Worldwide Church of God: A convert to OT/NT onlyism?

In the early 1930s, Herbert Armstrong began a radio ministry, a magazine and a church that eventually became "The World Tomorrow," The Plain Truth, and the Worldwide Church of God. He had many unusual doctrines. These he taught so enthusiastically that eventually more than 100,000 people attended weekly services. After he died in 1986, church leaders began to realize that many of his doctrines were not biblical. These doctrines were rejected. Today the church and The Plain Truth are in full agreement with the statement of faith of the National Association of Evangelicals. Here is the story of how the church developed and how it changed.

Jesus Christ changes lives. He can change an organization, too. This is the story of how the Lord changed the Worldwide Church of God from an unorthodox church on the fringes of Christianity, into an evangelical church that believes and teaches orthodox doctrines.

The story involves both pain and joy. Thousands of members left the church. Income is less than one fourth of what it once was. But thousands of members are rejoicing with renewed zeal for their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The story begins in Oregon, in the 1920s. Herbert Armstrong, a newspaper advertising designer, accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior. He described it in his autobiography:

"Jesus Christ had bought and paid for my life by His death. It really belonged to Him, and now I told Him He could have it! From then on, this defeated no-good life of mine was God's. I didn't see how it could be worth anything to Him. But it was His to use as His instrument, if He thought He could use it....

"In surrendering to God in complete repentance, I found unspeakable joy in accepting Jesus Christ as personal Savior and my present High Priest.... Somehow I began to realize a new fellowship and friendship had come into my life. I began to be conscious of a contact and fellowship with Christ, and with God the Father.

"When I read and studied the Bible, God was talking to me, and now I loved to listen! I began to pray, and knew that in prayer I was talking with God. I was not yet very well acquainted with God. But one gets to be better acquainted with another by constant contact and continuous conversation. So I continued in the study of the Bible. I began to write, in article form, the things I was learning."

As Herbert Armstrong studied the Bible, he came to a number of unusual conclusions. Eventually, he began to preach and to lead small congregations of believers. In the early 1930s, he started a radio program and a small magazine.

Armstrong often focused on areas in which his conclusions were different from traditional doctrines. This aroused interest. He emphasized the unusual, the never-before-understood. With advertising flair, he created interest in various doctrines by teaching things that other preachers did not.

Most people did not accept his unusual views, but he persuaded a few people that traditional churches were wrong, and that he had the truth. This small group supported the radio ministry (called The World Tomorrow) and the magazine (called The Plain Truth). Finances were always tight, but the ministry gradually grew along the Pacific Coast of the United States.

In 1947, Herbert Armstrong moved his ministry to southern California, so that he could have better access to the radio industry. He also began a small school to train leaders for the church -- Ambassador College, in Pasadena. Finances continued to be very tight, but the ministry continued to grow as time was purchased on more and more radio stations.

Since the message went out by radio throughout North America, the people who responded to the message were scattered throughout the United States and Canada. Young graduates of Ambassador College were then sent to various cities to gather the believers into small churches.

The church grew rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s. The radio program was sent to England, Australia, the Philippines, Latin America, and Africa. Church offices were opened in numerous nations around the world. The name of the church was changed from "Radio Church of God" to "Worldwide Church of God."

But growth began to slow in the 1970s. Christ did not return in 1975, as many ministers had speculated. Minor doctrines were changed, weakening some members' respect for Armstrong's doctrinal authority. Armstrong's son, widely considered to be an heir apparent, was accused of improprieties, and he eventually left with a few thousand other members to form the Church of God International.

Another article about Herbert Armstrong For photos of Herbert Armstrong, see Transformed by Truth

Nevertheless, many people continued to be attracted to Herbert Armstrong's style and teachings, and the church continued to grow slowly until Armstrong died in 1986 at the age of 93. He left a denomination that numbered 120,000 people in attendance every week. Annual income was 200 million dollars. Plain Truth circulation was in the millions every month, and the television program was one of the top two religious programs in America.

As the Worldwide Church of God criticized traditional Christianity, it also attracted criticism. Many people considered Herbert Armstrong to be the leader of a heretical cult. Today, the leaders of the Worldwide Church of God reject Armstrong's doctrinal errors, but we do not hide our past. Rather, we acknowledge that our errors were deep and serious, but that Christ has rescued us from them.

In some ways, we were like Saul of Tarsus, who zealously persecuted Christians. He was confronted by Christ, transformed, and given a new mission. Although he began to preach about Jesus right away, his most significant work did not come until more than ten years later, when he became Paul, the missionary apostle.

We hope that we are also used by Christ to proclaim his gospel worldwide. But that is getting ahead of the story. In order to understand the Worldwide Church of God today, it is helpful to see how we started. We turn our attention now to the doctrinal mix that made Armstrong both interesting and unorthodox.

Three doctrines were instrumental in Armstrong's conversion: 1) That God is the Creator, 2) That the Bible is true, and 3) That the Bible does not change the Sabbath to Sunday. Armstrong was guided to this third doctrine by a member of the Church of God (Seventh Day), a small group that has some similarities to the Seventh-day Adventists.

Armstrong was eager to obey God, and he saw in Scripture that God commanded his people to keep the seventh day as a Sabbath. Although most Christians do not keep the seventh day, no one was able to prove to Armstrong that God ever authorized his people to change or ignore this commandment. Armstrong felt that he had to choose between Bible and tradition, and he chose the Bible. However, he had no seminary training, nor any disciplined study of church history, biblical interpretation, or the original languages of Scripture.

He reasoned that if traditional Christianity could be wrong about such a major topic, perhaps they were wrong on other things, too. Armstrong became skeptical of all Christian tradition and he studied everything from scratch. He could not find biblical proof for many traditional doctrines. This bias against traditional orthodoxy became part of the WCG culture, and it was an advertising hook that captured many people's interest.

Armstrong had a high respect for Scripture. If the Bible said it, he was willing to do it, no matter how difficult it might be. His zeal is commendable -- and his respect for Scripture made his message more believable. "Don't believe me," he often said, "believe the Bible. Blow the dust off your own Bible, and read what it says." Many people were surprised at what they found.

Armstrong believed that Jesus is God, but he usually gave much more emphasis to God the Father. That is because some churches focused so much on Jesus that they offered "cheap grace" (as Dietrich Bonhoeffer later called it). Armstrong emphasized God's role as Lawgiver, as One who is to be obeyed.

Armstrong accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins, as divine. But he did not have the theological training to know how to reconcile the biblical data that Jesus is God and the Father is God and yet there is only one God. He mistakenly taught that God is a family, and that the Father and the Son are two beings in that family, and that when humans are resurrected, they will be born again as members of the God Family.

Armstrong did not see biblical proof that the Holy Spirit was a distinct person, so he taught that the Holy Spirit was an impersonal force. In this, his teaching was similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses, but there is no evidence that he obtained his doctrine from them. This anti-trinitarian view had circulated in several groups.

Armstrong preached that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, but he also stressed the necessity of obeying God. An emphasis on law-keeping formed another major component of WCG culture.

Armstrong believed that if a person loves God, the person will obey God's commands. If a person does not keep the Sabbath, Armstrong concluded, then that person must not love God. Unfortunately, he viewed the Sabbath as the ``test commandment'' — in effect, a requirement for being considered a true Christian. Other churches were false churches, children of the devil.

In addition to the weekly Sabbath, the WCG observed seven annual Sabbaths, based on Leviticus 23. WCG members also avoided pork, shrimp and certain other meats (Lev. 11). They gave one tithe to support the ministry, used another to keep the annual Sabbaths, and in some years gave a third tithe to the church for its poor members. The financial requirements were high, but they also increased the levels of commitment. Where a person's treasure is, there the heart will be also. Members of the WCG had their hearts in the church and its work.

Armstrong taught that repentance involves a change in behavior, that Christianity involves a way of life. In the WCG, this focused primarily on prohibitions. WCG members were not allowed to vote, serve in the military, marry after divorce, go to doctors, use cosmetics, or observe Christmas, Easter and birthdays. All this emphasis on rules, however, meant that grace was rarely mentioned. Many members became legalistic in their own relationship with God, and judgmental of other Christians.

Armstrong viewed himself as God's apostle, leading the one true church. Armstrong had supreme doctrinal authority. If anyone was disloyal, that person would most likely be fired and expelled from the church fellowship. (Legally, Armstrong was under the authority of a board of directors, but they always supported his decisions.)

Armstrong also had many unusual ideas about prophecy, and these may have been the most attractive doctrines of all. He taught that the United States and Britain are modern descendants of the northern ten tribes of Israel, and that therefore many biblical prophecies apply to the Anglo-Saxon peoples. He saw himself as an end-time fulfillment of prophecy, with a message of warning for the "Israelite" peoples.

The Great Tribulation would soon start, he warned in the 1930s, in the 1940s, in the 1950s, in the 1960s, in the 1970s, and in the 1980s — but the good news is that Christ will soon return and rule for 1,000 years. In fact, the millennium was so important to Armstrong that it became the center of the gospel. It was the reason the radio and television broadcasts were titled ``The World Tomorrow.'' The millennium was the good news.

Obviously, there are a lot of doctrinal errors in this list. Equally obviously, we would not describe them as errors unless we had understood why they were in error. We have worked hard to inform our own members about where we went wrong --- and we say "we" with all honesty, for all the current leaders of the church once believed and taught these erroneous doctrines. We have all criticized other Christians as false, deceived, children of the devil.

We have much to apologize for. We are profoundly sorry that we persecuted Christians and created dissention and disunity in the body of Christ. We seek forgiveness and reconciliation.

Much of our doctrinal foundation was faulty. And yet part of it was true. Some of our members came from other denominations, but others were unchurched people who had little previous exposure to Christianity. Many people came to Christ in the Worldwide Church of God, accepted his death for their sins, and trusted in him for salvation. Many lives were transformed from sin and selfishness, to service and humility. A germ of life continued inside the crust of erroneous doctrines.

After Herbert Armstrong died, that germ of life slowly began to grow, breaking off the crust that had once limited it. It took many years --- and many tears. Here's the story:

In 1986, shortly before he died, Herbert Armstrong appointed Joseph Tkach (pronounced Ta-cotch) to be his successor. Tkach had been a loyalist who supervised all the ministers. He was more an administrator than the magnetic personality that Armstrong had been. Tkach assigned other people to present the television program and write the articles.

The church continued to grow slowly. In 1988, Tkach made minor doctrinal changes. He taught members that it was permissible to go to doctors, take medicines, observe birthdays and wear cosmetics. He realized that many of the prophetic speculations that had made the television program and magazine so interesting couldn't actually be proven from Scripture.

Questions also arose about some of the things that Armstrong had written, and some of his books were withdrawn from circulation until further study could resolve the questions. Some members were troubled that the church was no longer teaching the same things that Armstrong had, and in 1989, 3,000 members left to form the Philadelphia Church of God to preserve Armstrong doctrines.

In 1990, the church peaked at 133,000 in weekly attendance. More doctrinal changes were made as Tkach realized that some of Armstrong's unusual beliefs, though sincere, were not biblical. The focus of the gospel is Jesus Christ and grace, not prophecy or the millennium. Budgetary reductions began to affect the television broadcast. More Armstrong literature was discontinued and/or edited.

In 1991, Tkach revised the church's explanation of what it means to be born again, noting also that humans will never become Gods. He also announced a study about the modern identity of the lost ten tribes, and accepted the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Membership, attendance, and income began to decrease slowly.

In 1992, income continued to decrease, and a prominent minister and 3,000 members left to form the Global Church of God.

In 1993, the church accepted the doctrine of the Trinity. The church declared that the cross was not a pagan symbol, that it is not a sin to have illustrations of Jesus, and that Christians may vote. Such changes may seem inconsequential to most Christians, but each change was significant for WCG members because each change attacked strongly held beliefs about how we ought to express our devotion to God. Each change had to be explained from the Scriptures and had to explain how previous explanations were not correct.

In 1994, the television program was cancelled and employees were laid off. The church also explained to the members that true Christians can be found in other denominations.

But perhaps the most traumatic change came in December 1994: Tkach announced that Christians do not have to keep old covenant laws such as the weekly and annual Sabbaths, two and three tithes, and avoid pork, shrimp and other meats. In many ways, the Sabbath had been the foundational doctrine of the entire denomination, so this was the biggest change of all. (Click here for the text of the sermon Tkach used to announce these changes, and click here to see a menu of papers analyzing these doctrines.)

Many members did not accept these changes. After decades of understanding their identity as Christians in terms of Sabbath-keeping, and after making many sacrifices in order to keep the Sabbath, they could not easily accept the idea that it really didn't matter.

In early 1995, hundreds of ministers and 12,000 members left to form the United Church of God. Thousands more stopped attending any church, and many congregations were left with only half the members they used to have. Church income dropped another 50 percent, and hundreds of employees were laid off. Friends and families were split. It was a time of anguish and depression.

Something unexpected also happened: Many members, after struggling to understand the doctrinal change, began to experience a new sense of peace and joy through a renewed faith in Jesus Christ. Their identity was in him, not in the particular laws they kept.

The Sabbath doctrine was changed in order to be more biblical; the result was that members became more spiritual. Members focused more on their relationship with Jesus Christ; they also had an increased interest in worship. Organizationally, this doctrinal change had catastrophic results. But spiritually, it was the best thing that ever happened to the WCG.

Another major change also occurred in 1995: Joseph Tkach Sr. died after a brief battle with cancer. He designated his son, Joe, as his successor, and the board of directors honored this appointment.

A few additional doctrines were changed later in 1995: The church officially rejected the doctrine that the Anglo-Saxons descended from the tribes of Israel, and the church permitted the observance of holidays such as Christmas and Easter.

It was a tumultuous decade. Now, the Worldwide Church of God is about half the size it used to be. The television ministry, once one of the largest in America, is gone. Circulation of The Plain Truth fell from a peak of 8,000,000 down to less than 100,000. The number of employees in Pasadena fell from 1,000 to about 100. Some pastors were also terminated, and lay pastors were appointed for small congregations.

The church's properties in Pasadena are greatly underutilized and up for sale. Ambassador College/University was forced to close because the church could no longer subsidize it, and its properties have been sold. An era of change is coming to an end.

Evangelical churches have also re-evaluated their stance toward the WCG. One of the first friendly groups was the Haggard School of Theology at Azusa Pacific University. Fuller Theological Seminary also helped. Cult-watching groups such as the Christian Research Institute complimented the church when it accepted the doctrine of the Trinity. In 1995, more evangelicals embraced us as brothers in the faith. We cite the International Church of the Four Square Gospel in particular. We are grateful for these gestures of reconciliation.

In March 1996, Joe Tkach wrote an editorial in The Plain Truth [click here for article] apologizing to members and all who have been hurt by the church's erroneous teachings and practices. He asked for forgiveness and cooperation. In July 1996, Christianity Today published a long article on the Worldwide Church of God --- "From the Fringe to the Fold," by Ruth Tucker (pp. 26-32) [click here for article]. And in 1997, the church was accepted as a member of the National Association of Evangelicals. [click here for press release]

The apostle Paul, after his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, immediately began to preach that Jesus is the Son of God (Acts 9:20). But he was not immediately accepted into Christian fellowship. The Christians in Jerusalem were skeptical, and it took a bridge-builder named Barnabas to bring him into the group (verses 26-27). Not long thereafter, Paul was sent away to Tarsus (v. 30).

God had great plans for Paul -- but it took quite a while for those plans to be implemented. Paul spent three years in Arabia, many more years in Tarsus. What he preached and whom he reached, we do not know. But it must have been a time for Paul to clarify his thoughts. He had heard the arguments of the early Christians; he knew well the arguments of the Jews who did not believe. And he was faced with undeniable evidence that Jesus was in fact the Messiah.

Paul had help from his new-found Christian friends. He already knew what they were teaching, and they taught him more, and yet he still had more to think about. Why did the Messiah have to die? Why did the Jews not accept the Messiah God had given them? Where had the Jewish religion led them astray? If one could be right with God under old covenant laws, then why did God have to send his Son to die? Paul had to think about all the implications -- thoughts we would later read in his epistles. It took many years to make a transition from a worship rooted in the Old Testament, to a faith based in the new covenant.

Paul, whom God had chosen to be a missionary to the gentiles, was waiting in the wings for many years. Luke tells us that Paul wasn't even around when the first gentiles came into the church (Acts 10). Paul doesn't enter the picture until after many gentiles had already become part of the church at Antioch (Acts 11:20-26). And it was only after some time in Antioch that Paul actually got around to do the missionary work for which Christ had called him.

There are many similarities between the story of Paul and the story of the Worldwide Church of God. We have roots in the old covenant, and the new has been revealed. We have embraced the new with joy, and there have been Barnabas-like people who have helped reconcile us to other Christians, and who have helped teach us. And yet it is taking us some time to understand our identity and our role in the Christian world.

We do not have any delusions of grandeur, that we will be as great as the apostle Paul. We do not imagine that we will turn the world upside down. We do not think we will transform the church like Paul did. But we do expect God to use us to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps there is a niche out there that needs our particular experience. Perhaps God is preparing us for situations that do not yet exist. We do not know, but we remain ready to respond to God's leading.

When our foundational doctrines were changed, some people claimed that the Worldwide Church of God should just close its doors and tell all its members to go to authentic Christian churches. Ironically, we heard this not from other Christian churches, but from a few of our own members! They were angry and bitter that the WCG had caused such pain in their lives by teaching erroneous doctrines. They concluded that the WCG had been built on false pretenses and therefore had no right to exist.

We acknowledge that many of our doctrines were erroneous. We acknowledge that the WCG would not exist without those erroneous doctrines. But we do not conclude that Jesus Christ rescued us as a group merely to have us disband. He has bought and paid for this church. It belongs to him, and we have told him that he can have it! If it is of any value to him, he can use it as his instrument, and we are happy to let him lead us. We rejoice in the fellowship we have with him, and we believe that he is already leading us into usefulness.

Due to our shared experiences, we have things we need to learn as a group, and we will not learn these things as well if we disband. We also hope that our shared experiences also give us something to teach.

As a group, we are enjoying a new interest in worship. We are discovering spiritual gifts and lay ministry. We are learning to function in new ways.

Our strengths as a denomination include a high respect for Scripture and a willingness to do what it says. We recognize that Jesus, as our Savior and as our Lord, gives us instructions for our thoughts, words and actions. We know that Christ makes a difference in the way we live. He transforms our lives in this age, as well as giving us eternal life.

We have also stressed prayer and study as important aspects of spiritual growth. Our recent history gives us a concern for grace, and an awareness of legalism.

Of course, the story is not yet over. Jesus is not done with us yet. We are still being shaped and fashioned for his purpose. We praise him and worship him, and seek to know his will for our lives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For further information on the history of the church, you may wish to consult one of the books listed below:

J. Michael Feazell, The Liberation of the Worldwide Church of God. Zondervan, 2001. J. Thomas Lapacka, Out of the Shadows: Finding God's Truth in a World of Deception. Concordia, 2001. Joseph Tkach, Transformed by Truth. Multnomah, 1997 - this book is no longer in print, but is available on our website. Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults. Bethany House, 1998. Earlier editions of this book were written before most of our doctrinal changes were made. The 1998 edition has an appendix documenting our transition into orthodoxy. This appendix is available at http://www.wcg.org/wn/98apr/cult.htm. George Mather and Larry Nichol, Rediscovering the Plain Truth. InterVarsity, 1997. Ruth Tucker, "From the Fringe to the Fold: How the Worldwide Church of God Discovered the Plain Truth of the Gospel." Christianity Today, July 15, 1996. This is available at http://www.wcg.org/wn/96aug27/ct.htm

DouglasKC wrote: "I do not belong to a "cult". You're free to level that charge (many have) but it won't stick. There is nothing hidden or secret about the organization. Everything you ever wanted to know is available at the link above or at Good News Magazine"

Ethan: A "cult," from a Christian theological perspective, is not a secret organization or a belief system with secret, hidden beliefs. That would be the occult.

Having clarified that, the United Church of God is certainly a cult group, as it professes to be Christian (indeed, it calls all of historic Christianity false) yet denies central teachings of the historic Christian faith. In short, the term cult is not being used in a pejorative sense but in a descriptive sense.

In a strictly generic usage, the word can be applied to any group that is devoted to some religious belief. However, that term is far too broad and too generic for the field of research involving the cults, whether from a theological or sociological perspective.

There are other terms we could employ, such as "heretical groups" or "spiritual counterfeits," and these are actually quite precise and proper to use in a theological context, but I am certain that you or other cultists will not embrace those terms with any fondness, either. Moreover, the terms do not embrace the sociological aberrations that cults typify and are therefore limited in their scope and utility.

An explanation of how the word is used in a Christian, theological research context:

"A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible" (Alan Gomes, Unmasking the Cults. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), p. 7.; see also, James W. Sire, Scripture Twisting--20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible. Downers Grove: IVP, 1980, pp. 20-21; Robert Bowman, Jr., "A Biblical Guide to Orthodoxy and Heresy," Christian Research Journal Summer 1990, pp. 28-33).

In other words, there are certain, basic doctrines, what the late C.S. Lewis termed "Mere Christianity," that make the Christian faith Christian and not some other religion. It is not that these basics constitute the entire faith, or that other doctrinal content is not important, but, rather, that these basics are so foundational and so central to the confession of the historic Christian church that to deny or pervert them is to deny or pervert the faith once for all delivered (Jude 3).

DouglasKC wrote: "The article subtly implies that all of the doctrine taught was fraudlent seemingly because Armstrong "had no seminary training, nor any disciplined study of church history, biblical interpretation, or the original languages of Scripture". Using this criteria I would venture to guess that none of us on this forum are "qualified" to determine sound doctrine based on scripture."

Ethan: Well, maybe some of us are qualified to determine sound doctrine based upon the criteria you derived from the piece you took umbrage with. : )

It is certainly true that advanced degrees in theology, history, etc., are not a prerequisite to understand the Bible in a coherent, systematic manner (though knowledge in these fields is certainly preferable over ignorance). Indeed, the historic Christian faith has held to the perspecuity of Scripture.

Yet, this is not the issue in regard to Armstrong in any sense. While it is not necessary to have advanced education to understand the Bible, if one is going to turn his face against the historic Christian faith, the body of Christ, and all the learning and study of devout, skilled men of the faith, such a person should have the scholarly tools at his disposal to substantiate such lofty claims of being the only one to properly understand the Bible in the last 1,900 years (Herbert W. Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages., pp. xii-xiii, 4).

Herbert W. Armstrong possessed none of these skills, and was in fact a high school drop-out. He would quote and "explain" the "true meaning" of the Hebrew and Greek of Scripture (Herbert Armstrong, Just What Do You Mean Born Again?, pp. 6, 18-19, 20), yet could not read a word of either language. He didn't know Church history, didn't know anything about exegesis or hermeneutics, never studied systematic theology. He knew nothing about the Christian faith, Christian doctrine or the Bible, and yet set himself up as an expert. His own claims speak to this too familiar wedding of arrogance and ignorance:

Armstrong claimed that the entire historic Christian faith was wrong and that for 18 1/2 centuries--1,850 years--the Gospel of Jesus Christ was not preached (Roderick Meredith, The Inside Story of the World Tomorrow Broadcast. Pasadena: Ambassador Press, p. 47)!

He claimed that the Gospel ceased to be preached in the days of the apostles and was not again preached to the world until...Herbert W. Armstrong came along (Ibid., p. 47). He claimed he was the only man "humble enough" for the past 19 centuries that God could use (Herbert Armstong, Mystery of the Ages., p. 4). He claimed that he--and he alone--was the only man for the past 1,900 years that God "revealed" the secrets of the Bible to and the meaning of life (Ibid., p. xiii).

Sound familiar? It should. That is the claim of Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, and all of the cultists.

DouglasKC wrote: "The article also says Armstrong built his doctrine upon these three points:"

"Three doctrines were instrumental in Armstrong's conversion: 1) That God is the Creator,"

Ethan: Even the first two points are a grave white-washing of the man's actual beliefs. It should be noted that the first point, "God is the creator," is a generic claim that Muslims, religious Jews, and for that matter, Deists, can honestly make claim to believing--none of which make a person a Christian in and of itself.

Moreover, even the word "God" was redefined by Armstrong apart from its normal Biblical and historic context into something not only alien to the Scripture, but blasphemous. When someone not familiar with Armstrongism reads the above they may reasonably conclude, "oh, well at least he held to that and that is an important thing!", but when the context of Armstrong's statement is made known it is evident that he was mouthing a completely alien worldview from the Bible.

To Armstrong, "God" as creator is not what the Bible teaches--the unique and soevereign Personal creator of all things, the one and only God. To Armstrong, "God" was a pantheon family of multiple beings that have only started the "creation"--more Gods are on their way and these "other Gods" will also be "Creator."

In short, this is polytheism (and "open theism" with a vengeance) that is absolutely condemned in Scripture. Know who the "new Gods" will be, the "Creator" that is yet to finish His/their work?

Human beings that submitted to the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong and his Worldwide Church of God, pay their tithes, etc. (or whatever group that now claims to be the true followers of his "restored truths", such as the United Church of God, Global Church of God, Philedelphia Church of God, etc., etc.) [See Herbert W. Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages., p. 78; cf. Herbert W. Armstrong, Why Were You Born?. Pasadena: Ambassador Press, pp. 21-22; Herbert Armstrong, The Missing Dimension In Sex., p. 37).

DouglasKC wrote: "2) That the Bible is true,"

Ethan: Even this claim, while ostensibly paid lip service by Armstrong, was actually denied in practice. Armstrong--not the Bible--was the final rule of faith for his Worldwide Church of God. How so? Armstrong claimed that the Bible was a "coded book" (See Herbert Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages., p. 4) that was not to be understood until a certain individual came along in the 1930s in the United States. Can you guess who that person was, that was the only person "surrendered and yielded to God" in 1,900 years?

Herbert W. Armstrong.

So, even while he ostensibly paid lip service to the Bible "being true," its truth was only made known by Herbert W. Armstrong--ergo, it was necessary for Herbert W. Armstrong to inform all those subordinate in "God's government (what he termed his Worldwide Church of God; see Herbert Armstrong, All About Water Baptism, p. 3) what it "really" meant. Any questioning of his lofty claims?

"No evidence needs to be produced that the living Christ, Head of the Church of God, called and chose me to be his instrument which he has used in raising up and guiding His Church of this generation" (Herbert W. Armstrong, Transcript Ministerial Conference, May 6, 1974, p. 9).

"Loyalty may be a two-way street, but loyalty is, first of all, from the bottom up. And Government and authority is from the top down. Your first loyalty is to the one above you and those above you all the way up through Christ and to God the Father" (Herbert W. Armstrong, Transcript Ministerial Conference, May 6, 1974, p. 9).

DouglasKC wrote: "and 3) That the Bible does not change the Sabbath to Sunday. Armstrong was guided to this third doctrine by a member of the Church of God (Seventh Day), a small group that has some similarities to the Seventh-day Adventists."

"Would anyone disagree with points 1 or 2? Doubtful.

Ethan: Already addressed.

DouglasKC wrote: "That leaves point 3 as a point in contention.

Ethan: As demonstrated from the primary sources, it goes way beyond that.

DouglasKC wrote: "Notice how the article tries to marginalize the truth of the statement by implying that it came from some other group and not the bible."

Ethan: The context is that Herbert W. Armstrong made direct claim that he did not learn any of his religious doctrines from any other men or group, and this is patently false. He claimed that he was specially chosen of God, uniquely so of all that have lived for the past 1,900 years.

In reality, he certainly had religious associations and derived doctrines with an off-shoot of the Seventh-day Adventist movement, and also literally took a mixed bag of teachings from the writings of a wide variety of groups, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, and we even have documentation of direct plagiarism he committed when copying these things and publishing them as his own.

The fact is he was just a man, not inspired, a high-school drop-out and con-man that took the teachings of Mormonism; the Jehovah's Witnesses; Dawn Bible Students; an off-shoot of the Seventh-day Adventists; Human Potential Movement; 'Christian Identity' (British Israelism); Gnosticism; et. al., sprinkled with some evangelical cliches for PR purposes, and mixed them all up to invent his own religious con and used it as a scam to take him from (literally) penniless con-man to millionaire.

DouglasKC wrote: "Let me challenge anybody here: Without using Christian tradition, prove to me that the bible changed the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, or barring that, prove to me that God did away with the 7th day sabbath. Or barring that, prove to me that Christ's death did away with the 7th day sabbath."

Ethan: But that is a straw man and a red herring. The weekly, carnal (it only provided physical rest) Sabbath of the Old Covenant was not "changed"--it was fulfilled and superceded by the true Sabbath rest of which it was only a shadow of--Jesus Christ Himself.

The Sabbath rest for those under the New Covenant is the rest from the bondage and penalty of sin which is entered into through faith in Jesus Christ.

"Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light" (Matt. 11:28-30).

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ" (Col. 2:16-17).

The New Living Translation expresses it, "So don't let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new-moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules were only shadows of the real thing, Christ himself" (Col. 2:16-17, New Living Translation).

I certainly don't limit the verse (or chapter) strictly to just 'unclean' animals. But you are correct in that it is my responsibility, according to the law of Love, to avoid offending by engaging in anything while with you which you consider offensive to God. If I were to invite you over for dinner I would not serve you pork.

That's not what the scripture says. It says you shouldn't eat it if offends me, not that you shouldn't serve it to me.

But this fact does not leave you burdenless. This chapter is a chapter on 'liberty of consciense, and dare I say, the foundation of religous freedom in this country. So while you serve God by refraining from eating pork; I serve God by eating pork and thanking him for his bounty. Your burden, therefore, is not to condemn the Christian that serves God by eating pork.

Condemnation is much different from correction and reproof. I don't condemn, or judge, anything about your salvation based on anything you do. It's actually just the opposite. I don't doubt your salvation at all. The assumption any Christian should make is that everyone they meet is or will have salvation despite what they're doing at a certain point of time.

The notion I get from your church is that it resembles the Pharisees.
You see Doug, that is the problem with becoming too legalistic.

I agree that if "I" were trying to obey God without Christ living in me that I would be doomed to failure. In fact I tried begin a "good man" for many years before my conversion. Outwardly I probably seemed like a pretty good person. But inwardly I was a wretch. I couldn't keep the law as it was intended to be kept without Christ. Nobody can.

When you concentrate on just the do's and don'ts you forget why the do's and dont's were enacted. Jesus even made it tougher when he said, on the sermon on the mount, that if you lust after a woman you have already committed adultery in your heart. So if you brag to yourself that you have never committed the act of adultery, but well know how you have lusted in your heart, you still have sinned. So the law is intended to point us to our sins (Rom 7) and not as a means to make us right with God.

You are correct. The written law is intended to show that we are sinners in violation of it and deserving of the penalty. However, when we accept Christ and let him live through us then at that point the law becomes written into our inner being, it becomes internalized. The natural appearance (to an outsider) is that we are "keeping the law". In other words, the law is not voided. The penalty for it's infraction is still there. Christ, who lived a sinless life while in the flesh, lives a sinless life while he is in the flesh again, our flesh, insofar as we will let him.

DouglasKC wrote: "Actually your point about UCG being a "cult" boils down to this: You (and the others you quoted) are following traditions established by the Roman church long after the death of Christ."

Ethan: Actually, no, on a number of counts. First, I cited credentialed, serious Christian scholarship in order to responsibly demonstrate that I was not utilizing the word in a pejorative sense or in a capricious manner. I deal full-time in a Christian educational and apologetics capacity, including research on Adventist-based cults, particularly Armstrongism, and so use the word "cult" in a very precise, carefully defined, well-established manner.

Secondly, your response is neither exegetical or substantive--it is purely ad hominem. I know for a fact that Dr. Alan Gomes (associate professor of historical theology, Biola University and Talbot School of Theology; editor, Zondervan Guide to Cults and Religious Movements), Robert Bowman (Publications Editor, Watchman Fellowship), etc., and myself, derive our doctrinal content from a careful, rigorous exegesis of Scripture utilizing a grammatical-historical heremeneutic.

DouglasKC wrote: "You feel that these traditions are correct"

Ethan: I know as an objective fact based upon a careful exegesis of Scripture that Armstrongism is completely non-christian in its basic, central doctrines. I am not a casual student of the movement, but I am, in fact, an expert on Armstrongism, its doctrines, its history, etc.

I--and the serious Christian scholars you offered false witness against--do not consider Armstrongism--regardless which of the multiple hundreds of splinter groups one wishes to identify with--a cult for any capricious reason or because of the very weak cop-out for saying, essentially, despite advanced Biblical training and serious exegetical work, we (and therefore, the entire body of Christ for the past 2,000 years...) really don't understand the Bible, and really don't even care! We merely follow the "traditions of the Roman church" (though none of us are Roman Catholics).

DouglasKC wrote: "Therefore you are free to label anyone else who doesn't agree with your tradition as a "cult", no matter how closely it follows scripture or Christ."

Ethan: Really, just more ad hominem. Sir, I do not "label" any group as a "cult" simply because it disagrees with a "tradition." The use of the term cult in a theological research context is carefully defined and utilized, and proper, well-established definitions were provided, with formal citations.

Moreover, and really to the point, Armstrongism--whichever particular splinter group one wishes to identify with--is not in harmony with Scripture in its basic doctrinal assertions, and is, in point of fact, quite aggressively anti-christ in numerous areas.

From the primary materials it was established that Armstrongism teaches numerous, and serious, heretical doctrines. And on that note, as previously documented, if one chafes at the term cult the alternatives are "heretical groups" and "spiritual counterfeits"--neither of which will probably be embraced with open arms by adherents of a cult group.

DouglasKC wrote: "The dictionary defines "cult" as:"

"1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. 2.The followers of such a religion or sect."

Ethan: I carefully qualified and defined the term and its application in a theological research context. While "the" dictionary defines the word "cult" in numerous ways, including the very innocuous and benign, "formal religious veneration" (Merriam-Webster), I specifically stated in very inordinate detail that in its generic usage, the word "cult" may be applied to any religious devotion.

I also stated we were not using it in a generic sense, but in a specific, precise theological sense--and it certainly wasn't on the crass basis of anything that didn't agree with the "traditions of the Roman church."

The definitions as found in such serious works on the subject as Gomes' Unmasking the Cults (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995) and the excellent piece by Robert Bowman, "A Biblical Guide to Orthodoxy and Heresy" Christian Research Journal Summer 1990, pp. 28-33, are well-defined and carefully established based on Biblical criteria--these are serious Biblical scholars, not hacks simply using words for the heck of it or to use for pejorative reasons.

Dr. Gomes addresses this well-established term and, like all responsible Christian scholars that study the cults, does so on the basis of theological doctrinal content, not simply because of "traditions" we like or don't like. In short, the Bible, in a normal grammatical-historical exegesis, in its normal historic context, is the basis for making such evaluations.

DouglasKC wrote: "By the first half of definition 1, "A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false,", Christianity would qualify as a cult because Muslims generally consdier it to be false."

Ethan: The use of non-specialized dictionaries to derive the meaning of terms used in specific professional disciplines (such as theology) really won't provide a precise definition. For example, I am aware of no serious cult researcher--Christian or secular--that uses the term "cult" to refer to any religion that they consider "false" and for no other reason.

For example, Christians would consider Islam a false religion, and vice versa. But that does not make Islam a "cult," nor Christianity a "cult" to the Muslim. This is a reckless and disinformed misuse of the word. Indeed, you are suggesting its use in the very manner I carefully stated it should not be utilized--as a pejorative.

Islam is a world religion, as is Christianity. Each is viewed as "false" in the eyes of the other, but neither are cults in a precise theological context.

A cult, in a Christian context, is any group or movement that claims to be Christian but denies one or more central doctrines of historic Biblical Christianity. Again, this does not concern itself with peripheral matters or intramural disagreements, but the central, core doctrines of the historic Christian faith.

"Central doctrines" of the Christian faith are those doctrines that make the Christian faith Christian and not something else." (1) The meaning of the expression "Christian faith" is not like a wax nose, which can be twisted to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean" (Alan Gomes, Unmasking the Cults Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995, p. 10).

Dr. Gomes makes the point quite clearly. A cult of Christianity is a group that claims to be Christian yet denies the central doctrines of the historic faith.

Again, since you seem to have completely overlooked how and why the word is so defined in a theological context, Dr. Gomes' definition will be provided:

It is not a dirty word, it is not being used in a pejorative sense, and it is not being used to identify any group that doesn't follow the "traditions of the Roman church." It is a carefully defined term, used by professional researchers and Biblical scholars in a descriptive context, not as a pejorative to label any group we don't like. In fact, as a humorous note, when I give my series of lectures in our local church on the cults I always start the class with defining a cult as "any religion we don't like." I do so to make the point that is the "Jerry Springer" school of theology use of the term, not the serious use of the term by Biblical scholars.

DouglasKC wrote: "What is it specifically about United that qualifies it as a cult? And no fair saying "because we say it is."

It is a group that claims to be Christian yet denies central doctrines of the Christian faith as found in the Holy Bible. It is not merely because "we say it is," I can assure you. It is based on serious Biblical scholarship and a careful analysis of the primary materials of the movement (not merely the carefully worded Statement of Beliefs as found on the cult's website). I have in my own library almost all of the publications, in addition to memos, church-only letters, etc., of the Armstrong-era Worldwide Church of God, of which doctrinally the UCG follows essentially the same teachings--it follows Armstrongism.

As previously documented, the Worldwide Church of God under Armstrong, and the present-day United Church of God, claimed to follow the Bible and only the Bible. Sounds good. But this is not the reality of the situation.

Armstrong--from whom the UCG derives its major doctrines--claimed that the Bible was a "coded book" (Herbert Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages. Pasadena: Ambassador Press, 1985, p. 4), and no one really understood the Bible for 1,900 years--that really is an incredible claim to make. No one understood the Bible properly until the "code" was "revealed" to one man in the 1930s. Guess who?

Herbert W. Armstrong.

So, while lip service was made that the Worldwide Church of God (and United Church of God) "followed the Bible and only the Bible," this was a complete sham and deception. This is the modus operandi of all the cults.

Herbert W. Armstrong was the source of all doctrine, as the Bible was--conveniently, according to Armstrong--a "coded" book that no one was able to properly understand until the one man for the past 1,900 years truly "surrended and yielded to God" came along (Ibid, p. 4). So, it wasn't the Bible that was the source of doctrine but what Armstrong authoratively claimed as the one man on earth selected by God Himself to understand it claimed the Bible taught.

A material difference.

And this was not merely his opinion as a "bible scholar" (he was no scholar of any kind), but his divine claim as the hand-picked man of God, the "endtime Elijah," and he permitted no dissension of any kind or questioning of his divine role in the scheme of things:

"No evidence needs to be produced that the living Christ, Head of the Church of God, called and chose me to be his instrument which he has used in raising up and guiding His Church of this generation" (Herbert W. Armstrong, Transcript Ministerial Conference, May 6, 1974, p. 9).

"Loyalty may be a two-way street, but loyalty is, first of all, from the bottom up. And Government and authority is from the top down. Your first loyalty is to the one above you and those above you all the way up through Christ and to God the Father" (Herbert W. Armstrong, Transcript Ministerial Conference, May 6, 1974, p. 9).

So, it is conclusive that Armstrongism--including the United Church of God incarnation of it--is not based upon the Bible but what the high-school drop-out Herbert W. Armstrong said the Bible taught. It is a heretical group, teaching a combination of "lifted" doctrines from such groups as the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Dawn Bible Students, the teachings of an off-shoot of the Seventh-day Adventist church, Gnosticism, Human Potential Movement, and other sources. It promotes numerous doctrines that are antithetical to historic Biblical Christianity.

"We may offend some people by using the term "cult," and the issue is by no means an easy one to resolve. We use it largely because it is too late to start over. Actually, we gave thought to not using the term entirely. But as we considered it more, given its widespread cultural acceptance, we retained the term because, overall, no designation seems quiate as accurate or apropos; although from a Christian perspective, "spiritual counterfeits" or "heretical groups" is just as fitting and in some ways preferable."

"Properly defined and understood, the term "cult" is not necessarily pejorative, just descriptive. And with varying degrees of applicability, the groups herein deserve the title, even if they disagree. If, after a reading of the evidence, the shoe actually fits but no one wants to wear it, that is not the problem of a descriptive term. It is not just the truth that has bedeviled the term cult, it is the cults themselves--what they do and believe" (John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1999), p. xxi.

DouglasKC wrote: "The practice of tearing down the man in order to invalidate the doctrine, or the ideas, is an old trick"

Ethan: Douglas, I didn't simply "tear down the man" to "invalidate his doctrine" as you eisegetically focused on one partial quote outside of the broader context and content.

An honest read of what I wrote in its entirety, which you neglected to mention, substantiates that he claimed to be an expert in the Biblical languages, Biblical theology, etc., when in point of fact he was ignorant of these things. The context is that, as I clearly and factually stated (which you seem unable or unwilling to grasp the context), it is, well, I'll just include what I actually wrote:

While it is not necessary to have advanced education to understand the Bible, if one is going to turn his face against the historic Christian faith, the body of Christ, and all the learning and study of devout, skilled men of the faith, such a person should have the scholarly tools at his disposal to substantiate such lofty claims of being the only one to properly understand the Bible in the last 1,900 years (Herbert W. Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages., pp. xii-xiii, 4).

Herbert W. Armstrong possessed none of these skills, and was in fact a high school drop-out. He would quote and "explain" the "true meaning" of the Hebrew and Greek of Scripture (Herbert Armstrong, Just What Do You Mean Born Again?, pp. 6, 18-19, 20), yet could not read a word of either language. He didn't know Church history, didn't know anything about exegesis or hermeneutics, never studied systematic theology. He knew nothing about the Christian faith, Christian doctrine or the Bible, and yet set himself up as an expert.

DouglasKC wrote: "Martin Luther was a notorious jew hater, yet we have many different sects of Christianity directly related to his ideas and beliefs."

Ethan: There aren't any "sects" of Christianity that are based upon Martin Luther's distinctives, but there are denominations, none of which possess as a denominational distinctive "jew hater."

Moreover and more importantly, and herein lies the difference in comparing a Martin Luther and a Herbert Armstrong--Martin Luther never claimed to be the only man in 1,900 years to be "humble enough" to be used of God and the only man to have preached the Gospel in 1,900 years (Herbert Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages. p. 4).

Futhermore, Martin Luther--with all of his shortcomings--didn't castigate historic Biblical truth and call it false, nor did he fight against the Gospel, as did the heretic, Herbert Armstrong.

Peter Ditzel wrote a piece for the Quaterly Journal of Personal Freedom Outreach, a Christian countercult ministry. The same charges in defending the false teachings and practices of Armstrong were attempted by the WCG, by attacking Martin Luther in order to provide a red herring and take attention away from Armstrong's serious heresies and outrageous claims. Ditzel's comments are quite salient:

"True, we all sin and make mistakes, Luther and Calvin included. But a minister of Jesus Christ does not fight against the Gospel by calling it a "false gospel" and a "counterfeit gospel," as Herbert W. Armstrong regularly did. A minister of Jesus Christ does not call the Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Christian church, "Satan’s counterfeit church," "counterfeit Christianity," the "false church," "the harlot’s daughters," and so forth, as Armstrong often did. A minister of Jesus Christ does not preach heresies as foundational truth, as Armstrong clearly did. And a basic qualification of a minister of Jesus Christ is that he hold "fast the faithful word" and use "sound doctrine" (Titus 1:9), or as Paul exhorts Timothy, he should be able to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15); this is something Herbert Armstrong did not do."

"To teach doctrine — particularly doctrine concerning such essential matters as justification, regeneration, sanctification, the Trinity, the Gospel, the nature of God, etc. — that disagrees with biblical, orthodox teaching is, by definition, heresy. Armstrong taught many heresies. He knew that what he taught was contrary to orthodoxy, and was proud of it. Herbert W. Armstrong was, by definition, a heretic." (Peter Ditzel, "Transforming the Truth--The Worldwide Church of God Continues to 'Make" History" Quarterly Journal Vol 18, No 3. Personal Freedom Outreach).

DouglasKC wrote: "Whatever faults Armstrong may have or may not have had aren't relevent to me or to United."

Ethan: You are missing, or avoiding, the entire context. The issue is not that he had "some faults"--the issue is the foundation of the Armstrong movement, of which the United Church of God is directly a part of.

Armstrong didn't merely claim to be a Bible teacher, or minister, or even the 'best' Bible teacher. Herbert W. Armstrong claimed--in very direct terms--that he, and he alone, of all persons that have lived for the past 1,900 years (at the time of his writing), was the only person to whom the "code" to understand the Bible had been "revealed" (Herbert Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages., p. 4).

Herbert W. Armstrong claimed that he was the only person in 1,900 years that preached the Gospel! The only one (Roderick Meredith, The Inside Story of the World Tomorrow Broadcast. Pasadena: Ambassador Press, p. 47.

Herbert W. Armstrong claimed he was the only person that was "humble enough" that God could use in the past 1,900 years (Herbert Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages., p. 4).

Moreover, you are quite incorrect when you state, "Whatever faults Armstrong may have or may not have had aren't relevent to me or to United."

Whatever you may or may not know about the United Church of God, its history and doctrines, Armstrongism is its very heart and core; the United Church of God is a major branch of Armstrongism, and Armstrong's outrageous claims--all properly documented for the reasonable person to read--are the very foundation of the United Church of God. Indeed, it was founded for the very purpose of perpetuating the heretical doctrines of Herbert Armstrong in the wake of the doctrinal reforms of the Worldwide Church of God. This is a fact.

DouglasKC wrote: "He's dead. I personally feel that God revealed much truth to him. But he was a man and prone to error like any man is."

Ethan: Your feelings have mislead you; and feelings are not a sound basis for doctrinal truth. Nothing was "revealed" to Herbert Armstrong. He merely lifted teachings from the publications of other groups (and even plagiarized some of it), put together various parts and put together his own religion. His claims to being the only man in 1,900 years to have preached the Gospel and the only man to have been "humble enough" to be used by God are not only arrogant and blasphemous in nature, they are patently absurd.

And while he is certainly dead, that is not the issue. Your response is on the order of someone that is against the evils of Marxism being told that "Marx is dead" as if that somehow lessens the evils of Marxism. It is a low-level diversion, nothing else. Armstrong's claims do not allow the courtesy of simply dismissing his errors as those of a sincere but imperfect "bible teacher." He made massive claims that must be made known, from the primary sources. He taught heresy; he attacked historic Biblical Christianity with arrogance and venom.

The entire foundation and purpose of the United Church of God is the perpetuation of the false teachings of the heretic, Herbert Armstrong.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.