In understanding Mr. Armstrong's probable role as the Elijah to come and restore all things, would it not make sense to examine the role of the first Elijah and how he did his work?
"Jesus answered and said to them, 'Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things' " (Matthew 17:11). See also Mark 9:12.
I am convinced that Mr. Armstrong was that Elijah to come and restore all things. I won't say I have proved it with 100% certainty in my mind, but the evidence of that seems very strong, even overwhelming. It would be hard for me to imagine anyone restoring more lost knowledge than he did.
But what does that mean, in detail? Does it mean everything Mr. Armstrong taught was infallibly correct? No, because we know from Church history that Mr. Armstrong made mistakes, and he himself said he made mistakes. He admitted error and corrected his own errors. He sometimes changed his own teaching, such as with Pentecost being on a Monday.
And for those who think that he never made a mistake in his teaching that he did not later correct before he died, consider his statement to the Church shortly before naming Mr. Tkach as his successor that we should follow the next pastor general if we want to be in the kingdom of God and we needed to stay united. He did not qualify that statement with, "as he follows Christ", or "as he follows the Bible". Mr. Armstrong did not make that qualification. He just said, follow him - period. But that was a mistake, for we could not follow Mr. Tkach without falling away from the truth. And Mr. Armstrong never corrected that error in the short time before he died.
If God allowed Mr. Armstrong to make mistakes in his teaching, not all of which he corrected in his lifetime, then his teachings cannot be regarded as infallible. That does not negate the good work he did in restoring lost knowledge, and it does not negate his role as the Elijah to come. The first Elijah himself no doubt made mistakes, but not in God's word that became part of the Bible, since the Bible is God's word and is infallible. Mr. Armstrong never claimed his writings were on the same level as the Bible.
How was Mr. Armstrong to fulfill his role as the Elijah to restore all things? Did he work alone or did he use a team of like-minded people to help him? And does that team continue Mr. Armstrong's work of restoring all things even after Mr. Armstrong himself is gone?
To know the answer, we can look at the first Elijah. We can look at events God has recorded in the Bible probably for the very purpose of answering our questions about Mr. Armstrong's role. God put things in the Bible for a purpose. The Bible does not record every detail of every event - it would be a much longer book if it did. God selected which details of which events to give us for our learning. He knew what questions we would be asking today, and He gave us the lessons in scripture we need in order to get the answers we need today.
The work of the first Elijah was not exactly the same as the work of the Elijah to restore all things. But God gave Elijah work to do. He gave him various tasks and assignments, and those tasks were God's work in Elijah's day same as restoring lost truth and preaching the gospel to the public was God's work in Mr. Armstrong's day.
One of those tasks was to anoint Jehu king over Israel. God wanted Jehu to destroy Baal worship in Israel. Notice this passage that describes how God gave Elijah this assignment.
"So it was, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood in the entrance of the cave. Suddenly a voice came to him, and said, 'What are you doing here, Elijah?' And he said, 'I have been very zealous for the Lord God of hosts; because the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take my life.' Then the Lord said to him: 'Go, return on your way to the Wilderness of Damascus; and when you arrive, anoint Hazael as king over Syria. Also you shall anoint Jehu the son of Nimshi as king over Israel. And Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel Meholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place' " (1 Kings 19:13-16).
Now, here is the important part. Elijah did not anoint Jehu as king over Israel personally. In fact, this anointing did not even occur when Elijah was fulfilling his office. This same passage said that Elisha would be prophet in place of Elijah. Elisha would be given Elijah's office when Elijah was removed from the scene. This occurred before Jehu was anointed as prophet.
"And so it was, when they had crossed over, that Elijah said to Elisha, 'Ask! What may I do for you, before I am taken away from you?' Elisha said, 'Please let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.' So he said, 'You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless, if you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not be so.' Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it, and he cried out, 'My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen!' So he saw him no more. And he took hold of his own clothes and tore them into two pieces" (2 Kings 2:9-12).
Then, "Then he took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, and said, 'Where is the Lord God of Elijah?' And when he also had struck the water, it was divided this way and that; and Elisha crossed over. Now when the sons of the prophets who were from Jericho saw him, they said, 'The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha.' And they came to meet him, and bowed to the ground before him" (2 Kings 2:14-15).
Notice, "the sons of the prophets" are mentioned.
This event happened before Jehu was anointed king over Israel. Yet, God gave that job to Elijah. So how was Elijah to anoint Jehu king over Israel after he was taken away by a whirlwind and Elisha received his office?
The answer is, Elijah did not work alone, and those who worked with him continued his work after him. Elijah did anoint Jehu as king, but not directly. He did God's work, the work and assignments and tasks God has given him including the anointing of Jehu, through the work of others he supervised, and they continued that work after Elijah was gone.
This is the example God gives us in the life of Elijah that helps us understand the role of Mr. Armstrong. It makes sense to look at the lessons and examples God gives us about the first Elijah to best understand the role of the Elijah to come in our day.
Here is the account of how Elijah, through the work of those who followed him after he was gone, fulfilled God's commission of anointing Jehu king over Israel.
"And Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets, and said to him, 'Get yourself ready, take this flask of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth Gilead. Now when you arrive at that place, look there for Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi, and go in and make him rise up from among his associates, and take him to an inner room. Then take the flask of oil, and pour it on his head, and say, "Thus says the Lord: 'I have anointed you king over Israel.' " Then open the door and flee, and do not delay.' So the young man, the servant of the prophet, went to Ramoth Gilead. And when he arrived, there were the captains of the army sitting; and he said, 'I have a message for you, Commander.' Jehu said, 'For which one of us?' And he said, 'For you, Commander.' Then he arose and went into the house. And he poured the oil on his head, and said to him, 'Thus says the Lord God of Israel: "I have anointed you king over the people of the Lord, over Israel" ' " (2 Kings 9:1-6).
Notice that, though the anointing of Jehu as king was Elijah's job and commission he received from God in 1 Kings 19:16, it was a group effort. He didn't do it himself directly. It was carried out by those who followed him in his place after he was gone. Elisha continued in Elijah's office, and he gave the job to a young man, one of the sons of the prophets, to do the actual anointing. And God does not even give us the name of this young man. Yet, he did the actual anointing.
It was a team effort.
The "sons of the prophets" are mentioned in accounts regarding Elijah and Elisha. Some have said that there were one or more schools of the prophets at that time. These schools may have been established by Samuel, or by Elijah - the Bible does not say - but it is clear that Elijah and Elisha led the sons of the prophets and used them to do God's work, as needed. At least in the case of the anointing of Jehu, Elisha used one of the sons of the prophets to do it.
The work of Elijah was a team effort.
Not only that, it was a team effort that continued after Elijah was gone. It continued after him.
And it was the work of God, for though it was a son of the prophets who poured oil on Jehu's head, God said that it was He, God, who was anointing Jehu as king (2 Kings 9:6).
So, if you want to really understand Mr. Armstrong's role as the Elijah to come and restore all things, which is part of the work of God in our time, and if you want to understand how that work is to be done and whether or not it continues to the present time, look to the examples God gives us of how the first Elijah did the work God gave him. He didn't do it alone. And the work didn't stop after Elijah was gone. Elijah started it and put it into motion, but it continued after him. God uses these examples, I think, to teach us about Mr. Armstrong.
God anointed Jehu as king, as it says in 2 Kings 9:6. But God did it through human instruments. He gave the job to Elijah in 1 Kings 19:16. Elijah must have passed on the instructions and the job to Elisha to be done after Elijah was taken up by a whirlwind, for Elisha ordered it done in 2 Kings 9:1-3. Elisha delegated the job to an unnamed son of the prophets who did the actual pouring of oil on Jehu's head and passed on God's instructions to Jehu in 2 Kings 9:7-10.
In our time, God gave the job of restoring lost knowledge to Mr. Armstrong. He also gave him other related jobs, including feeding the flock, preaching the gospel to the world, and giving God's warning message to Israel. Mr. Armstrong did that work, and he built a team to help him. He established a college with three campuses. He raised up a Church of God fellowship with many congregations. He trained and ordained evangelists and pastors who wrote articles, went on baptizing tours, and pastored congregations.
The work Mr. Armstrong did, with the help of the colleges and men educated in those colleges and with the help of the whole Church and its members who supported him with tithes, offerings, prayers, and service, was like the work God gave the first Elijah. And as with the first Elijah, it was a team effort.
And Mr. Armstrong's work as the Elijah to come continues today. As the work of the first Elijah was continued by the team Elijah had worked with, so the work of Mr. Armstrong continues today by the Church of God, the team Mr. Armstrong built and worked with. We continue his work.
We continue his work of feeding the flock, do we not? We continue his work of preaching the gospel to the world, do we not? We continue his work of giving a warning message to Israel, do we not? Do we also continue his work of restoring lost knowledge?
Yes, we do.
Just as Elisha and the sons of the prophets continued the work of Elijah after Elijah was gone, it is the Church of God's job today to continue the work of Herbert W. Armstrong, all of it.
It is the job of the Church of God today to continue the job of Mr. Armstrong of restoring truth. Whether certain leaders of various fellowships in the scattered Church today accept new knowledge is a different matter. They are responsible to God. Mr. Armstrong started his work of restoration of knowledge while a lay member of the Church of God Seventh Day, and as part of that job he did research, discovered new truth, and offered that new knowledge to Church of God Seventh Day, but they never accepted it. But he was doing his job, nevertheless.
You cannot use as evidence that we are not to restore knowledge the fact that the scattered Church of God fellowships today do not accept new knowledge. That would be like saying, the ten commandments are not in force because no one obeys them.
You cannot say, Mr. Armstrong was not the Elijah to restore all things because the Church of God Seventh Day never accepted new restored knowledge. That was their choice, their wrong choice, and God rejected them from doing a powerful work of preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning because of it. But even before Mr. Armstrong started an independent work, which became the Worldwide Church of God, he was restoring knowledge for himself and his family and a few who would learn from him.
Mr. Armstrong practiced a way of life, and he taught that way of life to the Church of God by his writings, his speaking, and his example. That way of life includes believing the Bible more than Church of God tradition, learning new knowledge from the Bible and teaching it to the Church, and correcting errors when those errors are found, even errors made by Mr. Armstrong himself.
Has the Church of God corrected any of Mr. Armstrong's teachings? Have they changed anything? Yes. There is one mistake Mr. Armstrong made that he never corrected in his lifetime, but the whole Church of God has corrected it after his death. Even Mr. Sheldon Monson has corrected it or participated in correcting it.
I already mentioned it early in this post. Mr. Armstrong said we were to follow the next pastor general, who turned out to be Mr. Tkach, without qualification that he follow the Bible. No one I know of in the true Church of God follows that mistake. All have acknowledged that it would be error to follow the teachings of Mr. Tkach after Mr. Armstrong died. I am sure Mr. Monson would acknowledge that.
Mr. Armstrong raised up a Church of God fellowship and taught the Church of God the way of life Mr. Armstrong practiced. That way of life includes learning new things and correcting error. The Church of God should continue that way of life today - that is the example God teaches us in the Bible in the events concerning the first Elijah - a type of Mr. Armstrong. We are to continue the work of Mr. Armstrong as Elisha and the sons of the prophets continued the work of the first Elijah.
The work of Mr. Armstrong includes correcting error. Some of that work he completed while alive and some was not completed when he died. As a Church we are to do what Mr. Armstrong himself did not complete.
Mr. Armstrong made a mistake about Pentecost. He taught it was on a Monday. Later, he corrected his own error, and correctly taught it was on a Sunday. Correction of error is part of his work. Near the end of his life, he taught we should follow Mr. Tkach. He died before he could correct that error. But the Church of God, continuing in his work, corrected that error as he himself would have done if he were alive to do so. We corrected that error by leaving Mr. Tkach and establishing fellowships that could continue in the main body of doctrine Mr. Armstrong taught based on the truth of the Bible. We did not follow Mr. Tkach.
I am sure Mr. Monson, Mr. Weston, and most other Church of God leaders and ministers would agree that we were right not to follow Mr. Tkach.
I am not saying that there is a lot of error in Mr. Armstrong's doctrines that needs to be corrected. There is probably very little error, and if there is any error, it is probably minor. There may be additional new knowledge God wants to teach us, however.
The online HWA library that Church of God Assembly (COGA) plans to use for preaching the gospel is generally sound, and I think it can be a useful tool for preaching the gospel. It would certainly be a time saver until the time when COGA can build up its own inventory of literature, perhaps very slowly. When I learned of that plan, my reaction was, "why didn't I think of that?". I don't know if pieces of that literature can be printed, according to copyright law, but I am not an expert in copyright law. In any case, printing may not be necessary. So if this can be made to work, it is probably a good idea, at least for a while.
But the Church of God should not teach its members and ministers that no teaching of Mr. Armstrong should be changed, corrected, or added to. That is contrary to the whole way of life Mr. Armstrong practiced. It is contrary to the work the Church is to do in continuation of Mr. Armstrong's role of restoring lost knowledge. We need to read and study the Bible as we would want our readers and listeners to do when we preach the gospel to them - with an open mind willing to believe what God says more than church tradition and willing to learn new things that God wants to teach us.
How did Elijah do God's work? Did he do all the work God assigned to him personally? Or did he establish or work with an organization, a fellowship, a community that carried on his work after him?
The lesson God teaches us through the examples in the life of Elijah is that Mr. Armstrong's work continues today in the Church, including his work of restoring all things.
Wednesday, December 30, 2020
How Did the First Elijah Do God's Work?
In understanding Mr. Armstrong's probable role as the Elijah to come and restore all things, would it not make sense to examine the role of the first Elijah and how he did his work?
Thursday, December 24, 2020
Is There a Contradiction Between Learning New Knowledge and Recognizing Herbert W. Armstrong as the Elijah to Restore All Things?
Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong could well be, and I think probably was, the Elijah to come to restore all things. Some people latch on to that "all things" to say that, since Mr. Armstrong restored all things, there is nothing left to restore, and doctrine should now be locked in place - no more changes, no more additions, no more discovery in the Bible of new knowledge we did not have before. The thinking seems to be, if we were to discover something new, new truth, new doctrinal knowledge from the Bible, and if we began to believe that new doctrinal knowledge and teach it and practice it and make it a part of the body of doctrinal knowledge of the Church of God, we would be restoring doctrinal knowledge that had been lost. But that would contradict the principle that Mr. Armstrong restored everything, because if some new knowledge was restored today, that would be something Mr. Armstrong did not personally restore, and that would contradict the principle that Mr. Armstrong restored all, things, not just some things and leaving other things to be restored in the future after he died.
I have to respect those who sincerely feel this way, assuming they are basing their beliefs on God's word concerning the Elijah to come and restore all things (Matthew 17:11, Mark 9:12).
But there is a flaw in this thinking, a mistake, and I want to point that out. I hope those who think that we cannot learn and accept new knowledge because that would contradict Mr. Armstrong's role of restoring ALL things will read this post and consider this issue with an open mind.
A person may say, "If I am wrong, tell me, I want to know." This is a commendable attitude, one we should all have, and is endorsed by God's word, which says, "Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning" (Proverbs 9:8-9).
If this thinking - that Mr. Armstrong's role as the Elijah to restore all things prevents learning new knowledge - were correct, it would be hard for me to reconcile it with the principle that we should practice what we preach, and since we teach the public to learn new things and believe the Bible more than their traditions, we have to do the same to successfully preach the gospel and the Ezekiel warning. And we have to preach the message because the majority of Israel who needs a warning has not been reached with the message. So they need the warning, and we need to preach it. But to do this successfully, with God's blessing of an open door, we have to be willing to do what we ask others to do - to learn new knowledge from the Bible and believe what we learn and prove from the Bible more than our traditions. God hates a double standard (Deuteronomy 25:13-16, Exodus 12:49, Numbers 15:15-16, Matthew 23:2-4, Luke 11:46).
So is this a problem of reconciliation? God teaches that the Elijah to come, who I and many others expect was Mr. Armstrong, was to restore ALL things, yet to avoid hypocrisy in preaching the gospel we have to be willing to learn new knowledge from the Bible just as we ask the public to do. But if we learn something new, that would be something Mr. Armstrong did not restore. So apparently, that would contradict Mr. Armstrong's Elijah role, which we believe based on scripture (Matthew 17:11).
How can we be willing to do what we ask the public to do, learn new knowledge, if we expect that there is nothing new to learn - that Mr. Armstrong restored it all?
There is an answer in the Bible.
The Bible teaches that when someone does something through the work of someone else, that action is attributed to the first person who started it, supervised it, or had authority over it.
I have posted about this before, but many current readers of my blog may not have seen my old posts.
The world knows this too. One may say that Henry Ford is the maker of Ford cars. Yet he did not directly make the cars, but he did it through the workmen who worked in his factories. They made the cars, but their work is attributed to the man, Henry Ford, who employed them and caused them to do the work of making cars, and that work continues today. Mr. Armstrong, some of you will remember, used that example. Another example: a historian of World War II may say that Adolf Hitler defeated France in 1940. Yet is was the German army, officers, and soldiers that did the actual fighting and conquering of France - yet that action can be attributed to Hitler because he set it in motion.
God the Father created all things, but through the Word who became Jesus Christ. Christ did the work of creating, but under the authority and supervision of God the Father (John 1:1-3, Ephesians 3:8-9, Colossians 1:15-16, Hebrews 1:1-2).
Look at Mr. Armstrong himself and the work God did through him. He restored truth, yes. But he had human helpers. The whole membership and ministry backed him up. Many articles that taught and expounded on truths that Mr. Armstrong restored were written by other men under Mr. Armstrong's supervision. This truth was given to the public through the tithes and prayers of the membership. It was taught in local congregations by ministers. And there were no doubt times when Mr. Armstrong wanted and asked for feedback and scriptural research from some of his top men before he fully accepted a new idea he had.
He even allowed himself to be corrected, as with Pentecost being on a Monday or Sunday, by men under him.
The whole Elijah work was a group effort. Yet, we attribute the restoring of doctrine to Mr. Armstrong personally because he caused it to happen. He had authority over it. He started it. He set the example. He caused it to happen, though it was Christ working in him, as he often said.
A very clear proof of this principle is in the Bible. "Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)" (John 4:1-2). Notice, the disciples did the actual baptizing. But their action is attributed to Christ who authorized, supervised, and caused them to do it. The practice of baptism continues today.
Mr. Armstrong established the principle by his teaching and example of believing the Bible more than tradition and being willing to learn new knowledge from the Bible. We should continue living by that principle, as Mr. Armstrong taught us, and if we discover and restore doctrine, that restoration can be attributed to Mr. Armstrong as the Elijah to restore all things because he started the process - he taught it to us by word and example - and we continue in the work he started.
If we restore anything, based on the example and teaching of Mr. Armstrong of believing the Bible, then it is Mr. Armstrong who restored it because he started the process, he taught it to us, and we continue in that same work. Anything we restore is something Mr. Armstrong restored, because he caused us to do it, by his teaching and example. We merely continue in his work.
The clearest example of this sort of thing is, coincidently (?), from the life of Elijah himself.
God gave Elijah a job. "Then the Lord said to him: 'Go, return on your way to the Wilderness of Damascus; and when you arrive, anoint Hazael as king over Syria. Also you shall anoint Jehu the son of Nimshi as king over Israel. And Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel Meholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place' " (1 Kings 19:15-16).
So Elijah was to anoint three people for jobs they were to do or offices they were to hold: Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha.
Did Elijah personally anoint these three men before he was taken away? No. The only one he personally appointed to an office and job was Elisha (1 Kings 19:19). After Elijah was taken up by a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:1-14), Elisha, not Elijah, met with Hazael and told him he would be king over Syria. Although it is not mentioned he anointed him, he apparently did, according to God's instructions to Elijah - Hazael did not seem to know before this that he would become king.
But the account of how Jehu was anointed is crystal clear - it was not done by Elijah. It was done by Elisha, under Elisha's authority, and not even directly by him - it was done by an unnamed individual acting under Elisha's instruction, and Elisha probably got the general instruction from Elijah. "And Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets, and said to him, 'Get yourself ready, take this flask of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth Gilead. Now when you arrive at that place, look there for Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi, and go in and make him rise up from among his associates, and take him to an inner room. Then take the flask of oil, and pour it on his head, and say, "Thus says the Lord: 'I have anointed you king over Israel.' " Then open the door and flee, and do not delay' " (2 Kings 9:1).
Notice that God says that it was He who was anointing Jehu king of Israel. God anointed him. But God did it through Elijah by giving Elijah instructions to do so back in 1 Kings 19:15-16. Elijah must have passed it to Elisha, who ordered a servant to do that actual anointing. In other words, the work God gave Elijah in 1 Kings 19:15-16 continued after Elijah was gone. Yet, it was the work of Elijah which God gave him. The work was attributed to Elijah in 1 Kings 19:15-16 even though was not done by Elijah directly - it was done by those who followed Elijah.
Likewise, any new knowledge we discover and teach from the Bible, anything we restore that Mr. Armstrong did not personally and directly restore, is attributed to Mr. Armstrong as the Elijah to restore all things, because Mr. Armstrong started the work of restoration of truth and taught it to the Church of God, and by so doing caused it to happen, even if we are the ones who do it by continuing that work Mr. Armstrong started.
This is a way to reconcile these three things: we are to preach the gospel, we must practice what we tell others to do, and Mr. Armstrong was the Elijah to restore all things.
If you know of another way to reconcile these things, I would like to hear it. If I am wrong, tell me and show me from the Bible, from Church history, and from sound logic. Comments are open.
There is no contradiction between the policy of believing the Bible more than the Church while being willing to learn new knowledge from the Bible, and the recognition of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong as the Elijah to come and restore all things. They fit together when you realize that the work of restoration of doctrine that Mr. Armstrong started should continue today by those who have been trained by his teaching and example. In effect, Mr. Armstrong, by starting the process as Christ led him, continues the work of restoration through us today. In that sense, Mr. Armstrong not only has restored doctrine, but continues to do so now.
The teaching, example, and work of a man of God can continue after his death, according to the Bible. "By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks" (Hebrews 11:4). Notice, God says that Able still speaks to us today, though he is dead. Likewise, the work of Mr. Armstrong of restoring truth as the Elijah to come continues today, though he is dead.
A minister might say, no major new knowledge has been restored to the Church since Mr. Armstrong died.
If you look at the Church as a whole, that may be right, but only because the Church of God has not been willing to accept new knowledge. But that does not mean that some individuals have not learned new knowledge that the Church as a whole has not yet accepted.
You could ask the question, what new knowledge did Mr. Armstrong restore to the Church of God Seventh Day that he originally attended with? The answer is, none. Mr. Armstrong restored nothing to that fellowship. Why? Mr. Armstrong did learn new knowledge that had been lost. Truths were restored to Mr. Armstrong personally, which he accepted. He tried to teach those truths to the Church of God Seventh Day, but they would not accept them.
Likewise, God may restore and teach, through the Bible, more knowledge that Mr. Armstrong did not have to certain individuals, and those individuals may try to give these things to the leadership of various Churches of God, but because of prejudice against new knowledge and fear of offending the majority of members who are against anything new, they reject any new knowledge offered to them by those individuals, who, like Mr. Armstrong, have discovered new knowledge in the Bible.
It is a little unfair, I think, for a minister or COG leader to back up his teaching that we should not learn new things by saying that no new truth has been revealed to the Church since Mr. Armstrong when it is the very bias of that minister and others like him against new knowledge that prevents the Church from accepting new knowledge.
God can restore new knowledge to any man or woman willing to believe God and learn new knowledge. But God cannot use that man or woman to then pass on and restore that new knowledge to a fellowship that is not willing to accept it, just as Mr. Armstrong was not able to restore new truth to the Church of God Seventh Day which was not willing to accept it.
But eventually, God used Mr. Armstrong to raise up a new fellowship that was willing to accept the new truth that Mr. Armstrong was teaching.
A similar thing can happen today.
Since the death of Mr. Armstrong, the Churches of God and all the ministry and membership are being tested in a special way. We are being tested on our willingness to practice the way of life Mr. Armstrong practiced and to practice the way of life God taught us through the teaching and example of Mr. Armstrong. And that way of life includes willingness to believe God more than Church of God tradition and willingness to learn new things from God.
We are all being examined by God right now.
Wednesday, December 2, 2020
We Must Be Willing to Learn New Knowledge
One of the things we ask the public to do when we preach the gospel is to be willing to learn new things, to leave their comfort zone, to learn new things from the Bible they never knew before.
This was one thing Church of God Seventh Day was not willing to do, but Mr. Armstrong was always willing to do. That is one reason, maybe the main reason, why God could not use Church of God Seventh Day to do a great work, but instead used Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong taught his listeners and readers new knowledge, and he himself was always willing to learn new knowledge from the Bible. He practiced what he preached.
Today, too much of the Church of God ministry and leadership is unwilling to learn new knowledge. They just want to stick with what they have, and they rebuke or scorn those lay members who send in suggestions or study papers for changes in doctrine.
One man said something like this: let's not speculate but let us stick to what we know and have proved. In other words, we are not interested in learning new things.
As long as that man has that attitude, I cannot see how God will bless him and his group with an open door for preaching the gospel. When we preach the gospel, we are asking the public to learn new things. If we are not willing to learn new things, we are not practicing what we preach. How can God bless that? I don't think that man will ever be successful in preaching the gospel, unless he repents. And as long as he is against new knowledge, he has no right to claim the title Philadelphian for himself or the group he leads.
Look at the history of the Church since Mr. Armstrong was converted. Philadelphians learn new things from God's word. Mr. Armstrong was that way, and his listeners and readers who helped build the Church of God were that way.
But not now.
No wonder the Church of God today has not been able to reach millions as Mr. Armstrong did. We don't practice what we preach.
Does the Bible teach members to "correct" the Church of God?
In the right way, yes.
Not by spreading doctrinal ideas among the members contrary to the teaching of the leadership and ministry. Not by contradicting the ministry with other members. That causes division.
But the Bible does teach the principle of correcting others, and that can include correcting the Church. What is the proper way for a lay member to correct a doctrinal error in the Church?
By respectfully suggesting the change to the leadership. Then, the leadership can evaluate it and make the change or not. And if he is not honest with the Bible, God will hold him responsible. The member has done his part.
This is what happened with Mr. Armstrong and the Church of God Seventh Day leadership. Mr. Armstrong suggested changes that that group was not willing to make. God held that group responsible and rejected them from doing a great work, and God chose Mr. Armstrong to do that work instead. And Mr. Armstrong was only a lay member, not an apostle, when he first suggested changes.
Consider these Bible passages:
"Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins" (James 5:19-20).
"And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 22:39-40).
"Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter" (Proverbs 24:11).
"When I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand (Ezekiel 3:18).
"Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning" (Proverbs 9:8-9).
There is nothing in these passages that restricts their application from correction to the leadership of a group from a lay member.
Correcting the Church by contradicting the ministry with the membership is not the way to correct the Church. But making respectful suggestions for change to the leadership is the right way.
But in some or most organizations, that is not wise, because the leadership will interpret your attempt to help as rebellion. In that case, it is better not to correct, for, as I quoted above, a wise man will love you, but the wicked will hate you for it.
Some have said, correction always comes from the top down. But the Bible doesn't teach that. Like saying, God only works through one man at a time, it is a myth in the Church of God. Correction, if respectful and given in private, can come from the bottom up. Read about Naaman in 2 Kings 5:11-14. His servants corrected him, in love, and God honored that correction with a miracle. God also included the account to show us that correction can come from the bottom up.
Correction came from the bottom up with Mr. Armstrong and his wife Loma in regards to the Sabbath. She was under his authority, but God used her to teach Mr. Armstrong about the Sabbath.
To be Philadelphian and have an open door for preaching the gospel, we have to practice what we preach. We teach the public to be willing to learn new things from the Bible, and we must always be willing to do the same. If we shut our minds to new knowledge, we may be disqualifying ourselves from having the open door promised to Philadelphians.
To have an open door, a WIDE open door, that will enable us to reach 500 million people with a message of repentance, we have to practice what we preach. We have to strive as hard as we can to overcome sin. We have to believe the Bible more than our Church of God leaders. And we have to be willing to learn new knowledge from the Bible.
God commands us to grow in knowledge (2 Peter 3:18).
If we do these things, I believe God will bless us. If none of us do these things, I do not believe God will bless us, and the work will not get done.
God holds us responsible for warning the world. Blood guilt is on us if we fail (Ezekiel 3:17-21). But to succeed we have to practice what we preach. So unless we do these things, we will fail to get the message out, blood guilt will be on us, and God will count us as murderers.
Could anything be more serious?
Friday, November 27, 2020
We Must Believe the Bible More than Our Church and Its Leadership and Ministry
To practice what we preach, so God gives us a wide open door to finish His work, we need to do what we ask others to do.
When we preach to the world, we say, don't believe us, don't believe any man or church or tradition - believe God - believe your Bible.
This is the message Mr. Armstrong preached, and God gave him a wide open door because Mr. Armstrong himself practiced that as a way of life. He always believed the Bible more than any church leader or tradition or man. This was his way of life even before he was an apostle - while a lay member among the Church of God Seventh Day. He always believed God - the Bible - more than the ministry and leadership of the Church of God Seventh Day. This is made clear in his autobiography.
This is exactly what he asked the public to do. Believe God more than your church, ministry, and the traditions you grew up with. And God blessed Mr. Armstrong because he did just what he asked others to do.
If we believe our ministry and leadership more than the Bible, we are practicing a double standard. God will not bless that.
And it does no good to say, we let the Church leadership and ministry interpret the Bible and tell us what it means. That is what the Catholics do, but we are to be different. We have to let the Bible interpret the Bible.
That means, when you read something in the Bible that contradicts, or seems to contradict what the leadership and ministry in the Church teaches, you must make the choice to believe God more than man.
Some make the point, there are times when we must obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29). This is true, but godly obedience starts with faith in what God says, so we must also believe God rather than man.
When the ministry speaks, they back up their points with scripture. We believe the scriptures they quote, not the man himself. We must believe what we believe because we believe God, not because we believe our Church, our leadership, our ministry, or our traditions. And we must prove from the Bible the major things we believe.
As I have made the point many times before, this does not create division if it is handled right.
A member, or the Church leadership itself, may misunderstand a passage in the Bible. Thus, there can be disagreements. If the matter is important to a member, he may, if he chooses, discuss it privately and respectfully with the pastor or headquarters. In some groups, this may not be wise, and a member may be kicked out for asking questions. But you may be able to do this, depending on what group you are in and the temperment and character of your leadership and pastor.
But don't discuss it with the brethren. Don't try to promote your "pet theory" as they call it. Don't contradict the ministry and undermine their authority in the eyes of other members. Don't try to "correct" the Church of God in that way. Offer your correction to the ministry or leadership in private, if they will accept it.
If you create division by contradicting the ministry and promoting your ideas to the members, you can expect to get kicked out, and rightly so (Romans 16:17-18).
And be humble and willing to be corrected by the ministry. The ministry may show you, from the Bible, where you are wrong. Discussion may resolve the problem. But if it does not, believe God, believe the Bible, even if this means not believing all of the traditions and doctrines of the group you are in.
And the leadership and ministry should teach this. If they teach the members to believe them, the ministry, more than what the members see for themselves in the Bible, they are making idols of themselves, putting themselves in the place of God, which they have no right to do. And I think God is not likely to bless that group with a wide open door as long as the ministry teaches a double standard, telling the public to believe God more than man, but telling their members to believe them because Christ leads them (though they don't always follow Christ).
And what of new people coming into the Church? They are coming in because they are willing to do what the Church has told them, don't believe us, believe the Bible. Then, once they are attending our services, they hear a different message: believe us because Christ is the head of the Church and He guides us in doctrine. That is a double standard. Some of them are likely to walk right out again when they see and hear that our leadership does not practice with the membership what it preaches to the public.
This is why I object so strongly to using Christ as the head of the Church to argue for ministerial authority. It doesn't apply, unless you say the leadership and ministry are infallible and always follow where Christ leads. We all know that isn't true.
We need to always believe what we see in the Bible more than any Church, tradition, man, leadership, or ministry. And the human leader of any group needs to teach this to the membership if he wants a wide open door for preaching the gospel or if he wants to be Philadelphian.
I believe that no true Philadelphian will believe any man or tradition more than the Bible, nor will he let the leadership of his group interpret the Bible for him, nor will he assume that what the leadership teaches is true. He won't cause division, but will quietly believe God more than man. For a true Philadelphian, God will give an open door. But if he is in a group whose leadership is not Philadelphian, that door will only be open a little.
And, because God gives the open door to Philadelphians, God will not lead Philadelphians to leave a group that is preaching the gospel to go to a group that is not preaching the gospel or to go to a group that is not giving it priority. That would be the same as taking the open door from Philadelphians, and God will not do that till the work is done.
We have about 500 million people to warn while they have time to repent and escape before the great tribulation begins.
Wednesday, November 25, 2020
The Giving of Thanks and Praise to God
A basic principle of the Christian life and something we should spend time with is the giving of thanks and praise to God. The Bible is full of instruction in this regard.
"Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God" (Philippians 4:6).
"Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving" (Colossians 4:2).
"Sing praise to the Lord, you saints of His, And give thanks at the remembrance of His holy name" (Psalm 30:4).
"We give thanks to You, O God, we give thanks! For Your wondrous works declare that Your name is near" (Psalm 75:1).
"It is good to give thanks to the Lord, And to sing praises to Your name, O Most High; To declare Your lovingkindness in the morning, And Your faithfulness every night" (Psalm 92:1-2).
"Rejoice in the Lord, you righteous, And give thanks at the remembrance of His holy name" (Psalm 97:12).
"Praise the Lord! Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever" (Psalm 106:1).
"And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 5:18-20).
"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful" (Colossians 3:15).
"Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18).
"Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men" (1 Timothy 2:1).
"Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name" (Hebrews 13:15).
"Whoever offers praise glorifies Me; And to him who orders his conduct aright I will show the salvation of God" (Psalm 50:23).
"Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul! While I live I will praise the Lord; I will sing praises to my God while I have my being" (Psalm 146:1-2).
"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9).
"Then a voice came from the throne, saying, 'Praise our God, all you His servants and those who fear Him, both small and great!' " (Revelation 19:5).
There are many things we can give God thanks for.
Each of us knows his or her own trials and blessings, and we can thank God for our individual blessings. But we can also thank and praise God for His general attributes and blessings He gives to all of us.
We can praise God for His perfect knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and righteousness. We can acknowledge that His will is better, wiser and more righteous, than ours. We can praise Him for his perfect choices, decisions, and works.
We can thank God for His entire creation - the angels, the universe, and mankind. We can thank Him for His wonderful plan of salvation He offers to mankind, including the fact that all people, regardless of circumstances of birth, will have a chance for salvation, and including the awesome potential He offers us to become members of His divine family for eternity.
We can thank Him for Jesus Christ, and we can thank Jesus Christ for His sacrifice and saving work He does for us.
We can thank God for His word, the Bible.
All of us in the Church can thank God for our calling, as firstfruits, and for our minds being opened to understand His word, the Bible.
We can thank God for the Church of God and the ministry. We can thank God for His Holy Spirit and all its benefits.
Each of us can thank God for our individual blessings, and even in those things in which we are not blessed, we can thank God for those blessings He gives to others in the body of Christ, for we are all members of one body. "And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it" (1 Corinthians 12:26). So let us rejoice and give thanks even for the blessings other members of the Church of God enjoy even if some of us do not enjoy those blessings ourselves.
We can give thanks for the general blessings of life that most of humanity can enjoy: food, drink, family life, beauty in nature, etc. God has made and given all these things to make life enjoyable.
Let us all give praise and thanks to God on a regular basis.
Wednesday, November 18, 2020
We Must Strive Hard to Overcome Sin
Last post, I asked the question, is it important to God that we practice what we preach to the public?
It should be obvious to most of us who have read the Bible, but the answer is yes.
It is God's pattern to teach by example as well as instruction.
God teaches us to love. But He and Christ set the example when Christ paid the penalty for our sins with His suffering and death. Paul said, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1). See also 1 Corinthians 4:16, Philippians 3:17, and 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9. He instructed Timothy to be an example (1 Timothy 4:12). Christ said to let our lights shine (Matthew 5:14-16).
Christ said that those who do not obey God will not be in the kingdom of God, though they may do wonderful works of healing, or casting out demons, or preaching to others. "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (Matthew 7:21-23).
Notice also, "And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye" (Matthew 7:3-5).
Christ called the Pharisees hypocrites for laying burdens on others they were not willing to bear themselves. "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers" (Matthew 23:1-4).
Does the Church of God have an open door for preaching the gospel? Some of the Church does, no doubt for the sake of any Philadelphians within it. But the door is not wide open. It is open a little, like a door ajar, and we can squeeze through the opening to do a small work. But it is not yet wide open for us to do the massive work of warning the nations that we have yet to do. The door is not wide open for us today as it was for Mr. Armstrong. We are not growing at 30% a year, and we are not reaching multiple millions with our literature.
I estimate that when you add up the adult populations of all the Israelite nations - the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, France, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, the state of Israel, and the Scandinavian countries, etc. - you come up with about 500 million people. To warn that many people before the great tribulation while there is time for them to repent and escape the punishment, we need a door that is WIDE open, not open just a little.
But no individual or group in the whole Church of God has a door open that wide for preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning to Israel.
I suggest that with too many of us, we are not practicing what we preach, so God is not blessing us with a wide open door.
While we need to continue to preach the gospel and the warning to the world, we need to also work on ourselves to make sure we practice everything we are asking the public to do in our message.
I am going to suggest three areas where some of us fall short, both in the membership and the ministry. Not all have these problems, but each of us should examine ourselves in these areas.
I will talk about one area in this post, and the other two areas in future posts.
Each of us needs to strive hard to overcome any personal sins we have. Any of us who struggles with sin needs to go all out to overcome and quit sinning. This is what we ask the public to do in our warning message.
To escape the great tribulation, the people in our nations need to repent and stop sinning, and they need to try hard to overcome sin. We must do the same.
And we must not make the excuse to ourselves that it is too hard.
We must strive to overcome sin and our sinful human nature no matter how hard it is. We must ask for and trust in God's help through His Holy Spirit at the same time as we go all out with our own efforts to resist temptation. It is not a matter of God's power or our power. We must use both. Samson relied on God's power to help him overthrow the Philistine temple, but he also pushed with all his might (Judges 16:28-30). It was God's power, probably more than 99%, plus Samson's power, probably less than 1%, that brought down the temple. Samson's power was small, but if he had not made the effort, with all the strength he had, probably God would not have helped him.
How hard must we struggle against sin?
How hard would it be for millions of people in the world that we warn to repent and stop sinning? Remember, most of them are not called.
How hard would it be for an uncalled person who hears our message to repent and escape the tribulation?
You might say, impossible. Without God's calling, they cannot repent.
But remember Nineveh in the book of Jonah.
The Ninevites were not called to conversion in this life. Yet, they repented and escaped the punishment. How can we explain that?
The only way I can understand it is that they did not have the depth of repentance required for conversion, which requires God's calling, yet they were afraid of the punishment. Their repentance was not deep and long lasting. But they repented to some degree, and they changed their behavior at that time to escape the punishment.
And though their repentance was not deep enough for conversion, they heeded the message and repented to the degree they were able, and God honored their repentance by sparing them (Jonah 3:1-10).
The same thing could happen today.
Not with the majority, I am sure. The great tribulation will come upon our nations.
But not everyone will necessarily scorn our message. Some few may be afraid of the punishment and will try to repent and make changes in their lives. And God may honor that kind of repentance, though not deep enough for conversion because God has not called them, by at least sparing them from the worst of the tribulation. God can keep them alive and protect them from the worst of the suffering. They may suffer, but not as much as those who make no effort to heed the warning. They may be slaves, yet God may, in His mercy, let their captors show a little compassion.
God can make a difference between those who try to repent and make changes in their lives and those who laugh or rage against our warning message, even among those who are not called.
But how hard will it be for those people to repent and put their sins away without the help of God's Spirit even with them, much less in them?
It will be harder for them than for us.
Yet that is what we are asking them to do with our warning message.
So we must also do what is hard. We must overcome our sins no matter how great the difficulty and effort. We struggle against sin at the same time we support and deliver God's warning message to the nations.
When we do what we ask others to do, God can begin to give us a wide open door to finish the work as He gave a wide open door to Mr. Armstrong.
Friday, November 13, 2020
Is It Important for Philadelphians to Practice What They Preach?
Philadelphians are promised an open door (Revelation 3:7-8). The context and other scripture seem to indicate that this is an open door for preaching the gospel to the world. Church history, with Herbert W. Armstrong, also seems to confirm that the open door promised to Philadelphians refers to the gospel.
So Philadelphians are to preach the gospel.
But should Philadelphians practice what they preach? Is that important to God? To have that open door, to have it wide open, and to walk through that door, is it a requirement that the Church practice what it preaches to the public? Or will God give us a wide open door even if we preach one thing to the public but do something else ourselves? If we have a double standard, will God give us a wide open door to preach what we ourselves do not practice?
In this post, I am only asking the question. Let the reader think about it. Let each of us examine ourselves, as I examine myself, with this question in mind. Are we willing to do what we ask others to do when we preach the gospel and the Ezekiel warning to the public?
This question relating to self-examination perhaps belongs during the time of the days of unleavened bread. But I can't wait.
Wednesday, November 11, 2020
It Looks Like Joe Biden Will Become President
Election results as reported by most or all mainstream news media indicate Joe Biden has won the presidency (by a narrow margin). Although Donald Trump is challenging the reported results in the courts, it looks like he will lose the presidency to Joe Biden. But this is not guaranteed.
This was a close election. The Republicans actually made gains in the House of Representatives, though not enough to obtain a majority. There is a good chance that Republicans will hold a majority in the Senate. This is important because a Republican Senate can restrain attempts by the Democrats to pass radical-left legislation.
This affects the Church of God and the preaching of the gospel. If liberal Democrats had free reign, they could shut down parts of our warning message and try to restrict our freedom to live as Christians.
Conservatives have a 6-to-3 majority on the Supreme Court, and this, plus conservative control of the Senate, can help to restrain the liberal agenda, for a time.
But one effect of the close election and President Trump's challenges is to increase the division in this country. Justified or not, the credibility of Biden's victory has been permanently damaged. During the next four years, while the Democrats control the white house, millions of conservatives will believe that the election was a fraud, that Joe Biden did not really win, and that he should not be regarded as a legitimate holder of the presidency.
On the other hand, if Trump's challenges turn out to be successful and he retains the presidency, the other side will be equally, or more, skeptical.
Either way, the division in this country, which is already extreme, will increase. And a house divided cannot stand (Matthew 12:25, Luke 11:17).
God is allowing the United States to destroy itself from within. Satan is the prime mover in stirring up a spirit of contention and division, and God is allowing him to do it because of our sins.
Moreover, as divisions in the country become more extreme, Europeans will become more skeptical about the reliability of the United States as an ally and our ability to protect them from Russia and other potential enemies. This can motivate them to be more independent and to build an independent military.
One other thing. If it is God's will that conservatives have enough power to keep freedom of religion and speech alive for a number of years, it may be to the advantage of conservatives to have liberal Democrats in charge when long-building problems come to a head and bring various disasters to this country. If there is a severe economic crisis coming, it would be better for conservatives for it to happen on Joe Biden's watch than on Mr. Trump's watch. Republicans may make a rebound in the mid-term congressional elections in two years and the presidency in four years.
Also, Mr. Trump may be able to run for president again in four years, if he can navigate potential personal legal battles till then.
God often gives us the leaders we deserve, even the lowest or basest of men (Daniel 4:17), to test us and teach us lessons in the long run. This principle applies primarily to the world's leaders, but can sometimes apply in the Church of God.
The Church of God is still able to preach the gospel and the Ezekiel warning to Israel and the world, and we should take advantage of this opportunity while it lasts to go all out to support God's message. The time may soon come when we will be restrained from doing so (Amos 8:11-12, John 9:4).
Let's get the warning out now while we can.
Wednesday, October 21, 2020
The Best Way to Teach Church Authority
I firmly believe in the authority of the ministry and top leadership in the Church of God to make decisions in controversial issues.
This authority is challenged from time to time by individuals who strongly disagree about certain issues, strongly enough to oppose the leadership of the fellowship they are with on the issue. Their opposition may or may not be conscience driven. But it often results in the individuals leaving the fellowship they have been a part of, either by quitting or being put out.
But the leadership has been given authority by God to make decisions to carry out the organized work of the Church. Without the unity that comes from that authority, no Church of God fellowship can be very effective in doing the work of God.
And from time to time, that authority must be maintained and enforced.
Part of the maintenance of that authority includes teaching the whole fellowship about that authority - in sermons, sermonettes, and articles.
Since we in the Churches of God have a chosen tradition of believing and obeying the Bible, such authority must come from the Bible and be taught from the Bible. Brethren must be taught, from the Bible, what God says about the authority of the ministry to make decisions in controversial issues, such as the wearing of face masks, singing hymns, or any other matter of detail. The ministry does not have the authority to overturn, change, or abolish God's commands, such as changing the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week. But where the Bible is not clear, the ministry has the authority to decide details of how God's commands are to be kept.
Respect for and submission to church government has long been a major doctrine for the Church, and it is an important character lesson for us to learn to prepare us for the kingdom of God.
How is this to be taught? What scriptures should be used to teach the authority of the leadership and ministry to make decisions for the Church?
There are two ways I have heard.
One is to use the "binding and loosening" scriptures of Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18, and also the "obey" or "rule" scriptures of Hebrews 13:7, 17, 13:24. I will quote these below. Used properly, these scriptures will be applied to decisions regarding the organized work of the Church: the teaching of doctrine, the preaching of the gospel, feeding the flock, caring for the poor, administrating the business of the Church, resolving disputes between members, discipline for unrepentant sin, policy regarding church services and church meetings, times and order of services, etc., baptisms and laying on of hands, etc. I will talk about this more later down below.
A second way is to emphasize the truth that Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23).
I think the first way is a better way to teach ministerial and leadership authority.
While it is true that Christ is the head of the Church, and there are many lessons in that truth, such as the love of Christ for the Church and Christ's authority over the Church, that is not a truth that is best used to support the authority of the ministry.
The problem with the second way, emphasizing that Christ is the head of the Church, is that, when used in the context of the authority of the ministry to make decisions, it carries some misleading baggage that many members, including myself, will not accept. It may hurt the credibility of the ministry more than it helps. I will explain as we go.
The scriptures about binding and loosening and obeying the ministry do not carry the same baggage. It is the best way to teach authority. It is entirely sufficient to make the necessary point about respecting and obeying government and authority in the Church. One can also use the examples in the Old Testament, especially about the examples of those who rebelled against the authority of Moses in the wilderness, and God's instructions to put to death those who refused to obey the priests and judges.
IS GOD CONCERNED ONLY ABOUT OUR OUTWARD WORDS AND ACTIONS, OR ALSO ABOUT OUR INNER THOUGHTS AND ATTITUDES?
To prepare and set the stage for the discussion that follows, I want to talk about our inner thoughts, attitudes, and motives and what they mean to God.
God is not just concerned with what we say and do. He is concerned with how we think and the innermost motives for what we say and do. He knows our hearts, and our hearts are important to Him.
Two people can do the same thing but for different motives. One can do something to help others motivated by love. Another can do exactly the same thing, but motivated by vanity and a desire to look good to others (Matthew 6:1-18). Outwardly, both look the same, but God looks at the heart, and He knows the difference.
God is concerned about both the outward actions and the inward thoughts and motives.
Faith is not an action, though it can lead to right action, but it is an inward state of mind. Abraham was justified by faith. His faith was counted by God as righteousness when he believed what God told him (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:5-9, James 2:21-24). Faith, a state of mind, is listed by Christ as one of the three weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). In other words, faith is a matter of law. To put it another way, God's law requires that we believe what God says. If we disbelieve God, we sin, for we have transgressed one of the three weightier matters of the law, and sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).
The two great commandments require us to love God and love our neighbors. Love is a state of mind, and it is directly connected with action to serve and help. But it is not action only. It is also a matter of the heart. It is heart and action, together. Paul explained that if he gave his body to be burned and gave all his goods to feed the poor (actions), but did not have love, it profits him nothing (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).
God wants us to obey the ministry and leadership of the fellowship we attend. But God is also concerned with our motives. WHY do we obey the ministry? That is important to God, even if a minister doesn't know or doesn't even care.
HOW WE HANDLE DISAGREEMENTS
We all have opinions. God gave us minds to reason with, and we do reason.
And sometimes we disagree with someone or something in our opinions. We may disagree with the leadership and ministry of the fellowship we attend. We may even disagree with something in the Bible, hopefully temporarily.
How we handle such disagreements, mentally, says something about where we place our faith. Faith is closely related to trust. The Old Testament talks much about trust in God and the New Testament talks about faith in God, but they are related. We believe God and His word, the Bible, because we trust God to tell us the truth and never lie to us (Psalm 19:7, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18, and John 10:35).
I am not perfect in faith, or love - far from it - but I will use myself as an example, because it will be easier to talk in the first person, and I understand and can articulate my own thinking better than that of others. I will explain how I try to handle disagreements and how I think I should handle disagreements.
I will start with the Bible. I long ago proved that God exists. I also proved, through fulfilled prophecy and the internal consistency of the Bible, that God inspired the Bible and that the Bible is God's word - God speaking. To believe God means to believe the Bible. To have faith in God means to have faith in His word, the Bible.
I also long ago made a commitment to God and myself, before baptism, that I would unconditionally believe His word, the Bible. I made a determination to trust that God will never lie to me in His word.
So when I read the Bible, I am committed to believe what I read. Some things I may not understand right away (I may not understand what God is saying), but to the degree I understand, I must believe and strive to obey. I may fall short because of human weakness from time to time, but I have never gone back on that commitment.
But as I said before, we all have opinions. Maybe some of you, if you have read this blog for a while, have noticed that I have opinions.
And sometimes I read something in the Bible that is contrary to my opinion. In other words, I find myself in disagreement with the Bible, and since the Bible is God speaking, I find myself in disagreement with God, at least at first.
How do I handle this?
I remind myself of my commitment to believe God and I try to set aside my disagreement and my opinion. I mentally reverse gears and try to agree with God. I remind myself that God is greater than I am, that He is perfect in knowledge, understanding, wisdom and righteousness, and I am not. His mind is far greater than mine, and if my opinion differs from His word, then my opinion is wrong and I must get rid of it. He has reasons for what He says that I may be too stupid or limited to know and understand. It is my job as a Christian to trust God's word and believe it in everything. I have to sacrifice, or "put to death", any disagreement I have with God. I don't say I do a perfect job of this, but I acknowledge at least that this is what I should do, and as a way of life, I try to live this way.
Ok, what about disagreements I may have with the ministry and leadership of the Church?
That is different.
Biblical faith is towards God, not men. I don't want to handle disagreements with the ministry the same way I handle disagreements with the Bible. I trust God 100% because I know He is incapable of error or sin. I do not want to trust men, even men who are ministers, the same way. For me, that would be idolatry. History and life experience show that all men are imperfect, all men are capable of error and sin, and the Bible shows this too.
Yet ministers, though they make mistakes, have authority from God to make decisions for the Church of God.
A note on terminology I am using: "leadership" or "government" in the Church of God is used to refer to men, not Christ. I don't remember hearing anyone in the Church refer to Christ as "leadership". So when I say, "leadership", I mean the president of a fellowship, or the chairman of the board, or the "apostle", or the pastor general, or the presiding evangelist, or whatever title may be used. The top guy. The top man. The top human being. Not Christ. Leadership in a larger sense can also include other high ranking ministers, such as a council of elders. They are the decision makers in the Church, under Christ.
So what do I do if I find myself in disagreement with the leadership of a Church of God fellowship I attend when I am under the authority of that leadership? The disagreement can be over a matter of doctrine or a matter of policy.
I try to keep an open mind. I try to be humble and realize I could have made a mistake. This is the attitude I should have (but I am human). But the leadership is human too, and they all admit they make mistakes. I keep that in mind also.
If it is important, I may discuss it with the ministry, privately and respectfully. Or I may keep the matter to myself.
But I do not discuss it with other members, or I should not. That causes division. That inevitably undermines the authority of the ministry in the eyes of others if I contradict or criticize the leadership and ministry. So I keep the matter quiet in my own heart (1 Corinthians 1:10, Romans 16:17).
I believe and am convinced that the respect God wants us to have for the ministry includes not contradicting them or criticizing them with other members. The exception would be something foundational and of major importance, such as some of the issues that came up with Mr. Tkach. But in that case, I would expect to leave. I would not stay in a fellowship that taught Sunday as the Sabbath, the trinity, the immortality of the soul, Christmas, and Easter. In that case, while on my way out the door, I might briefly speak my mind to whoever asks me why I am leaving.
Assuming the matter I disagree with is not foundational (not a minister saying God makes mistakes, the Bible cannot be trusted, etc.), how do I handle my disagreement with the leadership, besides not criticizing or causing division?
If the matter of my disagreement is a matter of church doctrine - the doctrines that may be taught by the Church - I keep the matter in my own heart. My beliefs are based on the Bible, and I must believe the Bible first.
If I see something in the Bible that contradicts what the leadership teaches, I will believe God more than man. Someone would have to show me my error in the Bible, or God would have to open my mind to see my error, before I will change. It has to come from the Bible. I will not believe anything the ministry teaches that contradicts the Bible. Ministers will have to prove their case by the Bible. If they can't prove a doctrine that way, I am not obligated to believe that doctrine. I don't talk about my disagreement, I don't promote it as a pet idea, I don't create division among the members. But I believe what I see in the Bible more than the Church. I keep it within my heart. And I won't lie about it and tell people I agree with the Church when I don't. I avoid discussion of that point.
I will never assume, as one minister taught his listeners to do, that the ministry is right in its interpretation of the Bible. That is what Catholics do. But we in the Church of God must let the Bible interpret the Bible, as Mr. Armstrong tried to do and taught the Church of God to do.
Incidentally, Mr. Armstrong was an example of one who would never believe the ministry or leadership of the Church he attended more than what he saw in his own Bible. He always believed God more than man, even ministers. He always let the Bible interpret the Bible. He always believed God first, more than the traditions or leadership of any Church. (By "always" I mean after he learned the truth.) And that was not because he was an apostle. That was his way of life from the beginning before he was an apostle or even a minister, from the earliest days when he attended with the Church of God Seventh Day. It was simply a part of a way of life of trusting God more than man (Jeremiah 17:5-8).
And he taught that way of life to his radio listeners. He said, "Don't believe me, believe God, believe your Bible", or words to that effect. And those who did just that and proved the truth in the Bible backed up Mr. Armstrong with their tithes and offerings and helped build the Church of God. We are here because they believed God more than their own ministers and traditions.
Getting back to the main thread of this discussion, if the disagreement I have is over Church policy, such as the wearing of face masks or singing of hymns or any other detail, I will obey the ministry even while I disagree. I will cooperate the best I can. The only exception is if they tell me to violate a clear command of God. If they tell me to tell a lie, I will refuse, because the Bible is clear that God commands we not lie. If they command me to paint a widow's house on the Sabbath, I will refuse. But if they tell me to wear a face mask, I will cooperate, cheerfully if I can, even if I disagree with that policy. Not only will I cooperate and obey, but I will do my best to help make the policy work as the ministry wants it to work. At least I should do that (did I mention I am human?).
A football analogy helps here (there are some advantages to watching football, I guess).
In a game, the quarterback is calling the plays. Not all quarterbacks choose their plays - sometimes plays are called by the coach and sent in - but some experienced and trusted quarterbacks choose and call their own plays. So in my example, the quarterback calls the plays.
He calls a pass play. But a player thinks that is a mistake. He thinks it is a bad call. He figures the other side expects a pass play, and this would be a good time for a running play.
But the quarterback is in charge and he calls a pass play. And the player who disagrees, cooperates. He does his very best to make the play work. All the players try to make the play work whether they agree with the call or not.
Maybe the call for a pass play really is a mistake. But everyone works as a team to make it work, because if they went in different directions, you would have chaos. The team would lose the game.
That is the attitude I should have if I disagree with a Church command to wear a face mask and practice social distancing at services. Not only should I obey, but I should try to make the policy work out. I should give 100% support. I should not talk against the policy. No one should know I disagree.
TEACHING PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH
What is wrong with using "Christ as head of the Church" scriptures to teach respect and obedience to the authority of the ministry and leadership?
I said it carries bad baggage. What is that baggage?
Here are the scriptures: "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). "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).
These scriptures teach us about our relationship with Christ, that it is a marriage relationship, and they teach us about the love Christ has for us. They can teach us many things.
But we should be careful how we use them to back up the authority of men - leaders and top ministers - in the Church.
When these scriptures are used to back up ministerial authority, there is an unspoken implication that the decisions made by the ministry and leadership are correct decisions, because Christ, as head of the Church, guides those decisions. To disagree with those decisions is to disagree with Christ. That is the message, right? Why else emphasize that Christ is the head of the Church?
The problem is that, the fact that Christ is the head of the Church does not mean that the decisions made by the leadership are correct and have Christ's approval. Why? Two reasons.
One, Christ allows ministers and leaders to make mistakes. All ministers I know of admit they make mistakes. But they may say that Christ will not allow them to make mistakes that would harm the Church. I will give an example later of a mistake allowed by Christ that may have harmed anyone who believed and followed the mistake.
But also, Christ does not take away free moral agency. Men sin. Christians sin. Ministers and leaders sin. And God allows it. Even God's true servants have human weaknesses and sin. They do not always believe and teach from the Bible honestly. A minister can be dishonest with scriptures and not fully realize it in his own mind. He thinks he is being honest, but deep in his mind he is not fully believing what God says. Any of us can have this problem. "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). It is not just the heart of the unconverted that is deceitful. A converted Christian can also deceive himself. The difference between the converted and the unconverted is that the converted have the opportunity, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to overcome Satan and human nature. He can excape from self-deception, but it takes time, and he may not fully do it.
The leadership of a Church of God fellowship may not follow where Christ leads. Christ will offer perfect leadership, and that leadership comes primarily through the Bible, but ministers and top leadership do not always follow Christ's lead. They may follow His lead in some things, but not in others. They may follow His lead 99%, or 90%, or 75%, or 40%, or not at all.
To feel certain that the decisions made by ministers led by Christ are correct, we must not only have faith in Christ that He will exercise perfect leadership, which is right, but we must also have faith in the ministry and leadership that they will follow where Christ leads, which is wrong. They may not follow, and thus the decisions they make may not be from Christ at all.
Using Christ-as-the-head-of-the-Church argument to justify decisions, implying that those decisions are right because they are from Christ and the leadership follows Christ, implies and requires faith in the human ministry which properly belongs only to God. Otherwise, it does not show that decisions are right and does not back up ministerial authority.
So if the leadership makes a decision on policy that I think is a mistake and I do not agree with, I do not try to force myself to mentally agree. I do not assume the leadership is right and I am wrong because Christ is head of the Church. It may be that the leadership is not following Christ's lead on that point. And if my disagreement is based on a true understanding of the Bible, that is probably the case.
But I cooperate. I obey. Like a football player, I support the quarterback and try to make the play work even if the play called by the quarterback is less than the best.
There are plenty of passages in the Bible that directly teach respect for and obedience to the commands of the ministry. These include binding and loosening authority, obey those who rule over you, and many others, including case examples from old and new testaments.
But using the Christ-as-head-of-the-Church argument subtlety teaches faith in man, which is idolatry.
Does Christ-as-head-of-the-Church argument for ministerial authority really lead to faith in man?
Yes. I am not making this stuff up. I do not have an over-active imagination in this case.
Immediately after a sermon in which a minister used the Christ-as-head-of-the-Church argument to justify authority, another minister, in giving the closing prayer, asked God to help us have faith in the leadership of the Church. You can be sure He was not talking about Christ when he said, "leadership". He was praying that we have faith in men, the top man and the top ministers in the Church - faith that they will follow where Christ leads. That's one prayer I could not say "Amen" to. I do not want that kind of faith in men. If I had that kind of faith, I would have had faith in Mr. Armstrong to do what he said and follow Mr. Tkach, whether Mr. Tkach followed the Bible or not. I would have fallen away from the truth.
I am glad I never had that kind of faith.
Why did the man who gave the closing prayer ask God to give us faith in the human leadership? He understood, correctly, that the sermon speaker in using the Christ-as-head-of-the-Church argument to back authority was implying trust and faith in human beings to follow Christ. He knew that. He knew what was being implied and taught. He just didn't know it was wrong.
The Bible is clear that we are not to have faith or trust in man, but only God. Ministers who think they are exceptions because they are ministers are not exceptions.
I can give ministers respect, love, cooperation, support, and obedience, even though they are not perfect. But not faith. Not absolute trust. That is a form of worship, and it rightfully belongs only to God.
IDOLATRY IN THE CHURCH
The Bible and history are full of examples of those who have broken the second commandment, and sometimes the first as well, by making and using physical images and idols as objects of worship or as "aids" to worship. We may mentally laugh at their stupidity. God Himself in the Bible pokes fun at their foolishness.
We think we are immune. But any member of the Church of God can make an idol out of His minister or the top leader of His fellowship.
We have the same human nature as the people of ancient times. Our minds naturally want to worship something we can see or someone we can talk to face to face. As the ancients used images made of wood, stone, or precious metals to represent what they think God looked like, so we today can use the person of a minister to represent God and what He teaches. That is easier than Bible study, isn't it? Just ask the minister a question, and believe what he tells you as if it is from God. That saves time.
The Church of God ministers must know this can happen. Do they warn against it?
When was the last time you heard a sermon titled, "The Dangers of Making an Idol out of Your Minister"? If you never hear that, is that because there is no danger - that it never happens? Or is it because the ministry itself does not see it as a bad thing and a danger?
I promised examples to help prove my point. Here are two.
Think back to the last weeks or months of Mr. Armstrong's life. He was dying. After all the years he did God's work with energy and zeal, after all the study he did, after all the experiences he had and lessons he learned, after all the healings and fastings, he knew he would soon die. If ever his spiritual discernment was at the maximum, you would think this would be the time.
He named Mr. Tkach as his successor. Some think this was a mistake, but it was not. Mr. Armstrong's thinking was in error. He thought Mr. Tkach would be faithful to the doctrines Mr. Armstrong taught. But it was the correct decision for a different reason. Christ wanted to try and test the Church of God for our good in the end. So Christ appointed Mr. Tkach for the purpose of testing and scattering the Church. And Christ is still testing us today. So Mr. Armstrong made the right decision, but for the wrong reason, and Christ allowed that.
But before this, Mr. Armstrong made a mistake, a serious mistake that hurt anyone who believed and followed that mistake, but it was not the naming of Mr. Tkach.
The mistake I am referring to happened before Mr. Tkach was named. It was something Mr. Armstrong said in a sermon, I think in his last sermon to the whole Church.
He talked about his impending death. He talked about government. He said that if he should die Christ would provide a new pastor general and that we better follow that pastor general and stay united if we want to be in the kingdom of God. Maybe not those exact words - I am not quoting - but pretty close to those words. You can probably find a recording of that sermon on the Internet someplace.
And what is important in this example is that Mr. Armstrong did not qualify our "following" that man on his following the Bible. He didn't say, follow the next pastor general as he follows Christ. He didn't say, follow the next pastor general as he follows the Bible. There was no mention of the Bible regarding following the next pastor general. And this from a man who built the Church on radio broadcasts that said, "Don't believe me. Don't believe any man. Believe God. Believe your Bible", or words to that effect.
I am not judging or criticizing Mr. Armstrong personally. I deeply respect him and I miss him. I look forward to meeting him in the kingdom of God. I never met him in this life. God did a tremendous work through him.
But if God allowed a man as important as Mr. Armstrong to tell the Church we better follow Mr. Tkach (not the Bible) if we want to be in the kingdom of God, then Christ could allow any leader today to make errors just as serious. I don't know of any leader that rates himself greater than Herbert W. Armstrong. Or maybe some do, but they don't openly admit it (they wouldn't dare).
And make no doubt about it - it was a very serious error. Anyone who believed and obeyed that statement of Mr. Armstrong would soon fall away from the truth.
And some did have faith in Mr. Armstrong. Some have faith in him today, saying his teachings should never be changed. Let them go follow Mr. Tkach or his son and their teachings. That was what Mr. Armstrong said to do. Let them not change that doctrine.
But Christ allowed it. Why? Probably to teach us a lesson, that we should not give ministers the same trust and faith we give to God and the Bible.
Here is an example from the Bible.
God saved Israel through a man named Gideon. Gideon was faithful to God, and God did a great work through him (Judges 6:11-4, 7:1-25, 8:1-13).
The people of Israel were grateful to Gideon and wanted him as their ruler. Gideon said, "I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you" (Judges 8:23). So far, so good. Gideon seemed to start with the right attitude and approach.
But then, Gideon made an idol, and it became a snare to him and his house and Israel (Judges 8:24-27). Yet, hundreds of years later, Gideon is mentioned in the faith chapter of Hebrews (Hebrews 11:32-33). So apparently God forgave him, and I expect that he will be in the kingdom of God.
But it was still a serious error made by someone through whom God did a great work. And it was a snare to those who believed and followed his error. They should have respected Gideon's office, but had no part in his idol.
Those who disagreed with Mr. Armstrong's statement that we should follow Mr. Tkach were not disagreeing with Christ, though Christ is the head of the Church. And those in Gideon's day who may have disagreed with his idol were not disagreeing with Christ.
And if you disagree with the leadership of the fellowship you attend, you are not necessarily disagreeing with Christ, who is the head of the Church. The leadership may not be following Christ, and their decisions may not come from Christ, though Christ allows those decisions.
But disagree quietly. Respect the office. Cooperate as much as possible. Wait on God. That is God's way.
SUMMARY OF MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY
God has given the ministry authority over certain things. But not everything. It is a limited authority. It has boundaries.
Basically, the leadership and ministry have authority over the organized work of the Church. This includes policies on the conduct of Sabbath and holy day and feast services. It includes preaching the gospel to the world. It includes disciplining church members who have unrepentant sin. It includes counseling in a variety of matters. It includes teaching and answering questions. It includes financial aid to the poor and serving the needs of the brethren in various ways. It includes resolving disputes between members. It includes determining the doctrines that may be taught so we all speak the same thing. It includes determining who will hold offices of deacon, local elder, pastor, evangelist, etc. It includes baptizing and the laying on of hands and anointing for healing. It includes praying for the membership, which the ministry should do (Acts 6:2-4).
Notice: "And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues" (1 Corinthians 12:28). "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head - Christ - from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love" (Ephesians 4:11-16).
But ministers do not have authority over family matters not related to the organized work of the Church. They do not decide if the wife takes a job, or what house the family buys, where they live, how much TV the kids watch, where they go for vacation, whether they eat steak or chicken for dinner, etc. In these matters, the husband rules under Christ directly, not through the ministry. "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). "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right" (Ephesians 6:1).
"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).
And no man, minister or husband, has authority over any member in the matter of personal faith, prayer, and obedience to God's way of life as commanded in the God's word, the Bible. We each have a direct relationship with God our Father authorized by Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3, Galatians 3:28-29). When we pray, we pray to God directly, not through the ministry. When a wife prays, she prays to God directly, not through her husband.
In our direct relationship with God, no man or minister is a mediator between us and God. Only Jesus Christ serves that function. "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).
If a minister, or a husband, or any person commands any of us to break one of God's commandments, we must obey God rather than man. In this case, Christ's rulership of each individual member is direct, not through the Church.
We communicate to God directly. When we pray, we speak to God, and when we read the Bible, God speaks to us. And God gives each of us the Holy Spirit to help us.
PREACHING THE GOSPEL
God promises Philadelphian Christians an open door for preaching the gospel (Revelation 3:8).
The Philadelphia era of the Church of God is over. We are in the Laodicean era, and the Laodicean condition is predominant over the majority of the whole Church of God.
But there are still a few Philadelphian members, not the majority, but some. They will finish God's work of preaching the gospel to the world and the Ezekiel warning to Israel, and then will go to a place of safety before the tribulation begins (Revelation 3:10).
These Philadelphians may be scattered. But to the extent any fellowship has Philadelphians within itself, God will give that fellowship an open door for the gospel for the sake of the Philadelphians within it. Yet, that door may not be open wide, just a little, if that fellowship itself - the leadership, ministry, and majority of the members - is not Philadelphian in character.
Mr. Armstrong had a wide open door. The Plain Truth magazine had a circulation between seven and ten million. Today, no fellowship has a truly wide open door. Few if any fellowships have a magazine circulation more than 500,000. We are today only scratching the surface of what needs to be done.
It may be helpful to look closely at Mr. Armstrong's way of life to see why God blessed him with a wide open door for preaching the gospel and the Ezekiel warning.
What is needed for preaching the gospel at this time?
To be effective, we cannot tell our audience to believe us because we are the true church and have the true ministers. They just won't believe or respect that kind of message. They think they have the truth, so why should they believe us? They think their church is the true church and their ministers are the true ministers, and how can we refute that by our own authority - authority they do not recognize? We are fools if we try that approach.
We have to use God's word as our authority. We have to tell the people to believe God, to believe God's word, the Bible, not us, not any man or minister or church or tradition. That is the only approach that has any logic behind it.
That is what Mr. Armstrong did when he told his audience not to believe him but to believe God, to believe the Bible. Then he proved his case by the Bible. He also taught that we should not let any man interpret the Bible for us but to let the Bible interpret itself.
But in God's way of life, a man must practice what he preaches. If we preach a message, even the right message, but do not practice that message, God is less likely to bless us in the preaching of that message. To obtain God's blessing to be effective, we have to practice what we preach, right?
Christ is our example. He taught the truth, but also practiced the truth - He practiced what He preached.
So whoever God chose to preach the gospel in this end time, a gospel that is different from what most people have grown up believing, a gospel that requires that people learn new things from the Bible and believe the Bible more than their church traditions, the man or group that does the preaching must practice that same way - the way of believing the Bible directly, not as interpreted by any man or group, and the way of learning new things from the Bible - growing in grace and knowledge (2 Peter 3:18). Because that is exactly what those who listen to us must do to respond to our message. That is exactly what we are asking people to do. And we must do the same thing for God to bless us with an open door.
Look at the history of the Church over the last 100 years. You can get much of this history from Mr. Armstrong's autobiography, and some of it you may have observed as it happened since the autobiography was written.
Mr. Armstrong first began attending the Church of God Seventh Day. While Mr. Armstrong was a lay member, maybe before, God had started revealing new knowledge from the Bible to Mr. Armstrong.
But first, God tested Mr. Armstrong. In fact, God tested Loma Armstrong before that.
A Church of God member revealed, through the Bible, the truth about the Sabbath to Loma Armstrong.
This was a test. Would Mrs. Armstrong believe the Bible or her own church traditions? Was she willing to believe God or man? Was she willing to learn new things from the Bible?
She was. She believed God more than her traditions and what she was taught by ministers. She was willing to learn new things from God. She believed God about the Sabbath.
She joyously brought this new knowledge of the truth to her husband.
But Mr. Armstrong did not accept it, at first. He commanded her to give up the Sabbath, but she refused, obeying God rather than man.
So Mr. Armstrong carefully studied the issue in the Bible.
In the end, he was faced with a choice - to believe God or the traditions and teaching of men. He also passed the test. He believed God more than man.
He began to fellowship with the Church of God Seventh Day. God had revealed or was in the process of revealing new truth to Mr. Armstrong, including the identity of the lost ten tribes of Israel and the need for the Church to keep the annual holy days and festivals of God.
The Church of God Seventh Day did not have these new truths, and Mr. Armstrong began to share new knowledge of God's truth with them, truth he was discovering in the Bible. And notice, he did this while only a lay member. Though he was only a lay member, in effect, he disagreed with the Church of God Seventh Day about certain doctrines, and he tried to teach them from the Bible.
He was in exactly the same position as a sincere, converted COG member who sends a study paper to headquarters of the fellowship he attends suggesting new knowledge or a change in doctrine, trying to be helpful.
In effect, God was using a lay member of the Church of God (in the person of Mr. Armstrong) to test the Church of God Seventh Day and its leadership to see if they were willing to practice what needed to be preached - to see if they were willing to believe God (through the scriptures Mr. Armstrong showed them) more than their traditions and more than their leadership and ministry. They were not. They failed the test. They were not willing to learn new things from the Bible, things different from their traditions and what their leadership and ministry taught them. (A few lay members apparently were willing to believe and learn from God, but not the leadership, ministry, and Church as a whole.)
So picture this. God needed someone to preach to the public that they should believe God more than their churches and their traditions and be willing to learn new things from the Bible. But first, whoever God gave that job to had to be willing to do the same thing.
So God first tested Loma Armstrong. She passed the test.
Then God used Loma to test Mr. Armstrong. After some initial resistance, he passed the test.
Then God used Mr. Armstrong to test the Church of God Seventh Day. They failed the test.
So God could not use Church of God Seventh Day to get the message out to the world. They were not willing to practice what needed to be preached. He could not give that group the open door promised to Philadelphia. Mr. Armstrong eventually, when he understood the eras of the Church, concluded that Church of God Seventh Day was Sardis in their spiritual condition.
Instead, God gave that job to Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong, both of whom passed the test. God gave them an open door, and the Philadelphia era of the Church of God began.
But Mr. Armstrong is dead, and we still need an open door to finish the work. Hundreds of millions of Israelites need to hear a warning message while there is time for them to repent and escape the tribulation. They need to hear that message so they know God is fair to warn them. They need to learn to trust God, and how hard that will be if they don't get a warning.
We have an open door, but it is open only a little - not wide open, not open enough to do the job that needs to be done.
We need God's blessing for more power and a wide open door to really finish the work.
But for that we have to pass the same test Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong passed, and Church of God Seventh Day failed - to practice what we preach, to learn new knowledge from the Bible, to believe God more than any leadership, minister, or tradition. We have to believe God directly - letting the Bible interpret the Bible - more than we believe the Church of God and its leadership, ministry, and traditions.
That is the price we have to pay to give a warning message to 500 million Israelites before the great tribulation begins.
Philadelphian Christians will be willing to pay that price. They will respect human authority in the Church, but will believe God more than man. They will learn new things from God. They will love their neighbors enough to sacrifice for the gospel and the warning, financially and otherwise. They will do what it takes. Those of other spiritual conditions, such as Laodicea and Sardis, will not.
A couple of incidental points about Philadelphia while I am on that subject.
Some members and groups claim to be Philadelphian. But Philadelphia is one of two churches in the seven churches of Revelation that Christ has no criticism of, only praise. Thus, to claim to be Philadelphian is a form of self praise. I do not think that it is appropriate, especially for a group that has no open door or only a door open a little for preaching the gospel, to claim the title of Philadelphia.
If someone asks me, "Author, are you a Philadelphian?", if I say yes, I am praising myself. I would rather wait till Christ returns and let Him praise me, if that is His judgment. Claiming to be Philadelphian is not a sign of humility.
Rather, I should say that being or becoming Philadelphian is my goal, something I strive for, but have not yet reached. I have a lot to overcome - I know it and God knows it even if no one else does. I really need God's mercy.
I would also like to make the point that it is unlikely that any true Philadelphian at this time would leave a group and pull tithes and offerings out of that group that is effectively preaching the gospel to join a group that has not proven by fruits that it gives priority to preaching the gospel and has no effective work in that direction, even after many weeks since it started. A group that claims to be Philadelphian but has no effective work of preaching the gospel, does not have the open door Christ promises to Philadelphia. They may be a magnet for the unruly, but not a magnet to draw Philadelphians. I do not expect God to take away the open door from Philadelphians by sending them to a group that has no open door.
And if you want proof of what a group regards as important, follow the money. Look at their budget. That may sound cynical, but it is not. It is practical.
If a new group forms that is not willing to spend money on the gospel, but only on feeding the flock, I don't care how zealous their words are - they don't need my tithes and offerings.
For God to give us a wide open door, we must say to the public, don't believe us, believe God, believe your Bible, and let the Bible interpret the Bible. AND WE MUST PRACTICE THE SAME THING. We must be willing to learn new things from the Bible. We must be willing to believe what we see in the Bible more than what our leadership and ministers tell us. We must not let the ministry interpret the Bible for us, but we must let the Bible interpret the Bible. We must believe and obey God more than man, even more than the Church.
God hates a double standard (Exodus 12:49, Deuteronomy 25:13-16). The leadership and ministry must say the same thing to their tithe-paying members as to the general public - don't believe us, believe God, believe the Bible.
Christ is the head of the Church, but using that truth to imply that the decisions and doctrines of the Church are always from Christ, or to use that truth to support the authority of the leadership, undermines what we have to practice to preach the gospel, because it implies that the leadership and ministry follow where Christ leads, which is not always the case. That approach teaches faith in man, which is wrong.
To preach the gospel powerfully, we have to practice what we preach, and we cannot have faith in our Church of God leadership more than the Bible, because we do not want our audience we preach to to have faith in their ministers more than the Bible.
God and the Bible must come first, the Church second. Philadelphians must understand this.
IMPORTANCE OF MENTAL ATTITUDE - DO WE HAVE TO SAY EVERYTHING WE THINK?
Some people may not see or agree with the importance of what I am saying. After all, if a member does not outwardly criticize, disagree, and cause division, what difference does it make how he thinks inwardly? Especially to ministers, this may seem unimportant. If a member outwardly obeys, he pays his tithes, he stays in the organization, and he never criticizes, then he is a "good member" as far as the ministry is concerned. A minister may not know or care if the member makes an idol of the ministry and Church and believes the Church more than what he sees in his own Bible.
Yet God knows the hearts of the members, and the Bible is clear that the heart is very important to God.
And it is God who must open the door if we are to reach Israel and the world with the true gospel and the Ezekiel warning. He can open it wide or only a little, depending on the hearts of most of the members - and the ministers also.
A member can have an excellent relationship with the Church and the ministry, but not a good relationship with God. Ministers need to be concerned about that, if they love the brethren.
Some people have difficulty with the concept of disagreeing inwardly but not criticizing openly. To them, whatever pops into their minds comes out of their mouths. They don't know how to keep silent. They think it is hypocrisy. The whole idea of having an opinion contrary to the Church leadership based on believing God's word, the Bible, yet not telling other brethren about it is utterly foreign to them.
For them, to think is to talk. One requires the other. Silence is not golden. They can't keep secrets. They have diarrhea of the mouth. Don't tell your problems to such a one. They may gossip it all over the Church.
But that is not the way God and Christ are. They do not tell us everything they know, and they do not tell the world everything they think. Neither do they tell everything to the angels.
Believing what God says in the Bible more than the Church leadership, even when it causes one to disagree with the Church, yet refraining from talking about that disagreement and causing division, is the only way I know of to reconcile the principles of the Bible. If someone knows something different, I would like to hear it.