Jason Fritts No Longer Employed by CGA, and What Is the True Gospel?

As the title indicates, this is a two-part post.



Jason Fritts


Jason Fritts is no longer an employed minister with Church of God Assembly (CGA).  He has been removed from the list of ministers in the CGA website, along with Mr. Larry Alvario.  I have no information about Mr. Alvario.

Some time ago, Mr. Randy Wayne had also been removed from that list and Mr. Monson indicated he was no longer a minister with CGA.

The separation of Mr. Fritts apparently happened a few days before Pentecost.  It is not clear to me at this time if he was fired or quit.  But there was some difference between him and Mr. Monson.  This difference may be on the subject of what is the true gospel - I will address that question in this post.  What exactly Mr. Fritts believes on this subject and how it may differ from what Mr. Monson believes, I do not know.

I do not know of any website Mr. Fritts has at this time.

The separation of Mr. Fritts differs from that of Mr. Randy Wayne in that Mr. Wayne was not employed by CGA.  He was not a full-time minister.  He had his own work and income and was not a full-time employed minister dependent on a paycheck from the Church.  He was not put out of a job.  He can attend wherever he finds the best opportunity to attend God's Church.

As I understand it, that is not the case with Mr. Fritts.  He was employed full-time by CGA.  So he needs an income.

Being a young ordained minister and having been employed full-time by the Church, I do not expect him to retire or to seek employment outside the Church.  I think he will feel an obligation to God to continue to serve God as a minister, somewhere.

His options seem to be to try to find employment with another Church of God fellowship or to raise up a new Church of God fellowship.

If he raises up a new Church of God, I hope he will teach that Church and lead them to follow what I regard as three essential principles of Philadelphia.  

Those principles are:

1.  Top-down government.  The leader reports to Christ directly and is not elected by a board of men.  God shows He is using the man by the fruits over time.  No voting or "balloting" to elect leaders.

2.  Zeal for getting the true gospel and the Ezekiel warning message out to Israel and the world before the great tribulation begins.  This should be based on love for our neighbors who need the gospel and the warning message to prepare them for the tribulation to come.

3.  Willingness to believe and teach the Bible more than any man or tradition.  This means willingness to learn new knowledge from the Bible, to correct past mistakes, including mistakes by Mr. Armstrong (if there are any), and to examine proposed changes with an open mind.  This would mark a departure from the policy of CGA.  In effect, this would hold fast to the example and way of life of Mr. Armstrong rather than to a list of his doctrines.  But it also means that members should be taught to believe what they see in their Bibles more than what the leaders and ministers of any Church of God fellowship teach.  Members should not look to the ministry to interpret the Bible for them but to help them see for themselves how the Bible interprets the Bible.  Along with this must be the necessary teaching that the ministry has the authority to set official doctrine taught by the Church and any member who disagrees because he sees something different in the Bible should disagree quietly, not discussing the matter or contradicting the ministry in conversation with other members.

I hope that Mr. Fritts will soon set up a website and communicate where he stands on things and what his intentions are.  I look forward to hearing him.

I also pray for him that God will guide him and hear his prayers and help him in this time.  I also have prayed and will continue to pray that God will use him effectively in doing God's work.

I also hope and pray that, whatever Mr. Fritts decides to do, whatever Christ will lead him to do, there will be peace, and even cooperation to some degree, between Mr. Fritts and Mr. Monson.



What Is the True Gospel?


The true gospel is the good news of the coming kingdom of God, which will be established on this earth to rule the nations.  One of the best descriptions of this good news is given in the Old Testament, in the book of Daniel.

After describing several earthly kingdoms that would arise, this passage says: "And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold - the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure" (Daniel 2:44-45).

That is the heart and core of the gospel message.  And God setting up a kingdom to rule this earth must be in the message for it to be the true gospel.  Exclude this, and you have a false gospel.

But is that the whole gospel?  Is salvation through Jesus Christ part of the gospel?

The true gospel is a massive subject.  The core is God ruling over the earth.  That is like the trunk of the tree.  But a healthy tree has many branches and twigs that are part of the tree too.  You can take away some of the branches and you still have a tree, but if you take away the trunk you have no tree, just a pile of deadwood and kindling made up of dead and dried twigs and branches.

If all you taught was that God would establish His kingdom ruling over the earth, that would technically be the true gospel, but it would not be very complete.  More details would be needed to complete the picture.

For one thing, God's kingdom will not just rule over the earth for one thousand years.  It will rule for eternity, and after the millennium and white throne judgment period it will rule over the universe forever.

Also, people need to be taught the difference between the kingdom of God and the nations ruled by the kingdom of God.  They are not the same, though it would be natural for people to confuse the two.  I used to get those confused.  But Mr. Armstrong correctly understood and taught the difference, and I learned from his writings.

When Christ returns, He and the saints will rule over all nations - all peoples.  We will rule over the Russian people, the Chinese people, the Japanese people - all peoples on earth.  And even after the great tribulation and the Day of the Lord, there will be millions of human beings living on the earth.

But will they be IN the kingdom of God?  Will they be part of the kingdom of God?  No.  They will be ruled by the kingdom of God.  They will be under the kingdom of God.  They themselves will not be part of that kingdom.  They will be ruled by the kingdom but not be in the kingdom.

Who will be in that kingdom?  Christ and the resurrected saints made immortal.  They will BE that kingdom.  Not the humans on earth that they rule over.

That is why the Bible teaches that flesh and blood cannot enter, or see, the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50, John 3:3-8).

In other words, the kingdom of God itself will be the family of God, Christ and His bride the Church resurrected and changed to immortal spirit life.  And that is also part of the good news of the kingdom of God.

God is reproducing Himself in man and that is part of the gospel.  Mr. Armstrong taught, in Mystery of the Ages or The Incredible Human Potential that to do away with this truth is to do away with the gospel.  

In a sense, as Mr. Armstrong taught, the gospel of the kingdom of God is two-fold.  The kingdom of God is the government of God ruling over the earth and later the universe, and it is also the ruling family of God into which Christians can be born.  That ruling family of God will rule over all creation, so both aspects are tied together.  Both are good news.  Both are about the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God will be the family of God into which Christians can be born.  God is reproducing Himself in mankind.  And that family of God will rule over the earth and the universe.  And it will bring peace and happiness to the earth.  Both aspects - the family of God and the government of God - are good news and both are about the kingdom.

But there is more.

Once you establish the core of the gospel message, that God through His family will rule the earth and the universe, there is much more information that will enrich that message and is properly part of it.  There is a lot of detail to add, just as a beautiful tree needs more than just a trunk to be healthy and beautiful.

To enter the kingdom of God, to be part of the ruling family of God, we have to be saved.  The salvation God offers us is the only way we can avoid the death penalty.  It is the only way we can enter that kingdom and be part of it.

And the opportunity for that salvation is part of why the message is good news!

Imagine Christ telling you, 2,000 years ago, "Someday after you are dead, God will establish His kingdom ruling over the nations and there will be great happiness over the whole earth.  But you won't be there and you will die forever because you have sinned and there will never be any opportunity for you to be saved".

Would you call that, "good news"?  I don't think so.  

Salvation is part of the true gospel.  It helps make it, "good news".  Salvation is not the trunk of the tree.  It is not the core of the gospel of the kingdom of God.  By itself, it is not the gospel, any more than a branch is a tree without the trunk.  But it adds important detail to the true gospel of the coming kingdom because it shows how we can be part of that kingdom.  That makes it part of the true gospel when combined with the government and family aspects of the kingdom of God.

And that salvation is made possible by the sacrifice and saving work of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ paid the penalty (or penalties, because there is more than one penalty for sin, not just the death penalty) for our sins so we can be forgiven and saved.  Is that part of the true gospel?  Yes, definitely, provided it is combined with the core message of the family of God ruling over the earth and the universe forever.  Salvation through Jesus Christ cannot stand alone.  If traditional churches teach that alone as the gospel, they are wrong.  

By itself, salvation through Christ is a false gospel.  But when combined with the core of the gospel, the family of God ruling as the government of God over the earth and the universe, it becomes a part of the true gospel.  It adds important detail and enriches the gospel message and becomes part of it.

What else is part of the gospel of the kingdom of God?  What about the law of God?  What about the two great commandments, the three weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23), and the ten commandments?  Is teaching about the law of God part of the gospel?

Yes, because it adds detail to the good news of the kingdom of God.  It teaches us the way of life that will be practiced in the kingdom of God that will make it joyous and happy.  It teaches us the way of life we should learn and practice so that we can be in that kingdom.  That is all part of the gospel.

What about repentance?  Is a call for repentance part of the true gospel of the kingdom of God?  Yes.  Repentance teaches us about the law of God and our need to obey it.  Consider this passage:  "Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel' " (Mark 1:14-15).  Notice that repentance is preached as part of the gospel Jesus preached, for in preaching the gospel, Jesus said, repent.  At least that is how I understand this passage.  It was one message, the gospel, and it included repentance as part of the message.

Repentance is part of the good news of the kingdom of God because we have to repent to be in that kingdom, and because repentance teaches the way of life that will be practiced in the kingdom of God that will make it happy forever.

In its broadest sense everything in the Bible becomes part of the gospel!

Do you think that is an extreme statement?

History in the Bible teaches us what God has done in the past to prepare for the kingdom of God.  The law of God and all of God's instructions in Proverbs, in the epistles, in the gospel accounts, and everywhere in the Bible teach us the way of life we will live in the kingdom of God.  Salvation through Jesus Christ and all that includes - the suffering and death of Christ, faith, repentance, baptism, laying on of hands, receiving the Holy Spirit, and the resurrection at the return of Christ - is part of the good news of the kingdom because it shows us how we can enter the kingdom of God.  

Prophecy in the Bible - all prophecy - is part of the gospel because prophecy teaches us the steps God will take to prepare for and bring about that kingdom.

Everything about Jesus Christ is part of the good news of the kingdom of God because Jesus Christ will be the king of that kingdom.

What part of the Bible is not about history, prophecy, God's law and way of life, Jesus Christ the king of the kingdom, or salvation?  Show me, and I'll agree that that part of the Bible is not part of the gospel.

The whole Bible is about the kingdom of God one way or another.

But everything about Christ, everything about salvation, everything about God's way of life, everything about what God has done in the past or will do in the future to bring about the kingdom of God, everything about how we can enter the kingdom of God - is part of the true gospel IF THE CORE OF THE MESSAGE IS THE FAMILY OF GOD RULING AS THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD OVER THE EARTH AND THE UNIVERSE.

If you make the kingdom of God - the family of God as the government of God ruling the earth and the universe - the focus and core of the gospel message, then you can add all other knowledge and detail about that kingdom, and those details become part of the true gospel of the kingdom of God.

But if you neglect the family of God ruling as the government over the earth and the universe forever, then none of the other things is part of the true gospel.  They become part of this world's false gospel.

With the trunk of the tree, the attached branches and twigs are part of the tree and make it fruitful and beautiful.  But without the trunk, the branches and twigs are not a tree.  They are kindling and firewood, dead, dried up, rotting on the ground.

Do you disagree with that?

This world's Christianity preaches a false gospel.  They teach salvation through Christ.  They teach that He suffered and died so we can be saved.  Some of what they teach is true.  But even if everything they taught about salvation through Christ was true, it would still be a false gospel because they leave out the kingdom.  They don't talk about Christ returning to rule the earth with the saints.

But the Church of God is different.  We teach, as the core of our gospel message, the kingdom of God.  We teach that Christ will return and He, with the resurrected saints, will rule the earth and also the universe forever.  And with that as the core and focus of our gospel message, we also teach about Jesus Christ and many details from the Bible about that kingdom and how we can enter it, and all that becomes part of the gospel.

You can find places in the Bible where someone will preach the gospel of the kingdom and the things concerning Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12).  Does that word "and" mean that Jesus Christ is not part of the gospel of the kingdom?  No.  I do not think that is the intent of the writer.  He is simply saying that he taught the core of the good news of the kingdom and he included knowledge of Christ.  That is how he tells us the completeness of the message.

If the writer only said someone preached the gospel of the kingdom, the reader might wonder, but did he preach about Christ?  Was that included in the gospel he preached?  The writer makes it clear by saying, "and" the things concerning Christ.  In this context, the word "and" can mean "including".  Christ is still part of the gospel.  He will be king of the kingdom of God.  

Suppose I say, "I visited California and all the states of the United States".  You might not like the way I say that, but does that mean California is not part of the United States?

If you want an example of how broad the gospel can be - how all-inclusive - consider this passage.  After talking about how ancient Israel coming out of Egypt was unable to enter the promised land because of unbelief, the writer says,  "For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it" (Hebrews 4:2).  Now, did Moses tell Israel that God would set up a kingdom to rule over all the earth?  Did he teach them God was reproducing Himself in mankind?  I don't think so.  Yet, God calls what Moses taught them "the gospel", the same gospel that was preached to us.

But Moses taught them the law of God, the ten commandments, and that is part of the gospel because it teaches us the way of life that will be lived in the kingdom of God that will make life happy and joyous and make it truly good news.



Terminology vs. Substance


In any doctrinal question or dispute, it is useful to understand what is substance and what is terminology.

I am not sure how much of the controversy in the Church of God about what is the true gospel is substance and how much is terminology.  But we should think about it.

The substance is, what should we preach?  What should we teach?  We can agree that we should teach the core message about the kingdom of God.  We can agree that we should also teach about salvation through Jesus Christ.  So we agree on those things.  That is substance.

Do we call the part about salvation through Christ part of the "gospel"?  That is terminology.

And in this case, substance is more important than terminology.

What should we emphasize?  What should we put priority on?  Now we are getting into substance again.  Our teaching should emphasize the good news of the coming kingdom of God, Christ and the saints ruling over the nations of the world.  We should teach that and salvation through Christ - both.  But the greater emphasis should be on the government aspect.

This makes sense because the general public already knows a great deal about salvation through Christ, not perfectly, but they know.  We don't have to tell people Christ died for their sins.  But fewer people have heard the truth that Christ will return to rule the earth.  So it is fitting that we spend more time emphasizing the part they do not know.

And the people need this knowledge to have hope during the great tribulation and Day of the Lord that their suffering will end when Christ returns to bring peace and joy to the earth.

Share your thoughts in the comments.

 

What Does "Christ Is the Head of the Church" Mean?

Consider the following passages.  "And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence" (Colossians 1:18).  "For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body" (Ephesians 5:23).

Some leaders and ministers like to quote this as a way of bolstering faith and confidence of the members in the leadership of the Church and the ministry and their policies, doctrines, and decisions.

I heard one leader say, in reference to these passages, something like, who is the head of media operations?  Who is the head of church administration?  He mentioned various departments.  His implication was, since Christ is the head of the whole Church He is also the head of all these departments.  His further implication seemed to be, if you criticize those departments or their administrators, you are criticizing Christ.  Since Christ is the head of the Church, He is also the head of all those departments, and He leads their decisions.  If you disagree with their decisions, you are disagreeing with Christ.  

Is that what these passages mean?

Who is the head of church administration in a fellowship?  Who is the head of media operations in a fellowship?  Christ because He is head of the whole Church?  No.  Those are different offices.  The head of church administration is a man, not Christ.  It is a different office, a delegated office, an office that is delegated to a man who can sin or make mistakes and thus make bad decisions.  Christ may or may not allow those bad decisions for a time.  But to criticize bad decisions or bad policies or false doctrines that come from that office is not criticizing Christ.

The Bible says, in a multitude of counselors there is safety (Proverbs 11:14, Proverbs 24:6).  A leader should seek advice.  But how can those who give him advice tell him he is wrong if telling him he is wrong is criticizing Christ?

When Mr. Armstrong taught that Pentecost was on Monday, how could his advisers tell him he was wrong if disagreeing with Mr. Armstrong was disagreeing with Christ?

This may illustrate why saying Christ is head of the Church does not mean He is head of every department in the Church.  Who is the king of the universe?  Who has all authority over everything in heaven and earth?  God the father is king over the universe, and He has delegated all authority and power to Christ.  "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth' " (Matthew 28:18).

So you can say that God the Father is king over the universe, and you can also say that Christ is king over the universe since the Father delegates all authority to Christ.

Now, who is king over the earth right now?  Who is ruler of this evil world?  

"Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.  And the devil said to Him, 'All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.  Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours' " (Luke 4:5-7).  

"I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me" (John 14:30).

"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:1-2).

"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).

Satan is still on the throne of the earth and will be until Christ returns.

Does the fact that Christ rules the universe mean that everything Satan does as ruler of this world is right and above criticism?  Of course not.  Christ allows Satan to make bad choices and decisions for now.

King of the earth is a delegated position, delegated to Satan.  Christ will take over that office in the future, but not yet.

Likewise, in the Church of God, there are delegated positions, offices that men hold, and Christ sometimes allows those men to make bad decisions.  It is not right to say or imply that Christ is head of those positions.  He is head over the whole Church, not each department.  Those are separate offices.  To disagree with the decision of a man is not necessarily disagreeing with Christ.

Yet some leaders of fellowships and ministers may use the argument that, since Christ is the head of the Church, to disagree with a man who holds an office in the Church is to disagree with Christ.  They may say, "Do you believe that Christ is the head of the Church or not?"

This is a false argument.

Look at recent Church history.  When the Church of God fell away from the truth after the death of Mr. Armstrong, Christ still was head of the Church, yet men holding offices in the Church made bad decisions and taught false doctrines.  To disagree with those doctrines and decisions was not disagreeing with Christ.  Christ allowed men to make those bad decisions, but those decisions were not from Christ.

The Bible also shows that God's servants make mistakes.

Consider this passage.  "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.  Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season?  Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing.  Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods.  But if that evil servant says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming,' and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 24:44-51).  

Note, the one who sins in this passage is called a servant.  He is a servant of God and God is his master, but he is also called evil and will be condemned.  So even servants of God can sin.

Take it to the individual member level.  Who is the head of every man in the Church?  "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3).  Does that mean that every man always makes right decisions?  Does that mean that to criticize or disagree with any man in the Church is disagreeing with Christ because Christ is his head?

Is Christ your head?  If He is, does that mean that everything you do and say is above criticism because for someone to disagree with you means they are disagreeing with Christ?  Not always.

Also, note that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church (Ephesians 5:22-24).  Now, does the fact that the husband is the head of the wife mean that the wife always obeys?  You men can answer that.  Likewise, because Christ is our head does not mean we always obey.

The important thing is, just because Christ leads us in a right way does not mean we follow Christ perfectly in that right way.  Christ leads, but we don't always follow where He leads.  We are imperfect.  We make mistakes.  We sin.

This goes for every rank in the Church, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, local elders, and lay members.  None of us in this physical life can be trusted to always follow Christ perfectly.

Don't fall for the argument that every decision a leader in the Church makes is right because Christ is the head of the Church.  That is a false argument.

If you hear a leader of a fellowship or a minister say, "Do you believe that Christ is the head of the Church, or not?", that should be a red flag.  It should set off alarm bells in your mind.  What other cliches or metaphors can I use?

There is another problem here, and that is the use of the word, "church".

What do you mean?  Do you mean the whole Church of God, what some people call the greater Church of God?  It don't like that word "greater" in regard to all the divided Church of God fellowships.  Greater can mean bigger but it can also mean better, and I do not think all the scattered and divided fellowships are "better" than any one fellowship.  So I use the term, "whole Church of God".  What does that include?

I do not say that it includes every fellowship that calls itself "Church of God", or every member that counts himself a member of the Church of God.  It includes everyone, minister or member, who has the Holy Spirit dwelling in him or her (Romans 8:9).

So when a speaker or writer refers to Christ being the head of the Church, does he mean the whole Church of God?  Or does he mean only the one fellowship that speaker is part of?  That is not clarified.

When a leader of a fellowships says, Christ is the head of the Church, as a way of trying to get members to accept that leader's doctrines, does He mean Christ is the head of the whole Church of God including any members or leaders in other fellowships that have God's Holy Spirit, or does he mean just the one fellowship he leads?  This ambiguity is a rhetorical trick, I think.  If he means the whole Church of God, he is technically correct, but it can be said in a way that implies, in the minds of the listeners or readers, that it means just the one fellowship.

And notice, some of the very same leaders or ministers who like to say, Christ is the head of the Church, do not hesitate to criticize other Church of God fellowships or their doctrines.  Are they criticizing Christ?  Or do they think only their fellowship is the true Church?  They won't say that openly, but that may be what they imply.

It is like when a speaker says, we have wonderful unity in the Church.  What?  The whole Church of God is scattered into competing and divided fellowships.  That is not unity.  But he is talking about his own fellowship.  Yet, he calls it, "the Church", implying only his fellowship is the Church.

Another phrase ministers like to use is, "where Christ is working", as if Christ is only working in one place and with one fellowship.  That is nonsense.  They will say that we need to find out where Christ is working, or they will say we should have confidence in the decisions of the Church once we know where Christ is working.

There is no question that some fellowships and some people follow Christ more faithfully and more accurately than others.  Certainly we should try our best to seek out and support a fellowship that is more faithful than others.  But to say, "where Christ is working" implies that He only works in one place or through one man at a time.

That is a myth.

From the time I entered the Church I have heard members say, God only works through one man at a time.  But that is not what the Bible teaches.  God worked through Jeremiah and Ezekiel at the same time, did He not?  He worked through David and Nathan at the same time, using Nathan to rebuke David for his sin (2 Samuel 12:1-12).  He worked through Peter and Paul at the same time (Galatians 2:7-8).

Christ can work through many people at the same time, and each person has free moral agency to follow Christ fully, partly, or not at all.

Our faith must never be in the human leadership of the Church, but only in God and Christ.  We should follow men only as they follow Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1).

Believe God first.  Believe God and His word the Bible more than the Church.  If you disagree with the Church, do not discuss it with other members.  Do not create division.  Disagree quietly and wait for Christ to make the matter clear.  But put God and the Bible first, the Church and its traditions, leadership, and ministry second, in your mind, in your thinking, in your faith.

That is the principle of faith the Bible teaches.

Why Is the Forbidden Tree Called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

I noticed something recently I had not noticed before in my Bible study.

Why is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil named as it is, "knowledge of good and evil"?  Why not just "tree of evil"?

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die' " (Genesis 2:16-17).

Mr. Armstrong correctly taught that Adam had the opportunity to take over the throne of the earth, replacing Satan, if he had conquered Satan by resisting Satan's temptation.  Later in history, Jesus Christ would conquer Satan in the temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13), thus qualifying to take over the throne of the earth in the future (Revelation 11:15-19, Revelation 19:11-16, Revelation 20:1-3).

Adam failed to conquer Satan (Genesis 3:1-24).

What happened then?  God's seven thousand year plan for the salvation of mankind went into effect.  This present evil world, with mankind being led and deceived by Satan, began, and it is destined to last about (or exactly) six thousand years.  We are near the end of that period.  During this six thousand years age of man, man lives his own way under the influence of Satan, without God, which is actually Satan's way.  Mankind is getting a taste of the death, destruction, suffering, and injustice Satan's way brings.  He is getting a bellyful of it.  He is learning the hard lesson that Satan's way brings everything bad.  He is not fully learning that lesson - he will learn it completely later when God teaches him why he has been suffering.  But he is writing a lesson in painful experience, and he will remember later.

At the end of this six thousand year period, Christ will return, the saints will be resurrected, Satan will be put away, and the one thousand year millennium will begin (Revelation 20:4-6).  This will be a period when Christ and the saints will rule and teach mankind God's way of life.  It will be a period of happiness and joy.

Those of this present generation who live into the millennium will see the contrast between the suffering of the first six thousand years and the happiness of the millennium.

Those born in the millennium will know the evil of this present age, not from personal experience, but by the history of this time.  And they will be able to compare that with the happiness they are living in.

The vast majority of the human race to this time, those who live and die before the millennium, will come up in the white throne judgment, the second resurrection, and they, like those in the millennium, will experience the joy and happiness and peace of living God's way of life under the rule of Christ and the saints.  They will be able to compare conditions of their first life with their second physical life, and they will be able to see that God's way which leads to peace and happiness is better than Satan's way which leads to war and death (Ezekiel 37:1-14, Revelation 20:11-15).

So mankind will be able to compare and learn that God's way is better than Satan's way, and much of that learning will be by personal experience.  

In other words, mankind will learn a lesson by experiencing both good and evil.  They will know, by experience, what evil is like and what good is like.  They will be instructed in the causes of good and evil results.  They will learn that God's way is best, and they can choose that way if they wish.

Yet, this whole plan was triggered by Adam's decision to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Maybe none of this is new to you.  Maybe many of you have seen and noticed this before.  But this is the first time I have noticed how the name of the forbidden tree, the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", so exactly matches a description of the seven thousand year plan (or the 7,100 year plan if you want to be precise and include the white throne judgment period assuming it is one hundred years).  This plan could be called, the plan of teaching the human race by the knowledge of good and evil - by experience in other words.

Yet, that plan went into effect with Adam taking of the forbidden tree.  If he had resisted Satan, if he had obeyed God, and if he had taken instead of the tree of life, this past six thousand years of suffering would not have been necessary.

That may be why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is named as it is.  It is not just a descriptive name for the tree itself.  It is a name and a description of the whole plan of God that went into effect when Adam ate of its fruit.  That triggered the plan of God for the human race to learn that God's way is best by experiencing and knowing both good and evil.

And that tree was named, not by Moses, but by God who knew ahead of time what His plan was.  There is no indication in Moses's writings that Moses knew about six thousand years, or about a millennium, or about the white throne judgment.  The name of the tree was not Moses's invention.  It was God naming it what it represented if Adam ate of it.

Mr. Armstrong taught that the tree represented Adam taking to himself the prerogative of deciding what is good and what is evil - taking to himself the right to decide what is wrong and what is right - deciding for himself what is sin rather than believing what God told him is right and wrong.  And the tree can represent that also.  God may have named the tree for both reasons.  It represented Adam deciding for himself what is good and what is evil, and it also represented the plan of God for teaching man by the experience of good and evil, which plan went into effect when Adam ate of the tree.

What Does the Bible Mean When It Says That the Church Is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth?

Consider this passage:  "But if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

The Bible calls the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth.  But what does that mean?  God is telling us something, but what exactly?

This verse is often quoted by ministers and leaders of fellowships that teach the members to believe them more than what they see for themselves in the Bible.  They want the members to believe the ministry in matters of doctrine.  Not just refrain from causing division by openly discussing disagreements or promoting different doctrines among the members.  But actual belief, even if the member is quiet and only believes something different in his or her own mind.  The ministry does not want members believing something different from what the Church teaches.

Such ministers and leaders want the members to believe the Church's interpretation of the Bible rather than the members letting the Bible interpret the Bible and believing God, believing what they see with their own eyes in the Bible.  They want the members to assume that the Church is correct about doctrine.  I heard one minister even say this in a sermon or Bible study.  We should assume the Church is right more than we believe what we see for ourselves in the Bible.

They often quote the passage about the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth to support their position.  Also, they love to say, "Christ is the head of the Church", as if that means that whatever the Church teaches is true because it must come from Christ.

Let's examine this in detail.

The first thing to notice is that this is figurative language.  That cannot be denied.  The Church is not literally ground, dirt, the surface of the earth.  Nor is it literally a pillar made to hold up a literal, physical building, a pillar made of bronze, iron, stone, or wood.  As a figure of speech, it must be interpreted by literal passages of the Bible.

There are many passages that affirm the absolute trustworthiness of God's word, the Bible.  These passages are literal, and can be used to interpret figurative passages.  Here are some of them.

"Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began" (Titus 1:1-2).

"Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us" (Hebrews 6:17-18).

Thus we have two literal statements that God cannot lie.  By this we know that His word, the Bible, is absolutely true.

"If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)" (John 10:35).

This is a third statement that the Bible is true.  It is true because scripture cannot be broken.

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple" (Psalm 19:7).

"It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man.  It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in princes" (Psalm 118:8-9).  This has direct application to the issue of believing the Bible or the Church.  When we believe the Bible we are putting our trust in the God who inspired it, the God who speaks to us through His word, the Bible.  But when we believe the Church, we are putting our trust in men.  Are apostles, pastor generals, prophets, evangelists, and pastors men?  Are they human?  Yes.  Do they sometimes sin, some of them?  Yes.  Do some of them sometimes lie or twist the truth?  Yes.  Do they sometimes make mistakes in doctrine and in understanding the Bible?  Yes.  In this passage, God is saying it is better to put our trust in what He says in His word, the Bible, than in human beings, even human beings in the Church.  That is what Mr. Armstrong did and what Loma Armstrong did, and they set a good example for us.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths" (Proverbs 3:5-6).

"The fear of man brings a snare, But whoever trusts in the LORD shall be safe" (Proverbs 29:25).

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

"The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever" (Psalm 119:160).

"Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth" (John 17:17).

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

"So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD" (Deuteronomy 8:3).

"Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him" (Proverbs 30:5).

"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).  See also Luke 4:4.

Put all this together and the message is clear:  God's word, the Bible, is absolutely true - all of it.

And notice, these statements are not figurative speech.  Statements like "Your word is truth" and "scripture cannot be broken" and "trust in the LORD" are literal statements and absolutely clear.  As such they can be used to interpret figurative statements on the principle of letting the Bible interpret the Bible by using clear scriptures to interpret unclear ones.

Faith means believing God's word, and that is a requirement - we must believe God or we violate God's law, because faith - believing what God says - is a weightier matter of the law.  "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone" (Matthew 23:23).

God rejected ancient Israel and would not let them enter the promised land because of unbelief.

Contrast this with Bible passages that warn against trusting in man.

This passage also shows the superiority of trust in God more than trust in man. Breaking into a thought, "Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: 'That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged' " (Romans 3:4).

Where in the Bible does it say that it is OK to trust men in the Church?  They are still men.  They can and do make mistakes.  They can and do tell lies.  They can teach false doctrines and false interpretations of the Bible.  They are not perfect.  Only God and His word, the Bible, are perfect.  God never sins, He never lies, He never makes mistakes.  His word is sure.  But not the word of human apostles, pastor generals, evangelists, or pastors.

Even prophets can lie, and God gives us an example in the Bible of this (1 Kings 13:1-32).

Just because Christ is head of the Church does not mean everyone in the Church follows where Christ leads.  Christ leads through the Bible and the Holy Spirit and sometimes through circumstances, but He does not take away free moral agency, and men can fail to follow where Christ leads.

The Bible shows the sins and mistakes of God's servants in both the Old Testament and New Testament.

And if anyone wants to argue the point, we have modern Church history that shows us our mistakes.  Mr. Armstrong thought Pentecost was on Monday.  Later, just before his death, he said we should stay united and follow the next pastor general.  After Mr. Armstrong died, the next pastor general, Mr. Tkach, led the Church away from the truth and into false doctrine.

Church of God Seventh Day, the Church that Mr. Armstrong attended, made mistakes in doctrine.  Was Christ the head of that Church?  Yes.  But they still made mistakes.  Christ let them make mistakes.

And today, we can often see the mistakes of various COG fellowships in doctrine.

Let's go back to our study passage and ask some questions.  It says,  "But if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

So what does it mean to say that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth?

Does it mean that the Church is infallible?  No.

Does it mean that the Church never makes a mistake in doctrine?  No.

Does it mean that no leader or minister in the Church of God will ever sin or tell a lie?  No.

Does it mean that we should believe everything the Church teaches, even if it is a mistake or a lie?  No.

Does it mean we should believe the Church more than God?  No.

Does it mean that if we see something in the Bible that contradicts the Church, we should believe the Church and the Church's interpretation of the Bible more than what we see in the Bible with our own eyes?  No.

Notice this passage.  "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).  

Notice, they did not assume that Paul's teaching was right.  They searched the scriptures to find out whether or not what Paul taught was right.  They believed God more than man.  And God praises them by calling them fair-minded (New King James Version) or noble (King James Version), showing them in a positive light as a good example to follow.  Also, their research into the scriptures to find out whether or not Paul was speaking the truth, rather than just believing him, bore good fruit, for many believed.

Read of the examples of Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong in Mr. Armstrong's autobiography.  They believed God, they believed the Bible, more than religious traditions or men, even believing what they saw in the Bible more than what the Church of God Seventh Day, God's true Church at that time, taught.  They did NOT do what a COG minister said - they did not assume that the Church was right in its interpretation of the Bible.

They did not believe the Church of God Seventh Day that it is no longer necessary to keep God's annual holy days.  They believed the Bible, not the Church.  They kept the holy days.

So what does that passage mean?  In what sense is the Church the pillar and ground of the truth?

This is a job description for the Church.  It is from the Church and the witness of the Church that the world can have access to the truth.  As a plant gets nourishment from the ground and springs forth and grows, so the truth should spring up and grow from the Church and from the work of the Church in preaching the gospel.  And we are to be pillars, upholding the truth the best we can.

But there is nothing in this analogy that says that the Church is perfect and its understanding of the Bible is perfect.

Christ says we are to be perfect (Matthew 5:48).  But that does not mean we will achieve perfection in this life.  We are to strive to be perfect in this life, but final perfection will come in the resurrection.  Likewise, the Church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth the best it can, but it will not be perfect in this life.

If this is not what "the pillar and ground of the truth" means, then I do not know what it means.  But it does not mean we should believe the Church more than God.

If we think that we should assume that the Church's interpretation of scripture is truth and always believe the Church, then we are not holding fast to the example and way of life followed by Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong.  They practiced the opposite.  They believed God more than the Church.  And Mr. Armstrong also taught that way of life when he told his radio audience, don't believe me, don't believe any man, believe your Bible, believe God.

And one should keep in mind that members of the Church of God are part of the Church, the pillar and ground of the truth, as much as leaders and ministers.  We are all part of the Church.  If God opens the mind of a member to understand some truth, from the Bible, that the Church does not yet have, who knows if God intends the Church to learn that new point of truth, that new knowledge, from the member, just as the Church of God Seventh Day should have learned new knowledge from the members Herbert W. Armstrong and Loma Armstrong.

Incidentally, Christ rebukes the Pharisees for their hypocrisy in binding heavy burdens on the people they were not willing to bear (Matthew 23:1-4).  But that is what some leaders and ministers do when they tell members not to think for themselves to understand the Bible and just accept whatever the ministry teaches them.  Why?

Because they do not follow the same rule.

When a leader is considering a doctrinal change, what does he do?  He discusses it first with his high-ranking ministers.  He gets their opinion.  He has meetings about it.

But how can they give honest opinions if they never think independently of the Church?  How can they assume the Church is right, as they tell the members, and yet be able to honestly advise the leadership that it is wrong?  That is crazy.

The fact is, they do allow themselves to think independently to advise the leadership, but not so the members.  The members are taught that independent thinking is wrong, because "the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth" and "Christ is the head of the Church".  They do not teach what they themselves practice.

Only God and His word the Bible are infallible.  God does not make mistakes and cannot lie.  Scripture cannot be broken.  Faith means believing what God says in the Bible, and faith is an act of worship towards God.

The Church, its human leadership and ministry, can and do make mistakes.  We must not have faith in the ministry and the Church.  To have faith and trust in human leaders of the Church that only rightly belongs to God is idolatry.  We are putting something before the true God when we believe the ministry more than what we see in the Bible.

If you see something in the Bible that is in contradiction to what your Church of God fellowship teaches, have an open mind.  Do not assume that the Church is right.  Believe God.  But don't cause division.  Don't spread it around, promote it, or discuss it with other members.  Quietly believe God.

If you discuss it with the ministry, be respectful.  And if necessary, wait for Christ to make the correction when He returns.

The "pillar and ground of the truth" does not mean you should believe the Church more than God.

Why is it important that members believe what they see for themselves in the Bible more than they believe the Church?

It is a test of faith.  Just as Abraham's faith in God was tested and it was counted to him as righteousness when He believed God, so it is with members of the Church (Genesis 15:5-6).

There are three reasons why it is wrong to believe the Church more than what you see for yourself in the Bible.

One, it makes no sense logically because the Church can be wrong but the Bible cannot be wrong.

Two, it violates the second commandment, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, because it disqualifies you from getting the gospel and the Ezekiel warning message out to the nations to prepare them for the tribulation that is coming.  They need that preparation.  They need to be warned while there is time to repent so they know God is fair and can be trusted.  Getting that warning message out is an act of love.  But we can't do it if we believe the Church more than God.  Why?  Because to get our message out, we have to be able to say to the public, as Mr. Armstrong did, don't believe us, don't believe any man or church or tradition, believe God, believe your Bible.  But how can we do that if we don't practice that ourselves?  Would we not be hypocrites, telling the public to do someting we are not willing to do ourselves?  And will God let us get the message out through hypocrisy?  I think not.

Believing the Church of God leadership and ministry more than the Bible blocks us from getting God's message to the public, a message they need, and is thus contrary to the law of loving our neighbors.

Three, believing the Church more than God is an act of idolatry.  It violates the spirit of the first and second of the ten commandments.  We are putting the ministry in place of God.  We are putting our faith in men we can see and hear and letting them represent God to us rather than serving the invisible God, just as pagans use visible images to represent the invisible God, contrary to God's law.  The human mind craves to worship images it can see - and with some the ministry in the Church serves that purpose.  

Faith is an act of worship, and we should only have faith towards God, not man.

We should never have faith and trust in the Church of God, the leadership of the Church, its ministry, or its traditions.  We should love and respect the Church and the ministry, but not have the faith and trust in them that belongs only to God.  That is what the world does with its churches, but we must not be like the world.

Faith means believing God, and faith is one of the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23).  Faith - believing God - is thus a matter of the law of God.  Lack of faith, disbelieving what God says, is therefore a violation of the law and is sin.  It was because of unbelief that Israel who came out of Egypt could not enter the promised land (Hebrews 3:12, 19).

Consider the following scenario.

A man (or woman) reads or hears something from his ministry or church.  He reads something in the Bible that seems to contradict it.  Who does he believe?  This is a test of faith.  Does he pass the test by believing the Bible more than his church and traditions, believing God as Abraham did?  Or does he fail the test by failing to believe God's word as ancient Israel failed to believe God?

I didn't give the details in the above scenario, so let me add details now.

The man or woman is Catholic.  The issue is images used in worship.  The Catholic Church teaches that images are OK when used to worship the true God and that the first and second commandment are combined (they split the tenth commandment into two commandments, you shall not covet your neightor's wife and you shall not covet your neighbor's goods, to keep the number of commandments at ten).  But the man reads or hears Mr. Armstrong and the Church teach that God forbids images even in worshipping the true God, and gives the Bible passages to prove it.  He looks it up in the Bible and finds that the Bible does indeed teach against using images in worship.  So who does he believe, the Catholic Church or the Bible?  What should he do?  Who should he believe?

Or, let's change the details.  The man is a member of the Church of God.  He hears some teaching from the leadership and ministry.  But he sees something different in the Bible.  Again, who does he believe?  What should he do?

Spiritually, as far as the law of God is concerned, the situation, in the mind of the person, is EXACTLY the same.  Believe God or believe man.

That is the question.  And is the answer different depending on which church you are talking about?  Of course not.  In the mind of the person who is Catholic, he does not know what is the true church.  He is as loyal to his church as COG members are to God's Church.  The question is, is he willing to believe God first?

There are not two laws of God, one for us in the Church and a different law for outsiders.  God hates a double standard (Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 18:26, Numbers 15:15-16, Leviticus 19:34-36, Deuteronomy 25:13-16).

It is just as wrong to believe the Church of God more than God Himself as to believe the Catholic Church more than God Himself.

Make no mistake.  This is a moral issue.  This is a spiritual matter.  This is a choice a person must make, whether that person is Catholic, Protestant, or Church of God.  Believing God or believing man is a choice between right and wrong, whether the person is uncalled, called but not yet baptized, or converted.  What is sin for one is sin for the other.

Some people have more knowledge than others.  But the choice of believing God or not is the same.  God judges everyone on the basis of the knowledge they have, not the knowledge they do not have.

To deliberately, based on the knowledge one has, choose to believe man more than God is sin.

Amazingly, so many leaders and ministers in the Churches of God just can't see that.  Are they blind?

Consider also the consequences of believing the Church more than the Bible.

Why are we here?  Why do we know the things that we know?

We know the true doctrines because Loma Armstrong and Mr. Armstrong believed the Bible more than any tradition of men even in the true Church.  We are here because hundreds or thousands of radio listeners of Mr. Armstrong checked their Bibles and believed God more than their churches and traditions.  It became a way of life for them.  We enjoy the fruits of that way of life.

But if, while we enjoy the fruits of that way of life practiced by those who came before us, we practice a different way of life, a wrong way of life of believing the Church and our traditions more than God, are we really worthy to continue in the truth?  If we refuse to practice the way of life that led us into that truth, should we continue in that truth?  Will God not take that truth from us if we are unworthy to continue to have it?

Will God not give us the fruits of our ways?  And if we practice a wrong way of holding truth, will not God, at some point, take that truth from us?  For if the Armstrongs and the early radio listeners had believed religious tradition more than their Bibles, we would not have the truth now (not from them, anyway).  So if we disbelieve God, choosing to believe tradition and the Church ministry more than the Bible, will not God give us the results of our ways - continued deception and belief in false doctrine?  Because that is exactly the fruits that Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong would have produced if they made the wrong choice.  If they believed their churches more than the Bible, they would have never known the truth.

When you read or study the Bible, believe God.  Have an open mind.  Love and respect the ministry and the Church.  Pray for them.  Do not cause division.  But believe God first.  Believe what you see in the Bible.  Can you make a mistake?  Of course.  Be willing to consider what the Church says.  But in the end, believe the Bible first, not man.

God says to Sardis, a church that had a name that it was alive and yet was dead, "Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent..." (Revelation 3:3).

Sardis is to remember how they received.  How did the Church of God receive truth?  From the choices of Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong to believe the Bible more than man.

That is what Loma Armstrong did.  That is what Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong did.  That is what many radio listeners did when they heard Mr. Armstrong and looked up the scriptures and supported him and his message.

That is God's way.

Spiritual and Physical Healing, Mr. Armstrong's Teaching Compared with Protestant Teaching

"But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:5-6).

"who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness - by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (1 Peter 2:24-25).

What does the Bible teach about healing?  Is the healing promised by God in Isaiah 53:5-6, "by His stripes we are healed", physical only or both physical and spiritual?  Did Mr. Armstrong ever address this question?  Did he emphasize physical healing only, and if so, why?  What do Protestants teach about the promise of healing through the suffering (stripes) of Christ?

And why do some Church of God fellowships today teach both spiritual and physical healing while one or more others teach physical healing only?

Just a heads up - I do not have the answer to all these questions.  But I can answer some of them, and I will try to address all of them.

First, what is meant by speakers and writers in the Church of God when they use the word "healing"?

Some groups and speakers and writers in the Church acknowledge both spiritual and physical healing.  They may not frequently talk about spiritual healing, but they may mention it from time to time.  In that case, when they say "healing" as a result of the broken body of Jesus Christ, they may mean both spiritual and physical healing.

But if a group never mentions spiritual healing and just uses the term "healing", they are probably only talking about physical healing.  Using the word "healing" without the adjective "spiritual" or "physical" in such a group usually implies physical healing only - not spiritual.  They may not use the term "physical healing" because they want to avoid controversy.  But that is what they probably mean, and if so, they do not acknowledge that we need to be spiritually healed and that Christ's suffering and broken body - "by His stripes we are healed" - enables us to be healed spiritually as well as physically.

Why would some COG groups not acknowledge our need for spiritual healing and appreciate that Christ suffered and was beaten so we can be spiritually as well as physically healed?

Perhaps it is because Mr. Armstrong did not teach and emphasize spiritual healing but rather emphasized physical healing only.  If a group is determined to stick absolutely to what Mr. Armstrong taught, even more than to what the Bible teaches, that might be a reason for them to deny spiritual healing.

What did Mr. Armstrong teach?

I do not know everything Mr. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God under his leadership taught on this subject.  I was only in the Church in the last few years of his life and I only remember physical healing being taught.  It is possible Mr. Armstrong never taught anything, for or against, spiritual healing, at least in the context of the healing made possible by Christ's broken body and described in Isaiah 53:5-6.

Why?

Consider the Protestant interpretation of the healing made possible by Christ's stripes mentioned in Isaiah 53:5-6.

I have not done a thorough survey of Protestant teaching on this or what the commentaries say.  But a lot of what I have run across seems to go to the opposite extreme, claiming spiritual healing only and either denying of minimizing physical healing.

And it may be that Mr. Armstrong, in a reaction against Protestant teaching that denies or minimizes physical healing, emphasized physical healing to the exclusion of spiritual healing.  He may have emphasized that part that Protestantism got wrong as a way of teaching against their false doctrine that this verse in Isaiah 53:5-6 is not about physical healing.

Physical healing was very important to Mr. Armstrong, as anyone who has read his autobiography would know.  Isaiah 53:5-6 refers to both.  By Christ's stripes we are spiritually and physically healed.

If Mr. Armstrong were alive today, if he were asked about spiritual healing, would he agree that by Christ's stripes we are healed both physically and spiritually?  I think he would, because all the elements that lead to this conclusion are present in Mr. Armstrong's teaching in one form or another.

If you consider the biblical reasons for physical healing, you find that the same reasons apply to spiritual healing.  There is a very close parallel between the two.

What does the Bible teach?

I will search Bible passages that mention healing or sickness and quote those that seem to apply to this question.

Does God inspire the words "heal" or "healing" or "sick" in reference to our spiritual condition?  Does He use those words, not just in reference to physical sickness but to spiritual sickness - sin and our sinful nature?  Does God refer to spiritual healing in the Bible?

"For a multitude of the people, many from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover contrary to what was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, 'May the good LORD provide atonement for everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he is not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.' And the LORD listened to Hezekiah and healed the people" (2 Chronicles 30:18-20).  Here, healing seems to refer to the removal of guilt.

David says, in Psalm 41, "I said, 'LORD, be merciful to me; Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You.' " (Psalm 41:4).  David asks God to heal him.  Is he talking about physical healing or spiritual healing?  He does not say, heal my body or heal me of my physical sickness.  There is no record of David being seriously ill, here.  Rather he says, heal my soul because I have sinned against you.  He is talking about spiritual healing.  This is obvious.  This is what God inspired David to write.  This shows that God uses the word "heal" in reference to spiritual healing, not just physical healing.

"Alas, sinful nation, A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers, Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, They have provoked to anger The Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward. Why should you be stricken again? You will revolt more and more. The whole head is sick, And the whole heart faints. From the sole of the foot even to the head, There is no soundness in it, But wounds and bruises and putrefying sores; They have not been closed or bound up, Or soothed with ointment" (Isaiah 1:4-6).  This is talking about spiritual sickness, not physical sickness.  Spiritual sickness requires spiritual healing.

"Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed" (Isaiah 6:10).  Is this talking about physical healing only, or spiritual healing?  It is talking about seeing with the eyes, hearing with the ears, understanding with the hearts, and returning to God.  Is that physical or spiritual?  You be the judge.

"And the LORD will strike Egypt, He will strike and heal it; they will return to the LORD, and He will be entreated by them and heal them" (Isaiah 19:22).  This could be talking about physical or spiritual healing, but I think spiritual healing is the most natural meaning.

"Moreover the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, And the light of the sun will be sevenfold, As the light of seven days, In the day that the LORD binds up the bruise of His people And heals the stroke of their wound" (Isaiah 30:26).

"For I will not contend forever, Nor will I always be angry; For the spirit would fail before Me, And the souls which I have made. For the iniquity of his covetousness I was angry and struck him; I hid and was angry, And he went on backsliding in the way of his heart. I have seen his ways, and will heal him; I will also lead him, And restore comforts to him And to his mourners" (Isaiah 57:16-18).  God says, I have seen his ways and will heal him.  God is not talking about physical sickness but sinful ways. It is his backsliding ways God is concerned about.  That is spiritual, not physical.  And God says He will heal him.  God will heal his backsliding ways.  That is spiritual healing.  Healing is also mentioned in verse 19.

" 'Return, you backsliding children, And I will heal your backslidings.' 'Indeed we do come to You, For You are the LORD our God' " (Jeremiah 3:22).  God says He will heal our backslidings!  Backsliding is not a physical illness.  This is spiritual healing, and God uses the word, "heal".  How could it be more plain?

"Because from the least of them even to the greatest of them, Everyone is given to covetousness; And from the prophet even to the priest, Everyone deals falsely. They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly, Saying, 'Peace, peace!' When there is no peace" (Jeremiah 6:13-14). This is not talking about physical healing.  Who tries to heal a physical disease by saying, peace, peace?  God uses the word "heal" here in the spiritual context.  See also Jeremiah 8:10-11 which says pretty much the same thing.

"Have You utterly rejected Judah? Has Your soul loathed Zion? Why have You stricken us so that there is no healing for us? We looked for peace, but there was no good; And for the time of healing, and there was trouble. We acknowledge, O LORD, our wickedness And the iniquity of our fathers, For we have sinned against You" (Jeremiah 14:19-20).  Healing is contrasted with trouble - we looked for healing and there was trouble.  Is the primary context of this passage physical healing of sickness or spiritual healing of our sins and sinful nature?

"For thus says the LORD: 'Your affliction is incurable, Your wound is severe. There is no one to plead your cause, That you may be bound up; You have no healing medicines" (Jeremiah 30:12-13).

"Babylon has suddenly fallen and been destroyed. Wail for her! Take balm for her pain; Perhaps she may be healed. We would have healed Babylon, But she is not healed. Forsake her, and let us go everyone to his own country; For her judgment reaches to heaven and is lifted up to the skies (Jeremiah 51:8-9).

"How shall I console you? To what shall I liken you, O daughter of Jerusalem? What shall I compare with you, that I may comfort you, O virgin daughter of Zion? For your ruin is spread wide as the sea; Who can heal you?" (Lamentations 2:13).  In this case, healing may refer not only to sin and sinful nature but to the consequences of sin - punishment and destruction.

"The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them" (Ezekiel 34:4).  The healing here may refer to physical healing, or spiritual healing, or both.  I think both.

"When I would have healed Israel, Then the iniquity of Ephraim was uncovered, And the wickedness of Samaria. For they have committed fraud; A thief comes in; A band of robbers takes spoil outside" (Hosea 7:1).

"I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely, For My anger has turned away from him" (Hosea 14:4).  There is no physical sickness or disability called "backsliding".  This is not physical.  Backsliding is a spiritual matter, a spiritual sickness, and God uses the word "heal" meaning spiritual healing.  It is clear from this verse alone that God teaches the concept of spiritual healing in the Bible.

"For indeed I will raise up a shepherd in the land who will not care for those who are cut off, nor seek the young, nor heal those that are broken, nor feed those that still stand. But he will eat the flesh of the fat and tear their hooves in pieces" (Zechariah 11:16).  Does the word "heal" in this passage refer to physical healing only?

" 'But to you who fear My name The Sun of Righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings; And you shall go out And grow fat like stall-fed calves. You shall trample the wicked, For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet On the day that I do this,' Says the LORD of hosts" (Malachi 4:2-3).  God will bring healing in His wings.  Is this only physical healing for our diseases in this physical life?  Look at the context and the time element - the wicked will be ashes under our feet in the day God does this.

"And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, 'Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?' When Jesus heard that, He said to them, 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance' " (Matthew 9:11-13).  Christ equates sinners with those who are sick.  This does not refer to physical sickness but spiritual sickness.  See also Mark 2:16-17 and Luke 5:30-32.  

"For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them' " (Matthew 13:15).  Jesus is quoting from the Old Testament a passage I have quoted above.  It should be obvious by now the healing here refers to spiritual healing.  If Christ is quoting this passage from the Old Testament to refer to physical healing only, this makes no sense.  He is explaining to His disciples why He spoke to the crowds in parables (Matthew 13:10-14).  The Church has long taught that Christ spoke in parables to hide the meaning.  Why?  According this passage Christ quotes, "Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them".  But Christ did heal physically.  He healed those who had physical sicknesses and disabilities in the same crowds that He spoke in parables to so they would not be healed. This is not a contradiction.  He healed them physically, but not spiritually.  He healed them physically, but spoke in parables so they would not understand and turn to Him and be healed spiritually, because it was not their time to be called except for the disciples.

"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them" (John 12:40).

"Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness - by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (1 Peter 2:24-25).  The context is spiritual - like sheep going astray - not physical sickness.

Even Mr. Armstrong, in his autobiography, referred to spiritual healing when he described his repentance and conversion.  He did not use the term "spiritual healing", but that is what he meant.  He did not mean physical healing.  He said that the repentance he went through was the bitterest pill he had to swallow, but it was the only medicine that brought real healing.  This only emphasizes what the Bible clearly taught, that the word "healing" can refer to spiritual healing, not just physical healing.

The Bible definitely uses the term "sickness" to refer to spiritual sickness and the term "healing" in the context of spiritual healing.

Are we to live by every word of God, as we claim, or not (Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4)?  Or are we to live by our traditions like the Pharisees (Matthew 15:1-9, Mark 7:5-13)?

What is spiritual healing?

It includes faith and repentance.  It includes forgiveness and the removal of guilt.  It includes conversion - the receiving of God's Holy Spirit and God's Spirit dwelling inside us, giving us the ability to understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:11-12) and the power and love to overcome our evil human nature (2 Timothy 1:7).  It includes God giving us, through His Spirit, the precious gift of His holy, righteous character.  It includes Christ living His life in us (Galatians 2:20).

Spiritual healing is the replacement of our sinful human nature with God's nature, His holy, righteous character.

In this life, we are to make progress in that direction.  That progress is the start of our spiritual healing.  That healing will be complete at the resurrection when we will become like Christ, glorified, immortal, and unable to sin.

It is like Christ's statement that we are to be perfect as God our Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).  We understand that we will not be perfect in this physical life, but that is the goal we are to strife for, and God will complete our perfection in the resurrection.

Likewise, our spiritual healing begins at conversion.  We make progress in this life and our spiritual healing becomes complete at the resurrection.

There is an analogy with being treated by a doctor for a physical disability or sickness.  When we go to a doctor for a physical problem, the doctor may give us instructions.  We do our part by following the doctor's instructions.  He may tell us to lose weight, to change our diet, or to do certain exercises until we recover.  The doctor helps us but we do our part.

Likewise, with spiritual healing, God provides the healing through His Holy Spirit, but we have our part to do also by striving to live righteously and put sin out of our lives.

I said I thought Mr. Armstrong, if he were alive today, would probably agree that the healing provided by the beaten and broken body of Christ and by the suffering He endured to pay the penalties for our sins refers to spiritual healing as well as physical healing.  I say this because all the elements that lead to our understanding of physical healing are present with spiritual healing and lead to the same conclusion.

You can see the contrast between the natural, carnal state of man as described as the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21), which show our spiritual sickness before conversion, with the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), which show God's nature in us after conversion, which is the beginning of our spiritual healing.

What is the doctrine of physical healing based on?  What is the logic behind it?

Sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).

Physical sin is the transgression of the physical laws of health.

Physical sins - violating the physical laws of health - bring on the penalties of sickness, disease, injuries, and disabilities.  These in turn bring us suffering and pain.

Jesus Christ paid that penalty by his own suffering when He was beaten and scourged (Matthew 27:26).  He was beaten and His body broken to pay the penalty for our physical sins - our violations of the laws of health.  Because He paid the penalty for our physical sins, God can remove the penalty of sickness and injury and heal us physically so we do not have to go on suffering.

The broken unleavened bread we eat at Passover represents Christ's broken body, broken so we can be physically healed.

All this is true and has been taught in the Church for a long time.

But consider spiritual healing.  The same principles, the same logic, apply.

Sin is the transgression of the law.  Just as violations of the physical laws of health can be termed "physical sin", so the violation of God's spiritual law is spiritual sin.

Spiritual sin brings on penalties.  The one penalty that we all know is the death penalty (Romans 6:23).  But that is not the only penalty of sin.  There is a mental penalty that Mr. Armstrong acknowledged.  He taught that when Adam sinned, something happened to his mind (Genesis 3:1-12).  It became perverted, twisted, evil.  The same thing happened to him that happened to Lucifer when he sinned.  Evil nature entered in.  Lucifer was perfect in his ways until sin was found in him.  His way of vanity resulted in the corruption of his wisdom.  He became completely evil.  Sin leads to more sin and to a habit of sin.

And sin brings suffering, as Mr. Armstrong taught.  It leads to guilt, conflict, destruction, war, death, and everything harmful in the long run.  It leads to long-term misery.

Just as physical sin leads to physical suffering, so also spiritual sin leads to spiritual sickness and suffering.

So death is not the only penalty for spiritual sin.  Suffering is also a penalty for our sins and our sinful nature that grows in us as we sin.

Jesus Christ suffered the pain of being beaten and His body broken to pay the penalties of suffering that come from all our sins, spiritual as well as physical.

So there are two penalties for sin:  death and suffering that comes from sin.

Christ died, His blood was shed, to pay the death penalty for our sins so God can give us eternal life and we can live forever.

But Christ was also beaten and He suffered to pay the penalties of suffering that our sins bring upon us, both physical and spiritual.

And just as the unleavened bread broken at Passover represents Christ's broken body to pay, through Christ's pain and suffering, the penalties in sickness and disease we bring upon ourselves by our physical sins and violations of the laws of health, so that same unleavened bread broken at Passover represents Christ's broken body and the suffering He endured to pay the penalty of suffering that comes as the result of spiritual sin - our evil nature that results in suffering through broken marriages, harmed relationships, ruined happiness, conflict, war, destruction, and misery.

The logic of Christ, by His broken body, paying the penalty of suffering for our sins so we can be healed and not have to go on suffering applies equally to physical sin and sickness and spiritual sin and sickness.  Suffering is a penalty for both.  Christ payed the penalty of suffering by His own suffering so we can be healed both spiritually and physically.

It may help to understand the need for spiritual healing if we consider what life would be like in the kingdom of God without it.

For those who deny their need for spiritual healing, consider this.  

Christ paid the death penalty so you don't have to die in the lake of fire.  God can give you immortality so you will live forever.  Christ, by His suffering, also paid the penalty for your physical sins so you are healed of every physical illness that causes suffering.  But what if you are never spiritually healed?  What if you still have your evil, human nature in the kingdom of God?

You enter that kingdom and are given immortality with all the saints in the resurrection.  Now you will live forever.

At first, you are joyous.  No more fear of death, no more physical pain.

But others in the kingdom of God make decisions you don't agree with.  You even find yourself disagreeing, sometimes, with Christ.  Resentment begins to fill your mind.  You become angry.

You disagree with Peter about something and begin to resist him, fight against him.  But you make an alliance with Paul, who agrees with you against Peter.  John and James side with Peter.  Christ has to intervene to separate the two sides.  But eventually war breaks out.  Each side tries to destroy the works and accomplishments of the other.  It is like Lucifer and his rebellion all over again.

Pretty soon the kingdom of God is kingdom of sin, conflict, hatred, and suffering.  And this goes on for all eternity.

Why?

The death penalty has been paid by Christ.  No one dies for their sins.  There is no physical sickness because Christ, by His stripes, enabled us to be physically healed.

But no one has been SPIRITUALLY HEALED.  We still have human nature.  Christ's broken body and suffering was never applied to the spiritual penalties of our sins - the perversion of mind that began to happen to Adam as the result of his sin and happened to us when we began to sin in our human lifetimes.

We will live forever in the kingdom of God, but without spiritual healing, we would still have human nature and we would still be sinning and bringing on suffering because of our sins, forever.

This would be the result if we are never spiritually healed.

Those who deny spiritual healing, those who do not acknowledge spiritual healing, need to consider this.

Being composed of spirit does not mean we won't sin.  Satan and his demons are spirit, but they sin.  We also need to be spiritually healed so we don't sin anymore.

If you are part of a Church of God fellowship that teaches and acknowledges our need for both spiritual and physical healing, when the term "healing" by itself is used, at Passover services for example, the members can correctly understand that it means both physical and spiritual healing, and they can give God thanks for both.

But in a fellowship that does not acknowledge spiritual healing, that term "healing" by itself implies physical healing only, and members will understand it as such.  Therefore, members in such a fellowship will not have a complete explanation of the meaning of the broken bread and what it represents.  This is especially true for a fellowship that refuses to learn new knowledge Christ wants to teach them from the Bible and only follows Mr. Armstrong and his teachings exactly, mistakes and omissions included.

No one should be so arrogant in the sight of God that they think they do not need to be spiritually healed.  No one should fail to give thanks to God and Christ for the beating and suffering Christ endured so we can be healed both physically and spiritually.

We need more than eternal life.  Christ's shed blood, His death, pays the death penalty for us so we can live forever.  But without spiritual healing, that eternal life would be a life of misery.  Christ suffered in our place to save us from that misery by enabling us to be healed spiritually.  

That is an important lesson of Passover.

The Protestants know we need to be spiritually healed.  Many or most of them do not understand the promise of physical healing.  But they know that Christ was beaten for our spiritual healing, even if they do not completely understand what that means.  At least they acknowledge it, though their understanding is limited.

What a shame to the Church of God, and an embarrassment to us, if the Protestants understand the stripes of Christ for our spiritual healing and acknowledge that, while some of us refuse to acknowledge that part of the sacrifice of Christ.  And they do not even keep Passover!

We have no excuse.

Those who do not give God thanks for this at Passover, those who claim Christ as their head, may have to answer to Christ for this in judgment.  I think there is not a better illustration of how some, who say that Christ is their head, do not follow where Christ leads in this matter.  Christ leads through His word the Bible, while some in the Church of God refuse His lead and rather follow their traditions, like the Pharisees, including the traditions of what Herbert W. Armstrong, a man, taught about healing.

Mr. Armstrong practiced a way of life that included correcting his own mistakes in doctrine when he found them.  I have no doubt he would correct his omission of teaching about spiritual healing if he were alive today.  He followed the Bible in other doctrines and I am confident he would follow the Bible in this matter.  But he is not alive today.  The Church, ministry and members alike, should continue his way of life today including correcting doctrinal errors in his teaching as discovered.  But some of us don't, even in the important, even vital, matter of spiritual healing.

For between physical healing and spiritual healing, which is more important?  Physical healing affects some of us and has to do with this temporary physical life only.  Spiritual healing is needed by all of us so that our eternity in the kingdom of God will be happy and joyous, no longer sinful.

No wonder we are in the Laodicean era.

Some have accused those who wore face masks at services of being afraid, lacking courage, not trusting God.  Actually, for many members, that was not an issue of fear of disease or lack of faith in God but respect for God's authority and government in the Church and probably a desire to protect the Church of God from lawsuits that could injure the work and diminish the preaching of the gospel.  The implication is there, though not openly spoken, that some leaders, ministers, and members of fellowships that had restrictions based on the Covid pandemic may be cowards in God's sight.  Yet, are some of who stood up in the matter of face masks and singing now afraid to take a stand on the issue of spiritual healing?  Or do they hide behind the general meaning of the word, "healing", without acknowledging both physical and spiritual healing?  What is more important, more weighty, the matter of singing and wearing face masks or the matter of giving thanks and glory to God for the tremendous sacrifice and suffering of Christ so we can be healed of our evil human nature and be happy in God's kingdom forever?

We should not be ashamed of what we learn in the Bible about such an important matter.

"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels" (Mark 8:38).

Why Was the Sacrifice of Christ Necessary?

Why did Christ have to be sacrificed to pay the penalties for our sins so we can be forgiven?  Why could not God the Father simply forgive our sins without the sacrifice of Christ?  Death is the penalty for sin, but it is God who made that the penalty and He can make exceptions if he wants to.

As an illustration, suppose you owe a man $100,000 and you can't pay.  His son, who loves you, pays the debt on your behalf.  Now you don't have to pay.  The debt is cleared.

But the man you owe money to does not have to require that his son pay your debt.  He can simply forgive it.

This question sometimes comes up.

How would you answer?

If it were just a matter of legal technicality, yes, God the Father could have forgiven our sins without the sacrifice of Christ.  But there is another factor that makes that impossible.

It is God's will to do things the BEST WAY.  And simply forgiving our sins without the sacrifice of Christ is not the best way to save us.  Why?

God is not just saving us from death.  He is teaching us lessons.  He is building His character in us.

It is not enough that God gives us immortality and lets us live forever.  He wants us to have His character.  He wants us to be like Him in holy, righteous character.  He doesn't want His children to live forever in His kingdom fighting and sinning and creating pain and suffering for themselves and others.  He wants us to avoid sin and love each other.

He does not want another Lucifer in His kingdom who starts out right but then turns to sin.

So He requires Christ to pay the penalty for our sins to teach us two lessons, lessons vital for us to learn and lessons that cannot be taught as effectively any other way.

One lesson is the seriousness of sin.  In the kingdom, for it to be a perfect kingdom (and it will be perfect), there can be no sin, not ever, not even once.  We must NEVER sin once we are resurrected immortal and born into God's kingdom and family.  And God sacrificed His Son to show us the seriousness of sin.  God requires that there be penalties for sin and those penalties must be paid. The truth that God will not compromise on this drives the lesson home as nothing else can.

The second lesson is love.  God wants us to love Him with all our being (and love Christ too) and love each other as ourselves with a self-sacrificial love.  God teaches this by the example of Christ.  Christ and His sacrifice shows us what God's love looks like and how we are also to love, not just now, but for eternity.

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another" (John 13:34).

"This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends. You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you. You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. These things I command you, that you love one another" (John 15:12-17).

No, technically, God did not have to require the sacrifice of Christ in order to forgive us, if He didn't care about building His character in us, if He only wanted to let us live forever.

But He wants us to live forever in happiness and joy, and it is God's righteousness and love in us as part of our character that will make that eternal existence happy and joyful.

Requiring the sacrifice of Christ for our forgiveness is the best way to forgive us because it helps to teach us the lessons of righteousness and love.

How great is God's wisdom!  How great is His love!