A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Mr. Armstrong never taught not keeping the Jewish Feast Day would keep you out of heaven. He didn't believe ANYONE would go to heaven. He did NOT teach the English were Jews... He taught they were the tribe of Manasseh. Herbert Armstrongs son was Garner Ted Armstrong, who never held control over WCG. Ted Armstrong died just last year, 2004. The Church did not teach anyone was going to hell until Josehp Tkach changed the doctrine back to mainstream christianity. Mr. Meredith was not fired, he resigned. Neither the WCG nor LCOG take 30% tithe. You tithe 10% and save 10% for personal holy day expenses. 2 times in 7 years you give an extra tithe for the widows, orphans and poor EXACTLY like it says in the OT. I'll stop here. Get your information straight.

Sojourner,

Except as noted, I agree you are indeed correct, and I was in fact in error.

"Salvation" and "heaven" are not synonyms in Armstrongism as they are in Christianity (hence my mixup, I apologize), and though Armstrong spoke of the "lake of fire" and "hell", he didn't believe in eternal torment as most people understand when they read "hell."

Thanks for correcting me on the fine points of Armstrong's teachings. I have adjusted the text of the article accordingly.

Notes:

1. I cannot change the comment regarding Meredith, as it is not mine. But your comment warns the reader as to the difference of opinion.

2. He did NOT teach the English were Jews... He taught they were the tribe of Manasseh.

Tim,

Actually it is merely a beginning. Your entire article is rife with errors about "Armstrongism." I just was tired of pointing them out. Thank you for correcting the ones you did.

I would like to correct one error I made myself that I noted in reading your comments back to me... The tribe of Manasseh was not England but the United States. England was the tribe of Ephriam. However, Israel will certainly suffice.

Soj

Soj: You're also welcomed to point out anything else you feel is in error. There are lots of fine points, and -- as even you demonstrate -- it's easy to make a mistake. My goal wasn't to get into them in detail, just to point out that Armstrong's beliefs and adherants were not at all representative of "evangelical" Christianity.

Anonymous:

Where in the Bible do you find Jesus or His followers after His death keeping Xmas, Easter, or Lent, which are major holidays of traditional Christianity?

Many people I'd consider Christians in every sense of the word also disagree with some or all of these holidays. (I sometimes entertain the same thoughts.) But this is a very minor doctrinal issue compared to questions like original sin, the nature of God, whether specific works are required for salvation, and other major issues which I understand separate Armstrong from orthodox Christianity.

You don't have to agree whether someone is doctrinally right only every single minor point to call them an "orthodox Christian", or admit they very well could be "saved".

What scriptures instruct Christians to reject the Sabbath and worship and reverence the first day of the week?

You said you didn't want to debate theology. That looks untrue to me.

Again, this is an extremely minor point compared to the more central questions like who Jesus is, whether heaven and hell are await, how salvation occurs.

These questions are answered numerous places elsewhere. You accuse me of dismissing the opposite point of view, yet you yourself, who clearly seems to want to discuss it, don't seem to have looked up these same answers, which are readily available.

Regardless: I know many people, who I'd absolutely agree are orthodox Christians, who rest on the Jewish sabbath. So which day of the week to worship is no more a core doctrine than style of worship. No orthodox Christian should ever reject another over a disagreement of this low level.

But, since you ask: John mentions observing "the Lord's day" -- which was the first day of the week, in Revelation 1:10. Paul also notes that Corinthian Christians are already meeting on the first day of the week in 1 Corinthians 16. And in Acts 15:19 we see the set of laws the Jewish disciples decided applied to gentiles. A specific worship day or directive regarding the Sabbath is conspicuously and intentionally absent.

And, regardless of all of that, in Romans 11, Paul instructs us:

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters... One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.... Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification... whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.

Collosians 2:16: "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."

I personally feel there's no problem with keeping the various feasts. It may even be a good move. And I personally often prefer a Saturday worship service, when available, to a Sunday one. But you seem to be missing Paul's whole point that these are minor issues in light of the freedom of Christ, and we should avoid judging and arguing about these, much less dividing up over them.

You are in clear disobedience to his clear directives on this matter.

I won't hold my breath until you find these scriptures because there are none!

You would be wrong yet again. There are clear directives on how important these matters are, and whether we are free to differ about them. I have just quoted them to you.

How do you explain the prophecies in Revelation, Daniel, Isaiah and Ezekiel to name a few?

I have no idea what kind of "explanation" you are looking for. Peter, however, clearly explains prophecy to you in 2 Peter 1:20-21:

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

You can look this up in the bible; what has this to do with me?

Why isn't David, a man after God's own heart, in heaven if the dead go to heaven?

David and other godly Jewish figures are in heaven -- in the Christian sense, where "heaven" and "eternal life" are synonyms. Jesus clearly stated this in his rebuke to the Sadducees, who shared the same misconception:

"Now about the dead rising–have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

David would be (of course) in the same category. You can also see that the dead are alive with God "in heaven" (meaning having eternal life, again) in Matthew 7:2-3, where Moses and Elijah appear, alive and glorified, to the disciples. Further, after explaining salvation by faith alone to people in Hebrews 11, Paul mentions (Heb 12:1) that we are "surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses" -- by which he means the great people (including David) he just discussed, who, he clearly implies, are alive and watching, having been justified through faith, not by their works.

If traditional Christianity claims the Bible as the basis for its beliefs, why don't they practice the things contained in it?

I've answered you on every point you raised.

Regarding the Jewish law, Paul has clearly taught "a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify." (Rom 3:21) And: "... by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Rom 7:6) And: "... having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." (Col 2:14)

You can read these for yourself, you don't need me to tell you what they say.

Now, regarding the belief that you can only be saved if you keep the Feast Days, have you not also read: "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse..." (Gal 3:10) And: "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ." (Gal 5:4)

Paul also points out that he who keeps one part of law in order to be justified before God needs to keep them all.

You celebrate Feast Days? Good! Is your home also free from graven images? Pictures, photos of animals or things? What? Do you not know that's a commandment? What of proper methods of disposing of the dead? Do you keep kosher? Do you follow God's regulations regarding your facial hair, not trimming the edges of your beard nor shaving? What? No?

And you accuse everyone else of hypocrisy?

There is value in learning about Law, and even value in observing certain laws. Certianly nobody is arguing the ten commandments are a bad idea. But we are not justified by them. Performing Old Testament rituals is not necessary for salvation. Such an argument is not with me, but with Paul's writings in the bible.

The only authority for traditional Christianity is Rome and its' influence, which I reject and apparently you accept.

Ah, my anonymous accuser returns. You are accusing me of "lying" while you simultaneously state things which aren't true...

I asked where in the scriptures you find Christ or His followers INSTRUCTING Christians not to keep the Sabbath or Holy Days. The scriptures you cited provided no such instruction.

To the contrary, I cited one passage where Paul specificly instructed the Collosians to meet on the first day of the week. I also specificly cited another passage where Paul clearly expressed disgust at the idea that the Galatians were keeping Jewish Holy Days in an attempt to please God.

So what you say is plainly false.

I also pointed out that in Acts 15, the disciples agreed, regarding the gentiles:

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

This demonstrates a "minimal" approach to the Law, not a maximum one. Are they burdened with other points of Law such as holy days? No. Are they constrained to meet on some specific worship day, or to avoid another? No. And what did they say of these other possibilities? It said we weren't suppoesd to "be burdened" with them. That, in case you didn't notice it, is an INSTRUCTION which applies to you. You are violating it, as surely as were the people who they wrote this letter against.

If you think I'm wrong here, the burden is now on you to show otherwise. This is the second time I have pointed this out now.

How am I "lying" for having done this?

Next, I'm also attempting to point our your entire argument is faulty, as it's based on a clearly fallacious assumption: That you are allowed to condemn anyone for doing anything you don't see directly commanded in the bible.

No, it's quite the opposite case. As I've demonstrated repeatedly, the presumption is one of "freedom in Christ" (Gal 2:4) unless there is clear biblical evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, you want to put rules on people (specifically regarding Holy Days, which Paul specifically directed you not to) which are not in agreement with the bible. And once again, you run afoul: Jesus criticized the Pharasees for taking the very "maximal" approach you seem to be taking now. They had all kinds of rules condemning and commanding things Torah did not; Jesus was very angry with them for that.

Perhaps you feel I'm somehow being dishonest for not saying, for example, that Lent isn't in the bible. To be honest, I have no ideas of the origins of Lent, since I don't observe it anyway, and don't care about its history. Does it have some biblical basis? I have no idea.

But you miss the answer I have given you, repeatedly: Those of us in Christ are innocent until proven guilty by the bible, not the other way around. Even if I did observe Lent, and even if it wasn't in the bible, you are still disobeying Paul. We have no right to condemn what the bible does not without some kind of biblical evidence that specific action is wrong.

And you have produced none.

(And you will find none to justify your actions, since Paul has already spoken clearly and repeatedly about this matter. It seems telling to me that you are so clearly disobedient to such an obvious instruction.)

Next, since you have cited a group of scriptures I haven't dealt with one-by-one, I want to take those on directly. I thought I had answered them adequately by showing you Paul's teachings about their importance, but perhaps that wasn't enough.

First, you cite the Sabbath and other days being observed in the gospels. True. Does that prove we need to observe it too? How? Jews also wore phylacteries and tassels according to law (Matt 23:5). Must we do that? They performed animal sacrifices also. Must we do that? What rule are you applying to "pick and choose" here? It is certainly not sufficient for you to note something happened -- that's not a rule even you follow.

No, Christ was not yet cruficied, and the Spirit not yet given. There's a reason the New Testament didn't end with the gospels. We cannot simply look at something which happened before and automatically conclude we must do the same. We have to read the whole bible, not just pick a section we like and ignore teachings in other areas about those same topics.

Next, there are a number of cases where Paul makes note of, or even observes Jewish rituals. Of course, how you think this justifies you is beyond me, unless your men remember to shave their heads. (Acts 21:24) If you do not, it's clear, once again, you're jst picking and choosing, the very charge you level against others.

But again, Paul explains why he does all this: Not because he must, because he lives under Law. No, but so that others can be saved. In fact, he says quite plainly in his explanation that he is not under law:

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. (1 Cor 9:20-22)

Note again: "I myself am not under law." He does so strictly to save others, of utility, and is completely free to NOT do these same things also, when that also helps others. He teaches this same principle elsewhere too. So no examples of Paul mentioning or observing Jewish law prove he wants us to do likewise. In fact, he says even himself is free to not do so.

Your mistake here is that you are not using scripture to interpet scripture. It clearly tells you how to do so, yet you prefer some other system.

Finally, the only scripture you mention which isn't dispensed with by the above two points is 1 Cor 5:7-8. You seem to think Paul is telling the Corinthians to keep a Jewish Festival. First, lets note that if you are right, then you are also saying Paul contradicts himself in the numerous other places where Paul instructs gentiles not to get tangled up in Jewish law.

But neither Paul nor the bible contradicts itself, and you are simply mis-reading this verse. The "old yeast" Paul refers to is the same "yeast" that Jesus warned of: the yeast of the Law, the yeast of the Pharisees's and their justification by observing Law.

Read the verse in context: Paul clearly explains the yeast is "boasting" -- i.e. taking pride in our works (v6) -- this chapter is about their pride, you do it violence by imagining Paul suddenly takes a break in the middle and instructs them to literally keep a Jewish festival -- something he discourages others from doing!

No, look at how Paul explains Festivals: "Therefore do not let anyone judge you... 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)

What is the shadow? Justification though a Jewish festival. What is the reality? Justification through faith in Christ; the new nature, life in the Spirit. What is yeast? Paul tell us it is boasting; our pride in what we have done. What is a feast without yeast? Living by faith in Jesus, not boasting, thinking we are righteous because of some fleshly superiority.

Not, of course, that that's ever relevant to consider today. ;-)

And pray tell, PLEASE tell me what scriptures say heaven and eternal life are synonymous?

I'm astonished. The evidence is so copious it's hard to write even a fraction of it down.

Haven't you read:

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. (John 14:2, KJV)

And where is this future abode? Where is our reward?

Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. (2 Cor 5:1)

And, concerning the thief next to Him on the cross:

Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)

And where did Jesus go?

For Christ did not enter a manmade sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. (Heb 9:24)

We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. (Heb 8:1)

(Note this is Jesus's temple in heaven. We'll see it again shortly...)

Paul also uses "paradise" and "heaven" as synonyms. Here is one description of his vision:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. (2 Cor 12:1-3)

And, just a tiny bit later, Paul calls the same place "paradise":

And I know that this man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows– was caught up to paradise.

So if we are to believe both Paul and Jesus, the man next to Jesus was in "paradise" or perhaps "the third heaven", which would of course be legitimate to refer to as "heaven".

Furthermore, Jesus promises his first followers they will be seated and ruling with Jesus:

And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:29-33)

Paul reiterates the same thing to other believers as well:

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace. (Eph 2:6)

And again:

"If we endure, we will also reign with him." (2 Tim 2:12)

And yet again:

Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! (1 Cor 6:3) (What, will we be judging angels from below them, on earth?)

And yet again, from John:

After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. (Rev 7:9)

Where is the Lamb ruling on his throne? In heaven! In verse 15, it also makes it they are in his temple. And where is his temple? In heaven. (Rev 11:9, Rev 14:17, Rev 15:5)

But our citizenship is in heaven. (Phil 3:20)

Now that I've pegged the future home of believers, I guess I've got to show how long they live -- eternally. There are even more examples of this, but I'll just point out John 3:14-15 as a starting point. There are dozens more, but that should be enough for now.

True, in the strictest sense "eternal life" is a ongoing process, and "heaven" is the place where it takes place. It's a bit like saying I was "at home" versus "enjoying my family's company" when they both refer to the same thing.

You really don't know this stuff, do you? I mean that seriously, not derogatorily. I mean, I just quote, quote, quote; I barely have to add any interpretation. We live forever. We will live in heaven. The evidence is staggeringly abundant.

This is no harder than on the Sabbath issue. It just rolls out of the bible.

David like everyone else who ever died is "asleep", without consciousness, awaiting the resurrection to life. And you can't find one scripture to prove this untrue!

I've quoted quite a number of them. Go read again. Pretending that didn't happen is hardly a rebuttal. And it's an implicit form of dishonesty.

Remember how I pointed out Moses and Elijah were meeting with Jesus? They were alive and awake and talking, not sleeping. See? That's one scripture. Remember how I showed in Hebrews 11, that, referring to every saint in Hebrews 10 (including David), Paul said we were surrounded by a "great cloud of witnesses"? You cannot function as a "witness" while you are unconscious, dead, or asleep. That's another verse. Also note I've mentioned the thief next to Jesus. He will be with Jesus "today" in paradise. Not: "Today, you will start a really long nap... later we'll talk." So that's yet another verse. It also says (1 Peter 4:6) that the gospel was "preached to them that are dead", such that they might have a chance to live -- an impossibility if they were unconscious. So that's another. Then we have the martyrs who have been killed for their testimony to Christ. (Rev 6:9-11) They were killed which makes them quite dead. Yet they are also calling out, and being given robes, and being told to wait. These are not the actions of unconscious souls. And it is not yet judgement day, as down on earth, saints are still being killed. So that is yet another verse. I suspect there's more, but that's quite enough for the moment.

You cannot make these go away by simply pretending they're not there. My case would be established with only one verse. Yet you have been given so, so many, referring to a "vast cloud" of the dead.

I still challenge you to get your Bible and a concordance and look up all the scriptures that pertain to heaven and see if they tell you that heaven is the reward of the saints.

I think we've covered this one fairly copiously. If you think there's something wrong with my almost-no-intepretation of what I've shown you, you're welcomed to point it out. If I'm working from some assumption unwarranted by the scripture, it's clearly invisible to me.

Otherwise, it looks like the burden is -- as it was from the beginning -- on you, to demonstrate conclusively otherwise. Am I wrong for humoring you, rather than forcing you to actually prove the saints will not reign with Jesus, eternally, before his throne, with him, at his table, in heaven?

I've shown you verses regarding each of those.

Or will you just again pretend that I've done nothing of the sort?

The Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic etc are just daughters of sort, of Rome and differ very little from the Mother church in most major doctrinal areas.

As far as being "daughters" of "Rome", again, you are dead wrong. The other churches I cited, such as in Chaldea and India, existed from the earliest days. From Thomas, for example. Until Rome declared her supremacy (and the Eastern Orthodox rejected it) much later, they were, like every other Bishopric, completely autonomous, as they were afterwards.

As far as agreeing on major doctrinal points, yes of course: that was my point and I stated so. This indicates the testiomny of many separate witnesses, not a group somehow all hijacked by Rome, as you suppose.

Yet you alleged that these all agreed because they had been influenced by Rome. No: since they originated before Rome arose as any kind of power, and, as some of the links I supplied to you demonstrated, were frequently entirely separate from Rome, it is impossible to say trace their disagreement with you to some kind of Roman corruption. If they are indeed all corrupt, and in amazingly the same fashion, much of it happened independently.

The Protestants were free to reject Rome's traditions but by and large they didn't.

Ah, but you change the topic: I didn't talk about traditions. You put words into my mouth. I spoke about doctrine. I had already established that regarding "traditions", such observing Holy Days, we are not allowed to judge each other.

But you nonetheless agree with my point: Protestant doctrine agrees with Rome where it does, not because they were bound to, but because they attempted to do exactly as you said -- to remove any preconceptions and read the bible afresh. That makes them, whether you like or agree with them or not, a second independent testimony.

The humorous thing here is that the single largest doctrinal difference between Protestants and Rome is that Protestants reject the Roman Catholic teaching that works are required for salvation. Strangely, as far as I know, it is one where you seem to agree with Rome!

So it's humorous that you're harping about Roman influence when theologically, at least on the point you and I are debating, you're much closer to her than I am! :-)

Nope, no graven images in my home...

Not a single photograph of your grandchildren? No books or magazines with illustrations? I find that hard to believe that your house is free of such representations, since right now you are using a computer, which constantly displays images of people and animals, and thus violates the rule.

... although the commandment refers to the worship of these in the place of God.

Tell that to the Jews: they were somehow under the impression it meant you couldn't have images of animals, period whether or not you worshipped them.

And since I'm a 52 year old grandmother, no I don't have a beard to trim or shave!

Very good! Forgive me, you are as aggressive and brash as a young man. But you nonetheless are picking and choosing and (once again) ignoring Paul's statement: You have to keep the whole law, not point out you've kept two of them while pretending the others don't exist.

If I recall, that's exactly the charge you levelled against your opponents.

And if the law of God is of no effect, what do we need to repent of?

Yet again, you change my words into a straw man to box. No, I did not say it "was of no effect". Paul explains quite clearly in Romans that Law can indeed be helpful. I said you cannot be saved nor justified by following law. Is there something scary to you about that specific argument that you must evade it?

You ask: What do we need to repent of? Answer: Sin. There is more sin beyond what is in the Law. Haven't you heard: "You shall live by every word of God?"

In Acts 20 Peter receives a command concerning unclean animals: "Kill and eat." He responded by only citing the words God had given in the old Law. But God pointed out to him that he was getting new marching orders: "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Peter was picking and choosing. No, we must live by every word.

Likewise, concerning Holy Days and feast days, Paul clearly teaches: "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."

Paul's words, as they are scripture, are also considered to be the Word of God. So his directives about the role Law today, for us gentiles (which I have quoted numerous times for you now) also appply. We don't get to just pick half of what we want. We have to take it all seriously. Not just the Old Testament.

You accuse others of picking and choosing. And once again (will you ignore it a second time?) I suggest you are clearly doing so.

It seems the world must have it right with all the murders, lies, adultery and fornication that goes on!

You are making a different argument; you seem to be saying that unless we are bound by Jewish Law, there is no law at all. No, again see what Paul says:

"... by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Rom 7:6)

We are free from the written code. It doesn't mean sin has ceased to exist. Jesus said he would send "another", the Spirit Paul just cited, who will guide us into "all truth". Part of that truth includes understanding what is sin and what is not.

You seem to argue we don't serve at all. No, we are slaves to righteousness, but not bound to Law. Paul addresses your entire argument in Romans 7 and 8, answering your very question as though you'd asked it to him personally. Please, for your sake not mine, read it.

Again, it says in Romans 7: "So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God." It is not that we have been left unmarried. Instead of being married to Law, we are now married to Christ though the Spirit.

Also see Romans 10:5-21.

Perhaps an example would help: The New Testament clearly condemns sexual sin. Above, I quoted the Jerusalem Council's letters also mentioning sexual sin was wrong. So, sexual sin is clearly indicated as being "sin". Not because it is in Jewish law, but because it is sin.

On the other hand, we don't have to keep Kosher. That's indicated numerous places, such as Peter's vision which I just mentioned. Even though it is in Jewish Law.

Clearly, Jewish Law isn't serving as the guide here. The Spirit is the guide and helper, and our seal guaranteeing us salvation. (Eph 1:13-14) As long as we remain wedded to Law, we cannot be wedded to Christ. That is the clear implication of Romans 7, and the very same reason Paul said the Galatians were "alienated" from Christ by trying to be justified by Law again. They were with another woman; the Lord is a jealous God. (That was the same problem which kept the Pharisees from seeing Jesus and having life. John 5:39-40)

Sin still exists. In some cases, such as Jesus's teachings about adultery and lust indicate, it is stricter than what was in the written code. In other cases, such as keeping Kosher, or making sacrifices, or not associating with gentiles (that tripped Peter up) the written code no longer applies.

Jesus has always admitted that the Law (Torah) wasn't a perfect reflection of God's will. That's what he meant he referred to the law's stipulations about divorce, saying "from the beginning it wasn't so", and pointing out that part of law was a concession to the hardness of their hearts.

The Spirit teaches us what is concession, what is void, and where and how Law still applies. If He does not, then Jesus lies when he said the Spirit will lead us into "all truth". (John 16:13)

If the Old Covenant (Torah, Law) was perfect, why would Jesus have made a New Covenant (2 Cor 3:6)? But this is what it means, when the Spirit leads us into "all truth" -- that we are under a New Covenant, marked by the Spirit. We are now no longer wedded to the old one; the Law. You seem to be thinking I am saying there is no covenant at all -- no, not in the slightest.

I guess Paul must have meant trying to keep the commandments when he referred to sin in Romans 6:1-23. Wages of sin? What sin? All we need to do is say "I accept Christ", get sprinkled or dunked and we're good to go, right?

Answered above.

Poor James must have been so confused when he wrote in James 2:14-26 that faith without works was useless!

No, James said faith without works was "dead", not merely useless.

Works are the fruits and evidence of faith. They come afterwards and are evidence of a saving faith -- and yes, exactly as James says, the absence indicates a lack of faith. But they do not justify.

Jesus said the same thing when he said: "By their fruits you will know them." The fruits are evidence, not the thing which saves or justifies.

Look: See here in Mattew 7:22 - Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

They had works, right? Were they "saved"? No! Despite their righteous deeds, they were "evildoers", because they did not do them in the Spirit.

And again, here in 1 Corinthian 13, verses 1-3:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

These are but outward fruits; unless we have the core underlying, hidden condition, "We gain nothing."

Think of works as a "symptom" of faith. Malaria can give you a fever. But not all fevers prove you have malaria. All sheep have fur, but not all animals with fur (goats, for example) are sheep.

So it is with works and fruit.

I know I won't change your beliefs...

Well, I'm certainly not closed-minded. I nearly became an atheist looking for Truth, having been raised as a Presbyterian. But I did not because, well, frankly, I found it false; not, as far as I can tell, because I'm stuck in my ways or closed-minded. And I could be wrong now, also, but it certainly isn't because I will not examine new evidence when presented.

... and I really don't intend to offend you.

Perhaps a bit less calling-me-hypocrite (without evidence), calling-me-liar, and pretending I haven't spoken about things I've clearly addressed would help.

But regardless, I forgive you -- I have no choice in these matters, lest I not be forgiven myself. So, don't worry about it. Forgiven.

I only wrote to challenge your categorization of the Living Church of God as a cult.

Strange, since you don't seem to have even mentioned it before.

To be picky, I have not said LCG was a cult. I said that "Armstrong founded a group [WCG] that any normal, mainstream Christian would view as a cult"; I also cited the quote to prove that my assessment of the mainstream Christian view was accurate. I also said a "cult-like" environment "might have" (i.e. if one existed, and the quoted characterization were correct) contributed to Ratzmann's state.

Perhaps you think, because you believe you are right, that that would disqualify you (or whoever!) from being a cult. No: all cults think they're right. There's no way to detect if you're in a cult just by checking to see if you think you're right.

(One check might be to see if you keep finding yourself disagreeing with an obvious biblical teaching, or pretending it doesn't exist.)

Second, even actually being right doesn't disqualify one from being referred to as a "cult". I think we'd both believe the early Christians were right, but they were indeed considered a "cult". God willing, I would have worn the label gladly, and perhaps will, with His grace, someday. The wisdom of God is foolishness to the world, right?

And is it any worse for me to honestly admit, since I think you're wrong, that Armstrong's beliefs (I don't know much about LCG in specific) were a "cult"? Do you, in your meetings and literature, refrain from conversely suggesting that non-LCG Christians such as myself are "hypocrites", and are "unsaved"?

If not, then what right have you to be angry with me for doing likewise? And what's worse, to be in the minority, or to be denied salvation?

So we have a reflexivity, then, no? So let's at least be honest about admitting where we stand, rather than you feeling it's okay for you to call me "hypocrite" -- though you don't even know whether I keep any of those holidays you mentioned or not (and haven't even proved I shouldn't, nor that you have any business in judging on that basis) -- while being offended that I imply Armstrong's teachings were wrong -- which they clearly appear to be, as best I can see.

At least they try to live by Bible based doctrines which is more than I can say for so-called mainstream Christianity.

Let's make something else clear here. First, you and they don't agree on what those doctrines even are. So it's wrong -- even by your own standards -- to say they don't "try" when they don't live by rules they honestly believe are false and from the devil. As we believe yours are. (And as Paul stated they were.)

I don't believe we need to keep Feast Days to be saved, for example. Have I put sufficient effort into finding out? Well, I'm not sure who put you in a position to judge me, but from my point of view, having debated these matters intensely for decades, I feel I've given it a fair try. I think you can see, whether you agree with my arguments above or not, that I'm not slacking, effort-wise, on this topic.

And certainly, at least looking at the amount of text written here, I address more of your points than you address of mine. Which is to say nearly all versus nearly none.

Worse, in many cases, you seem to simply pretend the hard work I did to answer your question as honestly as possible never happened.

And what effort have you put into it? Again, I'm not your judge, but consider, just between you and God: While I'm weak on Armstrongism lately (it's been several years since I studied the old WCG), at one time or another I've examined and wrestled with arguments against mainstream Chrisitanity from Jehovah's witnesses, from atheists, from New Agers, from Gnostics, from the Holy Name movement, from Buddhism, from agnostics, from Mormon, from Scientologists, from Hindus and Muslims, to name but a few.

And each time, I have a small crisis of faith, taking the argument seriously until I can resolve it one way or another, as honestly as I am able. And yet, here I stand again, and yet.

And I know what to say to you. I know how to answer you, as I would so many others, from so many different faiths. And yet, you seem completely unable to predict what I'm going to say back. And you only have one major faith to contend with. And you really imagine you put in more effort than "mainstream" Christians like myself?

When you ask or accuse, I take what you say seriously, and look up verse after verse to answer your questions, and spend time really trying to help you understand where you're in error, or even giving you the specific means of showing how wrong I am.

And in return... what? You pretend the verses I've quoted weren't there. You lazily change my arguments rather than argue with the ones I've actually made. You call me names. You just toss off flippant theories without even trying to back them up. You make absurd assertions, with no supporting evidence, and then imagine your every idea should be considered true until it is disproven by incredibly high standards. And yet you feel free to apply a completely different standard of evidence to others -- their every statement is false, until it's proven beyond your slightest doubt.

And you repeatedly ignore biblical directives, without even attempting to make an effort to explain why they shouldn't apply to you.

And you stand in judgement of others? Look. Look at your comparative effort here. Look at your lax regard for truth or scripture. You imagine you will be "saved" because you kept some ritual when others did not? Have you missed the content of Jesus's entire debate with the Pharisees?

Have you never heard: "It is not good to have zeal without knowledge and miss the way?" Or "Unless the Lord builds the house, the workers labor in vain?"

I'm not angry at you. I pity you. You are missing out on so much. There is nothng richer than life in the Spirit. But how can you experience that if you don't even accept the Spirit?

I can see how you function: You derive you righteousness from comparing yourself to others. This is a fatal mistake. Don't do it, dear sister. That's a signal that you're not internally justified in Christ. That's a warning sign you're headed the wrong way. It's deadly, and I don't mean this life.

It says: "The righteous shall live by faith." That means that we're not good enough, by works, to be justified in his sight. I hope you repent and live.

Am I justified? Not my business; that's God's job to figure out. Are you condemned? Who knows, again, not my business. But I may be standing as a sign to you from God. You should ponder that possibility.

Going back to the point: some of what you condemn as "hypocrisy" is wrong for you to condemn: some Christians honestly don't believe it's wrong to celebrate some holiday you might dislike. You have to prove it, show it to them, and know they agreed, intellectually, before you can then say they're being two-faced.

Let me give you an example: I have shown you whether Paul allows you to condemn me on the basis of some Holy Day. He doesn't. Yet you clearly are in this habit. Unless you didn't understand Paul's writings, or have a rebuttal, and a pretty good one, perhaps you should be worried about the same charge (knowing disobedience) you level against others.

Again, you don't have to impress me or say anything to me. I don't judge you either way. But there is someone looking on who will.

Next, you might point out many people don't live out own their supposed beliefs. Of course. Some days, I'm guilty too. I make all kinds of mistakes, and often don't even do the good things I know I should. (And once again, I'm in good company. Romans 7:14-25)

But you're making a different point there. It doesn't prove their beliefs are false. It only proves that many don't fully live up to them. Jesus made the same point. But what does it mean to you? Are you justified because they're worse?

Mainstream Christians being mostly bad doesn't make your doctrine (nor your actions) correct. And, if you are indeed in error, their hypocrisy will provide no excuse for when God asks you for your own account. If you are wrong, then you will have rejected completely what they only lived in part.

And if that's so, then you're certainly in no better shape.

Again, here I am, offering you copious evidence to the contrary. How seriously are you taking it? Did you follow your own rule and pray about removing your preconceptions before you read my arguments?

Jesus said we will be judged by our own rules, the very ones we thought only applied to others.

Incidentally, the Lord's Day refers to the day of God's wrath on a sinful and unrepentant mankind, not the first day of the week. Joel 2: 31, etc...

You seem to think you can refute a point merely by stating your belief. If that's so then I can "prove" all kinds of things just by saying them.

Nor is it true that you have proven something wrong by providing an alternative explanation. You have to show it's much better than, and even refutes the first.

As I will do presently:

You suggest that "the Lord's Day", as John used it, means God's day of wrath against mankind. This makes no sense, since John is starting out by explaining the circumstances in which the vision came to him. If it was "the Lord's Day" of wrath, as you state, then we would expect to find, on the day of that writing, some amazing day of wrath poured out against mankind. Yet we don't.

Further, the prophecy itself disproves this interpretation, since it depicts God's "day of wrath" itself, within it, several bowls into the future. There is no point in prophesying about a future day of wrath it's already happening all around you before the vision even begins.

Further, John is believed to have written this circa 90AD. Yet in just 107AD (or perhaps 116AD), Pliny the elder is also referring to a day called "the Lord's day", meaining the day of Christ's resurrection, and it's nothing new then. That, plus Paul's strange assumption Collosians are meeting on the first day of the week (written long before 90AD) shows my argument makes much more contextual sense than claiming the world was judged, in "great and terrible" wrath, poured out by God, which we somehow failed to notice sometime around 90AD.

Finally, I'd like to point out you actually have to disprove all of this (including my initial argument), not just offer an alternative possibility. Again, your job is to show I'm wrong, so that you can hurl your ego-serving words of condemnation at me, (or at least justify the ones you've already hurled) not merely posit that a legitimate difference of opinion could possibly exist.

Otherwise, you might just owe me an apology, not to mention a retraction. But don't worry about me. Worry about God.

I hope you will find everything Christ has for you.

My biggest mistake was in trying to address serious doctrinal topics in a few sentences; I know that can't be done. You make SO MANY errors in your statements, I don't know where to begin to address them nor do I have the time.

I see. I'm going to be denied salvation, and you are so deeply concerned about that, that you can't even pick one doctrinal area and have anything like a deep discussion about it?

If you can't even discuss one topic honestly and completely -- and one of your own choosing, at that -- how can you imagine you have a good picture regarding all of them?

I fear you have been deceived, and denied so much treasure in Christ.

You've twisted and taken out of context most of the scriptures you've used to attempt to refute my beliefs and make them seem unscriptural.

Taken out of context? I refer you to read whole chapters where you have quoted just one verse.

For example, you quote "Christ our passover... keep the feast" -- and think it means a direction to keep Jewish law. I direct you to look at the whole chapter, which is a teaching about pride and hypocrisy, and then also show some of Paul's other teachings about feast days.

Given this, how you can view your statement as "in context" and view my response as "out of context" is beyond me.

And as far as your teachings being unscriptural, yes, you're getting it. They're blatantly unscriptural, which is why they keep being disproven by scripture. I'm not doing something sneaky to make that happen, I'm simply quoting it, and often ending by telling you to read it for yourself to validate what I'm saying.

What deception is there in that?

You accuse me of being legalistic and egocentric and I could throw the same words at you.

I'll gladly cop to having an ego. Look how I boasted at having studied so many other beliefs! That was probably wrong of me. But you're missing my point: I am not saved because I've done that. That is a fault, not the source of my justification, which is solely through faith in Christ.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph 2:8)

Now that I have admitted my pride, will you admit yours? (To God at least, not to me.) Or are my faults the only ones of interest in this discussion?

As far as me being legalistic, now that is a new charge! One minute, I'm a hypocrite who doesn't even follow Law, the next minute, I'm apparently a hyper-legalist! This is very interesting.

Ah, and now you seem to tip your hand, and let us see your cards -- my emphasis added:

If you want to believe in an ever-burning hell and that you're going to heaven when you die, who am I to question you?

Who said I "want" to? Where on earth did you get that idea? As we've never even discussed the topic, you are clearly projecting your wishes on me, rather than checking my actual feelings.

But you must see me this way. In saying so, you admit that you cannot allow yourself to consider whether I simply might have sincerely studied scripture and come to a different conclusion than yours -- that might be entirely too much evidence that your position might be in error, a position you apparently can't afford to even let yourself consider.

So you must tell yourself I am liar, one who chooses his position primarily to suit his preferences, to foreclose that possiblity. In order to protect your view of yourself, you readily imply I'm deeply insincere, and a cruel sadist -- someone who would like to watch people be tortured.

Scapegoating.

Again, read what Peck writes above. Click the link and read the whole section of his writings.

No, I don't want to believe in hell at all. It's my least favorite part of scripture. It took me years (perhaps nearly a decade) to find peace about that area. If there was one area I'd change about the bible, that would be it.

And it's true of my Christian friends as well: Many of them are quite distressed by the idea, not pleased with it. So why do we believe it?

Because we submit to scripture, even when we frankly don't like it. Could our understanding be wrong? Sure, it's possible. In my case, it's certainly not for lack of trying to disprove it or find another way out. But the point remains: We believe this because, rightly or wrongly, we are sincerely convinced that's what the bible teaches.

You, on the other hand, seem to be saying you might not be able to obey, accept, or worship a God who doesn't conform to your expectations, especially regarding hell. If so, you should be concerned -- since that would indicate you prefer a comfortable god of your own making to the real one.

So how can we be sure? Only to agree to search for the truth of the matter, and follow the evidence, even if you don't like it, wherever it takes you. As you seem only content to fire shots and run away, I currently fear you won't do so. But I'll be praying for you, and hoping your conscience haunts you on this issue until you start wrestling in earnest with this stuff.

It won't be enough to get someone to tell you the "right" answers to my points. Even those, you'll have to challenge honestly in order to be sure they're true, and that you're not just telling yourself what you'd like to hear.

I know this is hard, since you have so much on the line. I'm aware of that. You've probably invested a good portion of your lifetime, to say the least! But please -- it's all worth giving up for Christ. It's the "pearl of great price" which a man went out and sold everything he had to gain. Believe me, and trust God, you will not be sorry. He will honor your sacrifice for him. But you must be sure of the truth, and we must be willing -- as I did, by considering atheism, though I loved God (I feared it might be true!) -- and am willing to do even now, if you were shown right -- to sacrifice our own belief system, no matter how cherished, in order to find what is True.

One final point: I don't like hell. God doesn't either. That's why Jesus died. To save sinners. Not from something minor, but from something major. Jesus, as God, gave an infinite sacrifice. Infinity hung on a cross and suffered. So he paid an infinite price of pain. Did he pay it to save people from a tiny bit of suffering -- or to save them from an infinite amount of it?

But in the end, there are only two kinds of people: Those who bow to God, obediently, and say: "Thy will be done" and those, to whom God finally says: "Okay, have it your way." If we did not want the real God, who is Goodness himself, then we shall be removed from Goodness. He will not force us to take what we did not choose.

Sadly, when you are away from Goodness, all you have left is not-goodness. Which is hell.

Personally, I can't imagine being in heaven watching all the billions of people who've lived and died burn in an everlasting hell...

The people in heaven clearly will not be troubled by the reality of hell, or by the loss of those who they might otherwise miss. That is what Revelation means when it says of them: "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (Rev 21:4)

... just because they were unfortunate enough to have lived and died without ever even hearing the name of Christ.

Now you're making things up. We have no idea what happens to each person who hasn't heard the name of Christ. Some, like the Jewish saints, are clearly saved by anticipating Him.

Perhaps those who have never heard are justified by the light of what they have seen so far, as Abraham was. (Heb 11) Or perhaps, since we're all sinners, many or most would be justly condemned. I don't claim to know, but I do not imagine for a moment that God will be unjust and that we'll be able to accuse him of doing the wrong thing.

I give praise and thanks to God because I know that this will not be!!

Well, where you derive this from is beyond me, as I can't see anything remotely like it in the bible, which seem to say quite the opposite. Good heavens, even my atheist friends seem to agree, as so many reject the bible for that very reason, rather than just pointing out someone merely misread it.

Certainly, given your apparent unwillingness to have a debate, I have trouble believing you arrived at this conclusion by painfully working through all the possibilities.

Perhaps if I were to listen to some other teacher outside the bible, he could change my mind about it and persuade me to adopt your view -- as long as I didn't submit the arguments to too much scrutiny. (Surely you haven't listened to other teachers who tell you what to think about the bible, right? And if you did, I'm sure you debated people who disagreed with you before accepting his words as Truth, right?)

God's plan of salvation and redemption for mankind is so much more than this.

You are not talking about his plan of redemption. You were talking about what happens with those who aren't even interested in that plan. We are eternal beings, and either face everlasting shame (2 Thes 1:9), or everlasting glory (Rev 22:5).

It sounds like God's plan for redemption, as you have described it, since it doesn't even involve being in heaven, much less reigning and rejoicing forever there, is quite a bit less than what is in the bible, which states, in no uncertain terms, that "the eye has not seen, and the mind has not dreamed what God has prepared for those who love him." (1 Cor 2:9)

Further, given what little I know of Armstrong's teachings, I suspect you have been even kept from going through the basics of salvation, and receiving the Comforter, which would also be a terrible loss.

But again, what we'd like to think is irrevelant. It's what's in the bible which is the first question. And it is on that point which you seem suddenly uninterested in debate. You shouldn't dismiss it so quickly. There might be quite a lot on the line if you're wrong.

Finally, I'd just like to point out you've changed the topic again. You speak as though you had just won some scriptural debate about hell. Yet it's a topic you have never before raised. If you so quickly run away from what scripture has to say on those others, why do you suddenly think you will do better on this point?

Don't keep changing topics. You deny yourself a chance at truth -- whatever it is -- when you do that. If you can't even see one charge or topic through to completion, it's completely unlikely you'll be able to do so with many. Stick to the point, and don't let up until you've found out the hard truth, one way or another.

This is not about someone "appearing" to win. This is about eternal things, friend.

I'm sorry I offended you by asking you to read your bible, but I thought that's what Christians do, search, study and prove all things.

You come across as pathologically dishonest. I said I was offended that you called me a hypocrite and liar. You again instead change my words into something you can deal with better. You surely must know you are doing this. How can you imagine you are in Truth when you use such deceptions?

I am not at all offended to read the bible and search the scriptures. In answer the 14 passages you mention, I have given you over 50 scripture citations, some consisting of entire chapters or groups of chapters. I have quoted passage after passage for you, and even highlighted the relevant portions so that you can see, with your own eyes and no "interpretation" from me, that they don't agree with what you claim.

Whether my understanding is correct or not, to look at such a response and allege I failed to "search the scriptures" strikes me an amazing act of self-deception! I may be wrong, but it's certainly not for a failure to refer to scripture!

And look at your responses: You barely mention scripture at all, and only once directly address a verse I've given you.

I thought that's what Christians do, search, study and prove all things.

Gosh, looks to me like that's exactly what happened here. If I'm wrong, you're more than welcomed -- even on just one topic -- to point out where I've gone wrong. But it would seem you're not interested in "studying, searching and proving all things" in response.

It seems my responses are so incredibly weak that you are running away from them, rather than demonstrating even one my many alleged scriptural errors.

It's no wonder you insist that I fail to study and prove. It seems you don't, and, since I must be inferior, I cannot be admitted to be different. So you reject the plain evidence in front of your eyes regarding who looks to scripture more.

Want to bet that you look to another person or guide, outside of scripture, to help resolve these problems for you?

I'm sorry if my tone was aggressive or uncharitable; I meant to chide and prod not anger.

I had no problem with your tone at all. I have never complained about tone.

Instead, it was the content of what you were saying which was, and still is the problem. Tone is nice, but I'm no-one to give other people flack about mere tone. I find it intersesting you refuse to address this issue of content.

Calling others "liar" and "hypocrite" isn't so much a danger to them as it is to us, let we be found guilty of the exact charge we're levelling against them. I don't mind the charge -- there can be a place and time for it -- but you must back it up. If it's true, then you have helped me. If it's false, then you are in danger.

I would have never written anything to you if you'd just reported the facts of the unfortunate Brookfield incident instead of implying that Mr. Ratzman's association with LCG somehow precipitated his actions.

Ah, but what was my theory?

It was that people who know they were wrong attempt to hide that by being dishonest, changing the topic, calling others evil, running away, or even lashing out, anything except hear evidence they are in the wrong. It's not about convincing others -- it's about convincing yourself.

I pointed out that Terry may have done this because he preferred a system of untruth over one with comparatively more truth. Although his response was unusual and extreme, you also seem to be confirming my points:

You appear to base your righteousness on comparisons with others -- rather than simply being secure with God.

At each point, for example, you seem compelled to assume the worst about me. This indicates there is a relative comparison going on in your head -- one I must lose on whatever points which are critical to you, personally, so you can be a better person than I.

This is called "projection", and it is exactly the behavior M. Scott Peck describes above. Understanding it is crucial to understanding Terry's motivations and actions. The reason he did what he did is the same reason you -- who are undoubtedly a nice, wonderful person, usually, from the outside point of view -- are being so blatantly dishonest here. Which I strongly suspect you aren't usually.

And, as between Terry and his pastor, to you I must be evil so you can remain good. I must be unwilling to look to scripture -- despite obvious evidence to the contrary (our 14/50+ scripture cite ratio, you/me) -- so that you cannot be seen by yourself as less willing to do so. I must be a person who likes the idea of hell because it opens up entirely too many scary possibilities if you have to consider that I might be convinced by honest means. I have the wrong policy on Holy Days, you imagine, because I am a "hypocrite", not confused -- because it's too scary to think you might be wrong about such a major doctrine (to you)!

None of this is about me -- as you had no evidence regarding my view of any of these before you leveled the charges: I had not indicated I believed the Holy Days you dislike valid were valid before you accused me of hypocrisy. I had written nothing about hell before you accused me of liking the idea. And so on.

No, in each of these areas you are "projecting" onto me the things you need me to be, and thus telling me, because I know how to read you when you do this, how you function inside.

Terry was doing the same thing with his pastor when he ran afoul of Terry's cherished beliefs. And a key factor in each of these is the lie that people prefer instead of the uncomfortable truth (or at least possibility) they dare not face.

Facing that is the first step of salvation.

And I want you to be able to have that, so I am taking my time, which is valuable, to share with you what I have learned. For you.

I saw this as an attack on LCG and though I'm not a member, I share their beliefs.

Sorry, but I must be frank: I believe that "Armstrongism" was an important enabling factor in what Terry did. And likewise in what you do. I have laid out my evidence. You are welcomed to dispute it -- that's why I allow comments here.

There are many systems out there I believe are wrong. What you refer to is just one of them. Liberalism, my usual target, is another. Apparently, from what I think I see from you, it appears they both share a works-based righteousness.

When it comes down to it, there are only two religions in the world. One is the belief that you are essentially good, and can be "saved" (whatever that means to the individual) or "justified" by good works; we can be "good" by being with the "right" people, doing the "right" things, and holding all the "right" positions.

The other is the negation of that: To agree with God that we are not good (Mark 10:18), but admit instead we are deeply depraved (Jer 17:9), and have been since conception (Ps 51:5), and the only way out is to admit we are evil, unable to "work" ourself to God's pleasure, and accept, by faith -- not trusting in our own goodness which does not exist (Is 64:6) -- the free gift of forgiveness through Jesus' death.

[When that happens, God seals us with his Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30) a living "helper", a 'person' who teaches us how better to finally live as God desires.]

It is a strange paradox, but it is the people who are convinced that mankind -- or at least they, especially -- are good who do so much evil in the world. Terry was surely convinced of his own goodness. Communism likewise, was founded on man's goodness. And I believe Armstrong taught the same, from what I can see.

Also, strangely, it is only those who are unconvinced of their own goodness, and admit their depravity, who have even a hope of doing any good. Or at least less damage.

That is, in a nutshell, the gospel of Christ. At least the start.

I wish it for you, and will be glad to talk more of it if it interests you. It is all I have. It is undoubtedly the reason you were led to post here.

Don't worry; I won't respond to any further postings.

Sigh. Yet again you turn my requests for you to respond on points into a demand you go away. Because, once again, that's what you need them to be, not what they are.

You may find it difficult to leave some of my statements here unanswered. You may find that your conscience is bothering you about what I have said here. That would not be a problem -- that would be a good thing.

Understand that you are welcomed back here. Feel free to post at any time. I can give you an e-mail address to reach me, if you want to talk in private, away from other eyes, and discuss these things.

He stands, waiting, for you, arms outstretched. Will you be so callous as to turn Him down after all he has done for you?

God bless you; you are precious to Him, and thus also precious to me.

A former WCOG member here. Googled "Wisconsin" and "Rod Meredith" so what connections folks were making in the aftermath. But one scroll through the debates on this page demonstrates the obsessive dogmatism I remember so well and strongly suspect pushed Ratzmann past the tipping point. What a horrible "church" it was and continues to be.

mistoner:
I attend a CGI church. All need to pray for those that were killed or injured in the shootings.
I am not a former member of WCG, and from what I have heard, I am glad I am not now...not the way it has been in the past 10 years or so.
The shooter suffered from depression, a chemical imbalance. It was a demonic force that took over. I truly believe that. It's just another attack by Satan on the church.

How sad. I was raised as a child in the parent church wwcg. I did not have a choice, then. But I have a choice now. I would never subject my children to sitting through hours of the dehumanization that I experienced as a child. You can pick and choose whatever you like to make it sound like Gods chosen church but it seems to me its leadership is self-serving and controlling. After years of being raised on sermons describing death and destruction of everything I new about life as a child its a wonder Ive survived. You cant sugar coat my experience.

Collosians 2:16: "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."

Hello, I really enjoy your website. I'll be quick about this. I was reading the back and forth with you and the woman above. I was brought up in the WWCOG and briefly attended what is now the LCOG.

Anyhoo, From independant study (not LCOG). In the book of Josephus it states that the Collosians were new in the faith (church) and when they started keeping the Feast days, Observing the Sabbath on the correct day and obstaining from unclean meats described in Deut. 13-15. Their still practicing pagan neighbors and villagers were prone to ridiculing the new ways this group had adopted. That makes more sense to me than the meaning being the other way around.

Just a thought. Again enjoy the site. Keep up the good conversation but I got to go to bed.

Casey Caldwell

I get a kick out of people who are not Bible scholars instructing each other on fine points of theology...

Yeah, I agree. People who don't have a degree really shouldn't be allowed to talk about that. And who knows if their ideas are correct or not? Without a piece of paper to assure us, how can we evaluate their ideas otherwise?

And you know, if he'd just gone to college, his doctrine would have been much better. Like John Shelby Spong. Who is much more scriptural than Armstrong, right? He is if you count "rejecting the theistic God" as a biblical position.

No, sorry, I don't buy it. In the end, I suspect persistent very-bad theology -- Armstrong's case being no exception -- simply arises from an act of will. All the education in the world won't prevent that: you'll just get better-constructed and better-defended mistakes.