the New Testament (Revelation 8:1-13, 9:1-21, 11:15-19, 19:11-21, 1 Corinthians 15:50-57).

The sound of a trumpet can represent war (Joshua 6:1-5, 15-21, Ezekiel 33:1-6).  In Revelation, there are seven soundings of a trumpet described.  At the last trumpet, Christ returns and the saints are resurrected.  Those of us alive at the time, if we are being led by God's Holy Spirit, are changed from mortal to immortal, and we rise to meet Christ in the air along with the resurrected saints.  

Christ warns us to not be complacent about our salvation thinking, "my Lord delays His coming", thinking we have a long time yet (Matthew 24:42-51).  We don't know the day Christ comes.  He can come to us at any time.  That may or may not apply to Christ's literal coming to this earth, but in a figurative sense that day can come to us personally at any time because we don't know the day of our death.  When we die, Christ comes in the next second of our consciousness, so for us, it is now, even if Christ does not literally come to this earth for many years yet.

So Trumpets reminds us of our reward, but is also a warning that we should always be ready.