|
In spite of how
Worldwide Church of God would hopefully like to
bury certain parts of their history, this message shows some of the doctrines that
Herbert W. Armstrong
actually taught. It is a transcript of
a message given in the 1960's by Dr.
J. Vernon McGee.1 An interesting segment on this tape is the part about
Richard Armstrong's
car accident and his tragic death due to neglect of medical treatment to
prevent shock. (See ESN's Thoughts and Comments Regarding Richard Armstrong's
Death at the end.)
A few parts
have been slightly re-worded to make reading easier. Exact dates of some
magazines Dr. McGee quoted from are unknown.
Also read:
Richard Armstrong and the
Automobile Accident (includes the Co-Worker letter)
NOTICE: Worldwide
Church of God is
now considering a name change. Read:
Worldwide
Church of God is Changing Their Name.

The theme I think would be "the world
that never will be," or "the world of fairyland." For it is a fairyland of
religion, and it's
not created by Walt Disney, but created by Herb Armstrong. The World Tomorrow has never been seen on land,
or sea, or in the air, and there’s one thing for sure, it was never in the
Word of God. It’s more like Alice in Wonderland. It’s like’s
looking through a mirror. It’s where you see everything backwards.
Several
years ago this man followed me on a radio program and he took side-swipes
at my program, so I was told. I understand he was reprimanded by the radio
station. That I do not know. I was asked to listen in and I listened at
times. I’m sure that I could not say that he had picked on me
necessarily. But as I listened to him, he was so far out that I never
dreamed that anyone with an understanding of the Scriptures would ever
take him seriously. I found out to my amazement, as time went by, that
multitudes listened to him. He’s probably on more radio stations, and
has more programs, than any other religious broadcast in the world today.
Multitudes listen to him and they follow him and they send in millions to
him.
The
average person, I’m convinced, in our churches today is not able to
distinguish him from a fundamentalist. He has a garbled and a confused
message. That is the impression he makes. A Baptist preacher
back in
Michigan [Roger F. Campbell] wrote a little tract called, "Herbert Armstrong, Mr.
Confusion." That’s
available when you leave; you may have a copy of it. That, may I
say, is probably accurate. I’ve had many inquiries, and recently
I’ve seen many that have been delivered out of this cult. I
have a letter here that was handed in Thursday night. It says:
I
was saved in 1963 listening to you on radio. At this time I was also
listening to The World Tomorrow broadcast, but as I grew in spiritual
matters I saw the error of this cult.
I
talked to a couple the other night in Sacramento. They had been listening
to our program. They had been caught up in this [Armstrong's cult]. And they came to
all the services. We were teaching the epistle to the Galatians that
we’ve been teaching everywhere, and they told me that last night, "We
have been listening here, keeping quiet, because we were actually very
confused." And they came out of that and said, "We now can see
we are to trust Christ and Christ alone as our Savior."
Ambassador
College:
That's
one of the reasons that we have taken this as our subject. I want
to say first of all something concerning the founder of this cult. I do
not know Mr. Armstrong personally. He has a school in Pasadena on millionaire's
row, South Orange Grove. He's bought up some of the homes
millionaires had in days gone by, and I understand he bought them at a good
price. But he's built a school there. I called Dr. Charles
Fuller2--I guess fifteen years ago--and
I said, I'm getting inquiries on the radio about a school by the name of Ambassador
College in Pasadena and I never heard of it. He said to me, "We're
getting the same inquiries." He had done a little investigating and
he told me that (I think at that time) they didn't have many more than a
dozen students in the school. That's not true today. I think they had over
550 this year.
May
I say that they have a school that is very impressive. It's impressed
Pasadena. It will begin to make an impression on a city that is noted for
its culture. Dr. Forindike
[sp],
the eminent psychologist, said years ago that as he'd traveled over the
world he had come to the conclusion that the most ideal place to live was
Pasadena. One of the reasons he gave was it was a cultural center.
This school is now making quite an impact. They flew out at the first
of the year from London, England an entire choir. He has a
school over there, and you'll see why in a few moments. They presented a
program. Some friends of our were there and they said that it was a very
well presented program. It would commend itself to any audience anywhere,
presented on the very highest plane. In that program that was handed out
that night there's a statement concerning the college. I'd like to read
to you what they say about it: [words in
italics are
McGee's]
Ambassador
College with its three campuses is a co-educational institution in the
liberal arts at the university level. Each campus provides a cultural
setting with beautifully landscaped gardens and grounds. Academic
standards are maintained at the highest levels with a high ratio of
competent faculty personnel to students. A major emphasis is placed on
character building (if you'll notice that; nothing about Christian
living), recapturing the true values of life.
They
have a college right outside London, England and one over in Big Sandy,
Texas3
that I think right now is being built. Then in the magazine that
they publish [The Plain Truth] there was this statement concerning
the school--and let me say that I am anxious to read this because this is
the only statement I'll read that they make that I agree with. This is quite unusual: [words in
italics are
McGee's]
These
institutions are liberal arts colleges (and I wish our Christian
colleges today would come out and admit that they are nothing in the
world but liberal arts colleges and not attempt to say they are
something they are not), empowered by the state to confer degrees.4
They are not Bible schools. Most Ambassador graduates do not become
ministers.5
(I'm glad they acknowledge that. I wish other Christian schools would do
that.) And there is, on the other hand, a great deal of emphasis placed
on becoming a balanced person, avoiding any pseudo-spirituality, or nicey-nice behavior, that is so common around many religious
institutions.6
(Makes you sick at some of these places today that we were previously talking about--that honey that ought not to be put in the meal offering.
There's a lot of that outward sweetness that you see manifested in
public.) Yet, at the same time, the understanding of the Creator's
purpose in our lives and in world affairs is never forgotten.
May I say
to you that many of us would agree with that statement there.
They
had a graduation out there this past weekend. Our local paper--the
Pasadena paper--gave them a splendid write-up. Here is a picture of the
graduation services and it is a fine looking group of people that are
there. These are
not ordinary cult folk I can tell you that. They are not wild-eyed by any
means, as we shall see. Now this statement was made--and I have been
trying to get this information and my paper was just put on my lawn
yesterday afternoon.
The
college was founded in Pasadena in 1947. Since then it has expanded to a
45 acre campus and now has a $16,000,000 development underway.
So
you can see money is coming from somewhere. It makes my radio network look
like a peanut stand, selling popcorn, compared to an operation that is
like this. In Pasadena a businessman out there
tells me that they are accepted in the business community. They pay their
bills; they conduct business on a very high plane. This Mr. Armstrong is
an unusual man, evidently. He's a remarkable man, I tell you, to build up what he has
built up out there. He's just no ordinary individual. But he's evidently a
very fine businessman. One businessman in Pasadena made this statement,
"He's the kind of a man you like to do business with, because money is
no object with them out there. They go first class.7
They have a school where everything is plush, luxury, and they
conduct everything on a dignified basis." Reminds us of the school
that Mr. Oral Roberts has started over in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and he's
accepted in the business community. I do not know what the Pentecostals
are going to do now. He's left them and joined the Methodist Church over
there. I do not know. This man may be joining, before it's all over, one
of the fashionable churches in Pasadena.8 But I do not know anything
about
that.
Herbert
Armstrong's Audacious Statements:
Now
the other thing I'd like to say about him personally is that all I know is
his voice on radio and radio is nothing in the world but a voice. He
speaks with bombast, pomposity and profundity. I've always felt that as
I listened to him that he could read a want ad for the sale of a sick
parakeet as if he was Benjamin Franklin reading the Declaration of Independence for the first time. He presents that image, if you
please.
Now
here is something that seems almost unbelievable. And I'll have to read
some language here to get down to what he is saying, because he confuses
you before he gets to his point.9 If you
can follow him, you're better than I am. I'm reading now from his magazine:
[words in italics are
McGee's]
That
was the end of the effective, organized work of God proclaiming the
gospel of God's Kingdom to the world (that's Jehovah's Witnesses'
influence) for 18 l/2 centuries. As revealed in the parable of the ten
virgins, when Christ did not return to earth as soon as many of that day
expected him, while the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and
slept. So far as the job of proclaiming the true gospel message to the
whole world was concerned the church went to sleep on the job.
Now
for 18 l/2 centuries "the church was asleep on the job." Notice
that. That's important to note here.
Yes,
more than 18 l/2 centuries while the bridegroom tarried, they all
slumbered and slept. But as the living Christ kept his Church on the
job, proclaiming his gospel for two 19-year time cycles, after his
departure from earth. So he has purposed to awaken his Church to prepare
the way before him by proclaiming the good news for two 19-year time
cycles, prior to his return to earth as King of Kings and Lord of Lords
to set up the Kingdom of God to rule the peaceful and happy and joyful
world tomorrow.
Now,
I don't know whether you understand that thoroughly or not. I don't. But
what he's simply saying is this, however. Before you get to this, he works
out a system of cycles... I give you my word, I have never heard an
interpretation quite like it before. I can't understand why anybody would
fall for it. He works out
a 19-year time cycle. He says that there were two 19-year time cycles before
Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. Now, why he says two 19-year time cycles
I honestly don't know. Why not just one cycle of 38 years? But that's not
the way he does it.
He says: [words in
italics are
McGee's]
Beginning
with a certain date (and he sets dates) there will be two 19-year time
cycles (before the Lord comes, and he, today, is proclaiming that
message--and the only one).
Now
listen to this:
And
so beginning the first week of January 1934 the living Christ opened the
door. It was the door of radio and the printing press, mass media,
through which Christ's true gospel could be proclaimed to the multitudes. It
was the midnight hour when began the fulfillment of Matthew 25:6:
"there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."
Now
this is amazing. Here is what he says: After 38 years the city of
Jerusalem was destroyed, the church went to sleep (it's the "virgins,"
according to him) and for 18 l/2 centuries the church was asleep and no
true message went out until Herbert Armstrong went on the radio in 1934!
Now, my friend, I want to say you have to have gall to make a statement
like that. I can't imagine anyone... suppose that I would have the audacity
to stand up here and say the true gospel was never preached in the Church
of the Open Door 'till Vernon McGee got here. May I say that there would
be many that could contradict that. Every pastor that this church has had
has been a real preacher and teacher of the Word of God, and there's been
no exception to that. It would audacious to make a statement... Do you
notice what he is doing? He is saying that Tertullian, Ignatius,
Augustine, Athanasius...
Athanasius, that man that was
beaten on the back, gave the great statement in the Nicene Creed that
"He is very God of very God; He is very Man of
very Man"!10 And
then the martyrs. Fox says five million died for the name of the Lord
Jesus. My friend, to say that they were
asleep is an awful thing. It's a tragic
thing to say.
Think of the Waldensians and the price they paid in Northern
Italy. John Huss burned at the stake, [John] Wycliffe, Martin Luther, John
Calvin, Dwight L. Moody,11
Dr. G. Campbell Morgan12
that preached in this church at one time, Dr. A. C. Gaebelein,13
Dr. Harry
Ironside,14
Dr. Lewis Sperry
Chafer,15
and the men we had here at the prophetic
conference. All of these are "asleep"! The only man that's
"awake" is this man on the radio! My friend, you've got to have
nerve to make a statement like that. To imagine that this is the
"only" one. But you know, some people love dogmatic
statements like that, and they follow that. It's amazing the type of individuals
that will follow that sort of thing.
A
Strange Mixture:
Now
what is this "World Tomorrow"? I do want to say this that
Herbert's "World Tomorrow" is doing right well for him in the
world today. The thing is that it's a strange and weird mixture of
Seventh-day Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses and British-Israelism16
(or Anglo-Israelism, if you like that term better). I want you to notice
what he has brought in from these different cults. I can only hit the
surface. Anyway you touch this cult, you have the strangest
interpretations of Scripture that you've ever run into in your life. I'll
agree that nobody for 18 l/2 centuries ever interpreted Scripture quite
like this.
HWA
Takes From Seventh-day Adventists:
From
the Seventh-day Adventists, of course, he draws what many cults draw and
that is the Sabbath day. I'd like to quote him here and the statement he
has made in this connection. I will use direct quotations from him in his
magazine:
The
Lord's day is the day the Lord is the Lord of, the day that is his day,
and in Mark 2:28 Jesus Christ said he's Lord of the Sabbath, not of
Sunday. In this present verse (Exodus 20:10) he said to all the people
assembled, "But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:"
Here's
an example, a very strange hermeneutics (interpretation) of Scripture.
"The Lord's day is the day the Lord is the Lord of." All right,
fine. Then he quotes Mark 2:28 and the Lord Jesus said He's the Lord of
the Sabbath. Now, if he would only go back there and read that very
carefully, he will find out that our Lord said that to the religious
rulers when He was challenged. And the reason he said that He's Lord of the
Sabbath day was because He was breaking the Sabbath day, according to
their tradition, and He said since He's the Lord of the Sabbath day, He
could do it any way He wanted to! And He broke it. Now may I say to you,
that when He says He's Lord of the Sabbath day, it hasn't anything in the
world to do with us today observing this day or paying any reverence to it
at all.
Now
as we said earlier, the original Sabbath day--God rested on the
seventh day. God rested because His life creation was man and God found
rest in this man. He was His highest creation that He had put in the
physical universe. This man sinned and God didn't rest then. Our Lord,
when He came, you will remember, healed a man and opened his eyes on the
Sabbath day. He made the statement, when they challenged Him on that --"you had no right to do it"--He said, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
We don't observe any Sabbath day anymore. We're not Sabbath-day observers.
We don't do it, because we can no longer rest in that man. That man is in
sin, and when the ox gets down in the ditch, He even told his people, you
can get him out on the Sabbath day. God says, I'm working to get that
man out and I can't rest until I bring him back into fellowship.
Now
the Sabbath was never given in the garden of Eden to man, because the
seventh, as it's given to man, is this, Six days shalt thou labor and the
seventh is the day of rest. But you see, man, in the garden of Eden never
labored. It was not until he sinned that it was by the sweat of his brow.
Then he needed the seventh day, but God never gave it to him in the garden
of Eden. Now
after man sinned, He gave it to the children of Israel. He never gave this
to the world at all. He says in Exodus that this is a covenant--a peculiar
relationship between Me and the children of Israel. It hasn't anything in
the world actually to do with the world today. Therefore, the Sabbath day has never
been even given to the church. All the commandments are repeated in the
Epistles with exception to the one concerning the Sabbath day. We're not
to kill today (it says "Thou shalt not kill"), but it doesn't
say you are to keep the Sabbath day today. In fact, Paul says, let no man
judge you in respect to a Sabbath day. There's
a great deal more that could be said about that.
To
Observe Passover Today Borders on Blasphemy:
Now
there's something else that is very interesting... He even outdoes the
Seventh-day Adventists in this connection. He observe the Passover feast,
of all things. I have been looking during the Passover season for them to
bring a lamb out there to church, but if you read his letter, he
substitutes for a lamb that they bring an offering and not bring the lamb.
But in the Passover feast of the Old Testament you didn't bring an
offering, you brought a lamb and that lamb was slain. But let me read a
letter that he got out in 1963:
Greetings
in Jesus' name. The Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread are once again
nearly upon us. So be sure to read all of this special letter about
plans for the spring festival.
And
believe me, he really tells his followers what to do. I wish I could have
just half that influence with those who are members of the Open Door,
especially in giving that he has with his own.
But listen to this. I just
lift out one other excerpt:
As
I said then, this is frankly incomprehensible to me as a servant and minister
of God that some of the very people of God could forget the day which
commemorates the very death of their savior.
Now
that sounds very pious, but did you know that that borders on blasphemy?
The Passover was never given to commemorate the death of Christ. It does not
look back to it; it looked forward to His coming. Paul could write,
Christ, our Passover is offered for us! So that we no longer observe a
Passover. We look back to the death of Christ! And yonder at the Passover
feast, on the dying embers of a fading feast, He raised something new--the
Lord's Supper. And he says, "This looks back to my death. As often as ye do this
ye shew forth My death." But, my friend, the Passover... What you are
saying is it looked forward to His coming. When you attempt to observe it today, you are saying that He never
came. You are absolutely despising His death to even attempt to commemorate
in a Passover feast.
That is just part of what he takes out of Seventh-day
Adventism.
HWA
Takes From Jehovah's Witnesses:
Then
he takes out of Jehovah's Witnesses. He always talks about "Good
News" and "What must I do to be saved?" Here is a partial
answer. You don't just do one thing to be saved, let me tell you. He has
quite a few. I'd like to quote from him on this and this goes back to his
magazine in March 1963, "What is the Good News?" Now listen to
this.
Paul
said--I just made a tape on the 16th of Acts for our Thru the Bible
program--Paul
said, to the Philippian jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and
thou shalt be saved."
Now
unfortunately, Paul didn't know that he had said the wrong thing. He
should have said this:
The
apostles were commanded to go forth and preach exactly the same gospel that Jesus had proclaimed throughout his earthly ministry--the Good News
of the Government of God. Men were instructed to repent of their ways
and believe that message in order to be saved. Did the apostles and ministers
of God's Church preach that same message?
Then
he goes on to say that they did.
It
is faith--not in Christ--but in God's coming world government, man's
only hope! And it's faith in that and not faith in Christ that saves.
[emp. ours]
He
goes on:
Jesus
and his apostles continued preaching the same message of God's coming
world government.
Now
let me say just this word in this connection. That is a failure to
interpret Scripture by just lifting out a verse here. Our Lord began by
preaching the same message John the Baptist did: "Repent, for the
Kingdom of heaven is at hand." He offered Himself to His people. We
saw here last week that Peter, in his second sermon--one of the greatest
messages I think ever given; the largest number saved at that time. And
when he preached that message he said to this nation, this is your last
opportunity. If you right now, as a nation, would accept Him, God would
send Him to this earth to establish His Kingdom. Now, of course, the
critic comes along and says, "Well, suppose they had, what then?" Well, God
had a plan, my friend, but it's a "iffy" question and it didn't
work out that way. But it was an offer.
Now,
as you move along, why doesn't he come on up to where the Lord Jesus, when
He was rejected, He pronounced a curse on Capernaum,
Bethsaida, and some of these other places, and then He turned to the
multitudes--and listen to His message: Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I'll
rest you. The rest of redemption. He now offers personal salvation and He
goes to the cross and says go out and preach what? The gospel? What was
the gospel? That Jesus died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He
rose again the third day, and that saves you, and nothing else will save
you! [Read I Corinthians 15:1-4] May I say, that that is not the message
that he gives. It's the message of Jehovah's Witnesses. The message that
you believe in the kingdom. And actually there's no personal relationship
to Jesus Christ at all. And the reason for that is just simply
because--we'll see later--that they deny really the deity of the Lord
Jesus Christ.
Richard
Armstrong: A Tragic Death:
Now
I do not want to dwell on this. I merely mention it because I certainly do
not want to dwell on any man's sorrow. I don't know whether it was his eldest
son--I take it, it was--was killed in an automobile
accident.17
And the way I bumped into it is there's a Bass family up in the San Juan
King Valley that for several years I used to go
up and hunt with them. They had a ranch at that time in the Tehachapi
[Mountains]. They're a
lovely
family, saved out of
Romanism.18 They came out of the
mountain area there between Spain and France. I noticed the last time up
there the man was limping and I said to him, "What in the world has
happened to you? You are limping." And he said, "Haven't you
heard? I was in an automobile
accident. And
he was coming, he said, over beyond San Luis Obispo, California. That's
when they were working on the freeway there. This boy, Mr. Armstrong's
son, came up on the wrong side of the freeway apparently and ran head on
into the car. And when the ambulance arrived, and the doctor, he started to give this boy
a shot to keep him out of shock, and the one with
him19
said, "Don't
you do that. It's against our religion." And the doctor said, "He
has to be given this." He told him "no" but to "call his
father." And he called his father in Pasadena and his father said, "Don't touch him with the
needle." Now that is a sad thing, because the doctor said if he could
have given him a shot (to save him out of shock) he could have saved his
life. But the boy, by the time the father got there, he died.
And that, as you know, is Jehovah's Witnesses today. There
is a case--I do not know just where it is--either in this area or San
Diego area--about this mother with an unborn child. Did she have a right to
refuse medical attention for the sake of the child? Because she belonged to
the cult that believed you should not have
blood transfusions and that type of thing. Anyone has a personal right, of
course, to believe that way, but may I say that I would have thought--and
at that time wondered--if it wouldn't change the [HWA's] message, but
apparently it has not. "We're still under law" and "you're
not to have shots given to you." That is strictly, of course,
Jehovah's Witnesses' viewpoint.
[NOTE:
Be sure and read ESN's Thoughts and Comments
Regarding Richard Armstrong's Death at bottom of this article (includes recent research).]
HWA
Teaches British-Israelism:
Then
let me come to the third and the last one of the cults that he draws from
and this is the one, of course, that he majors in and that is
British-Israelism,
or Anglo-Israelism, if you want to call it that. They came up with this
theory years concerning the "ten lost tribes" and I don't know
don't why anyone would use that. The tribes never were lost. They're not
lost any more than the others are lost, because no Jew today knows what
tribe, actually, he belongs to. And certainly no one knows whether they
belong to the family of David, or not. But the ones who've developed this
cult, they claim that England and America are two of the tribes. They're
Ephraim and Manasseh. May I say that it makes a nice little theory, and it
has no basis whatever in the Word of God.
I'll quote from him here. He
says:
Our
white English speaking peoples today--Britain and America--are actually
and truly the birthright tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh of the lost
house of Israel.
Then
you'd say, "What about the other eight tribes?" Well, he's got a
way for them, too. He says there's "ample evidence" (and I can't
even find a little). But he says:
There's
ample evidence that these other eight have descended into such
northwestern European nations as Holland, Belgium, Denmark, northern
France, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Sweden Norway, Finland and at least
portions of western
Germany.
Now
the thing that interests us is the fact that England and America (our white Americans and white English) are the lost tribes. May I say that
this right now is one of the most dangerous cults for racism in this
country that you could possibly have. As if one race has some superiority.
And that's always been propagated by some. No race has any
superiority over another race, and God never made us that way. This idea
that we've come from these tribes....
Now
the way he arrives at it is fearfully and wonderfully made, let me tell
you. (I'll give you that quotation in just a moment.) But it is one of the
things that today is very popular, especially in England. England is a
third rate nation. I'm sorry they are. I'm sure all of us that have come
from that area, and from Europe, that we hate to see that area go down,
and it is going down. Civilization is dying over there and Great Britain
is just a third rate nation. That's all that they are. And this sort of
thing bolsters you up to make you think, "Well, we are the lost
tribes. We'll be all right." It administers to pride and there's no
accident that he has a college in England. Naturally. The British would
fall for this sort of thing, especially in these days when they've lost
prestige all over the world.
I
was in Victoria several years ago--and what do they call this about the
colors? I never found out what that is. Striking of the colors. I was
walking down the street in Victoria and I heard a band--my, it was
good--they were really coming down the street playing. And I followed them
because I'm from the country. I wanted to know where they were going. They
went down to the government building, the palace there, and you've never
seen such a ceremony. They had a regular band concert. Then they lowered
the flag and they were blowing the trumpet and everything, and the Union
Jack came down, and one solider he folds it and he hands it to a soldier
and that soldier he hands it to a soldier and he hands it to a soldier and they just
kept passing it until it got way off somewhere and then that fellow took
it and hid it somewhere. I don't know where it took it.
And
frankly, as I stood there and watched that, there was a day when it could
be said that the sun never set on the Union Jack. I must confess, I just
stood there and tears came down my eyes and I said, there was a day when
that meant something, but now they're just like a bunch of children
playing. It doesn't mean anything now. But there was a day when that
really meant something.
So
if you're one of the lost tribes, it makes you feel pretty good, you see.
You can feel like you've got a special, ringside seat to the Millennium,
to the world tomorrow; it makes it nice.
Now
somebody says, but doesn't he have more evidence than that? Well, would
you like to listen to his statement? This is interpretation for you. Now
you listen to this. I'm quoting:
[words in italics are
McGee's]
In
view of the linking together of biblical history, prophecy and Irish
history (well, I've heard of Irish coffee, but I've never heard of Irish
history), can anyone deny that this Hebrew princess was the daughter of
King Zedekiah of Judah
(Well, I can deny it--and I do.) and therefore
heir to the throne of David?
In
other words, Queen Elizabeth--she's sitting on the throne of David. Wonder
what David thinks about that? I wonder what the Lord Jesus thinks about
that?
Let me read on. This is strange.
That
the aged patriarch was, in fact, Jeremiah and his companion (Jeremiah's
scribe, or secretary) Baruch and the King Herremon was a descendent of Zarah, here married to
the daughter of Pharez,
healing the ancient breach. [last few words were somewhat unclear]
Do
you understand that? Neither do I. Now let's go on:
That
when the throne of David was first overturned by Jeremiah it was replanted
in Ireland. [emp. McGee's]
Now,
frankly, I'll be honest with you, I don't see how anyone today could
accept that type of interpretation and it brings Bible interpretation into
disrepute to do that.
It
was replanted in Ireland, later overturned a second time and replanted
in Scotland (And I'm glad we got in on it a little there.),
overturned a third time and planted in London, from where it cannot be
overturned, or moved again, until the coming of Christ when it once
again shall be overturned and transplanted back in Jerusalem.
I'm
a little confused whether Christ is coming now to London or
Jerusalem when He comes to the earth.
Now will you listen to this. If you
think that was something, listen to this:
The
Royal Family of the British Commonwealth possesses a chart showing its
ancestry, every generation, back to Herremon and Tephi, to Zedekiah, on
back to David, and through the scriptural genealogy, clear to Adam. The
writer has a copy of this chart and also his own genealogy for each
generation back into the line of ancient British kings, and therefore
has the complete record of his genealogy through the house of David
clear to Adam--believe it or not. (And believe it or not, I don't believe
it.)
Now,
isn't that amazing? I'll be honest with you, I am absolutely overwhelmed
to think anybody would believe that.
When
Christ returns to earth to sit on that throne, he shall take over a
live, existing throne, not a non-existent one. God's word's still
stands. Almighty God has kept all his promises.
Now
when the Lord Jesus returns to the earth, will he take over a live throne?
Let's let James, at the first council of the church at Jerusalem, answer
that question. And this was where they settled, once and for all, that man
is saved by grace and grace alone. "And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will
build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will
build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:" [Acts
15:13-16] [emp. ours]
Now
when he comes back will someone in the house of David be sitting on the
throne in London? James says no! He says that when he comes again
He will build again the house of David that's fallen down and there's not
a person, there's not a Jew on topside of this earth, can say he belongs
to the house of David today. Not an individual. Because when He comes
again, He's the only one that has a claim to it. When the Lord Jesus comes
again, He will restore the house of David that has fallen down in the
ruins therefore. Now this man says that He comes back to a live throne.
Whose right? James, or the modern man? I say to you that I agree with
James; that when He comes back it will be as James says it will be. This
[HWA's interpretation] is something that is indeed way out.
Now,
there is another angle to this that is quite interesting. I won't develop
it other than to just mention it. He makes it very clear that he thinks
Judah crucified Christ and that tribe is guilty and the rest of us, if we
belong to the Ephraim and Manasseh, we're not guilty. May I say to you
that we are guilty, and not only are we guilty, but when Peter was speaking
to them, he said, Ye men of Israel (not Judah, but ye men of
Israel), hear me. You are the ones who took Him and you crucified Him.
[Acts 2:22-23] He held the whole house of Israel guilty! And you and I
can't point our finger at anyone, because if I had not been a sinner He
would never have died on the cross. He said no man taketh my life from me.
I have power to lay it down; I have power to take it again. [John 10:18]
And He said that He died for my sins. So the one that put Him on
the cross was Vernon McGee, and I'm as guilty as anyone. This idea of
trying to point your finger at someone today and saying they are guilty. Peter said, speaking to them, the whole house of
Israel is guilty. You can't pick out just two tribes and blame them and
say the other ten are not guilty.
Now
the final test--and this is, I think, the one thing that is all important.
"What
think ye of Christ?" is the test, To try both, your state and your scheme; You cannot be right in the rest, Unless you think rightly of Him.
A
Statement of HWA's That is Blasphemy:
What
about the Lord Jesus Christ? Now here is something--and frankly I must
confess I'm not sure I understand him. In fact, I don't understand him in
many things he says. But he makes a statement here that, if it is as I
interpret it, it is blasphemy. And in the magazine he deals with the Lord
Jesus in words like this. Now I am quoting: [words in
italics are McGee's]
One
year ago in The Plain Truth
(and that's a name for a
magazine. To me it's not plain, nor truth, but he calls it The Plain
Truth magazine) of February 1962 appeared an article caption, "Just
What Do You Mean Born Again?" It warned, "Don't be too sure
you know. Many religious people talk about being born again and don't
really know what Christ meant by these words." That article of a year
ago is available in booklet form, free for the asking. But
how many realize that Jesus Christ Himself was born-again and in the
same manner in which He said we must be born again? Just what did Christ
mean when He said to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born again, he cannot
see the Kingdom of God"? The universally accepted idea of fundamentalist
Christians is that being born-again means the experience of having one's
sins forgiven. They call it a "born-again experience."
(I still think
that's right.) By it they mean a sinner being converted, experiencing
salvation from sin. Many fundamentalist Protestants will say, "I'm a
sinner, born again and saved by grace" and similar expressions.
Have these people really been born again--or have they been deceived?
Have they had the same born again experience Christ had? But wait a
minute! Surely that last sentence can't mean what it said.
(I wish it
didn't.) Was Jesus Christ actually born again and in the same manner
that he taught that we must be born again? Incredible! Unbelievable!
(And you're right.) Was Jesus Christ a sinner? Did He need salvation
from sin? No! Of course not! Yet Jesus Christ was born again, just as he
taught that we must be born again. I now show you one scripture--and
there will be more later in this article--but most readers who claim to
have been born again will not believe it, though it's the very Word of
God. Here it is: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many
brethren."
Now,
he takes this being born again and he relates His first birth to Bethlehem
and His second birth to His resurrection. And what he is saying here (if I
understand him) is that He got his human nature from Mary at His first
birth, and He got his divine birth at His resurrection, and He never was
God until then.
Now
may I say to you, that that is the oldest heresy that is known to man.
It's Gnosticism. It comes actually from the very beginning. It was the
first heresy in the church. You see, that's what the Gnostic says, that
deity came upon Him. Now the Gnostics, they were divided. Some of them
said it came upon Him at His baptism, others at His temptation, others
when He began His public ministry, others at the time He was crucified,
others when He was raised from the dead, and others even when He ascended
into heaven. This man believes deity did not come upon Him until His
resurrection. That is to deny the deity of the Lord
Jesus Christ.
I'll not go into this other here, but he despises the name of Jesus,
which is to me is a very terrible thing. [emp. ours]
We
Are Saved By Faith:
Now
let me add one other thing in closing. A moment ago we mentioned one of
the things that he gives for being saved. And now I'd like to mention
another thing that he says. You're to believe in the government of God.
That is Jehovah's Witnesses. Now you are to keep the Law. That's
Seventh-day Adventism. And not faith in Christ alone, but actually you are
to keep the Law, and I think he is very clear in making this statement.
Let me read this, and I am quoting: [all
words in italics are McGee's]
The
idea Satan is trying to put across is that it is impossible for man to
keep the spiritual law of God, and so Jesus came as our Savior, not in
the flesh with normal human nature, but through some special process
(See, again, he denies the deity) so that he could keep the law of God in
our stead and, therefore, we don't have to keep the spiritual law. What
Christ did in our stead was to die for us, but his obedience was our
example. Those who believe this doctrine seem to forget that Jesus
obeyed God in every way, leaving us an example that we should follow in
his steps. "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments."
You
see, going back and quoting what our Lord said before He went to the cross
to an Israelite under the Law. And the Israelites... Peter could say at the
council in Jerusalem, our fathers never kept the law, and we have
not kept it. And why should we saddle this on the Gentiles? We never did
keep it.
Now
he goes on to say:
Man
shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. We are not only
to keep the letter of the Law, but to follow it as it is magnified throughout
the bible in every word of God.
You
see that sounds very good. Now let me read again before we mention this.
And this, by the way... I think that we should quote at least from his son
Garner Ted Armstrong who now, I understand, has the program. And if you
think the father's confused, you listen to this now...if he doesn't takes a clear
passage of Scripture and makes it mean the opposite of what it really
means. Listen to this:
To
many people justification means vaguely the same thing grace has meant
to so many thousands of deceived persons. It means to many deceived
ones a condition permanently attributed to a Christian. Many people
think once a person is justified he is made right from then on, but this
is simply untrue. Again, let's go to the only source to understand these
all-important points.
Now
he quotes Romans 2:13:
"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."
Now here again is taking Scripture out of context, wresting it from its
meaning. In the second chapter of Romans Paul is not even discussing
salvation. In Romans 1, Romans 2, down to Roman 2:20, Paul is showing man
is a sinner. Now he takes up the different classes of men. When he shows
how terrible sin is, those that are down and out, a great many people--so
called good people, religious people--draw the
cloaks around and say, "I'm not like that." Paul says you're a sinner just
like they are. Then he puts down the principles by which God is going to
judge men, not the principles by which God is going to save men.
He's not talking about salvation; he's talking about the principles of
judgment.
Now,
one of them is "it's not the hearers of the law that are just before
God, but the doers of the law." It's the thing today. A great many
people think if they approve...or they say, "My, the Ten
Commandments are wonderful and the Sermon the Mount is great." This
man said to me at this luncheon years ago, "Why the Sermon on the
Mount is my religion." I asked him how he was doing with it and he
said, "What do you mean?" I said, "Well, do you keep it?"
And he said, "I try." I said, "That's not the point. If
that's your religion, then you ought to be living by it." He said,
"Just what do you mean?" I said, "The Lord took two
commandments and lifted them to the endth degree. He said, if you are
angry with your brother, you are guilty of murder." I said, "Do
you live up to that?" "Well," he said, "I'm not sure I
do." (Of course, he doesn't, if the man is honest.) Then I said,
"Let's take the other one. He said if you so much as look upon a
woman to lust after her, you are guilty of adultery. I said, "Look me
in the eye and tell me that you're not guilty." And he said,
"Well, I guess that gets me." I said, "It sure does. If you
are honest, you know the Sermon the Mount is not your religion. You just
approve of it. That's all. It's a great document."
Why
the Sermon on the Mount, Paul makes it very clear to the Galatians that
the Sermon on the Mount and the Law were given as a paidagōgos
(Paul calls it a paidagōgos).
It is a schoolmaster, not to teach us, but a servant in a Roman home that
took the little child by the hand and led him to school where he could be
taught. And the Law was given that it might take us by the hand and bring
us to Christ. Listen to Paul (and this ought to answer it):
Galatians
2:16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for
by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." [emp.
McGee's]
Now
you would think that would be clear enough. But it's not clear enough for
those that garble it and try to put you under Law to be saved, my beloved.
Will
you listen again to what Paul says here in Galatians in 3:19:
"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come
..."
It
was given until Christ should come. It was the schoolmaster to
bring us to Christ. The Law was given to show us that we are guilty before
God, and any man that is honest, who will look at his own heart; knows that he
does not measure up to God's standard, and when he knows he doesn't
measure up to God's standard, then he can come to a Savior and accept Him
and only on that basis and that basis alone.
Let's
notice here again [Galatians 3:21]:
"Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law."
God
could not give a law to give you life, because you can't measure up to
God's standard; therefore God had to provide another way since He loved us
and He provided that way in Christ that we might be saved.
Listen
again to him:
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."
[Galatians 3:24]
May
I say to you, you're not saved by the Law. The Law doesn't enter into
salvation. And what a horrible, awful thing to tell poor, weak sinners
today.
Just
Robots:
I
close with this statement. A businessman also told me that he knows
something about that campus out there. He told about what high class folk
that they have. He [HWA] has the very best. He goes first class. Money is
no object. But that those that are there move like they're robots.
That is characteristic... And I thought that explanation was quite
interesting that characterizes those that go into cults. They move as if
they are just robots, following a pattern, doing certain things, and going
through that little ritual--as if that commends us to God.
Paul
also says in Galatians 5:1:
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,
..."
He's
delivered us from the Law. He's delivered us today from this world, and
today He says we can live for Him, not following some little ritual, some
little patent, but to be joined to the living
Christ. Oh, what a wonderful privilege that is today, to be joined to the
living Christ and not be joined to some little ritual and some little
legal system, or some little cult or ism. To be joined to the living
Christ, and today to love Him and to serve Him. That's the thing that's
all important.
Shall
we pray.
Our
gracious, loving Father God, we do rejoice in this glorious gospel
of the grace of God, that by grace we are saved through faith, and even
that is not of ourselves; it's the gift of God, not of works lest any man
should boast. And tonight we cannot boat of anything we are, or have done,
but we tonight can boast of a Savior. And God forbid that we should glory
save in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, by which we are crucified unto
the world and the world unto us. Oh God, take our minds and our hearts off
from these systems today and even churches today, and may we be fixed in
our thinking, and in our minds, upon the living Christ. Make Him real. For
we pray in Jesus' name. Amen.
By
J. Vernon McGee
1960's (exact date unknown)
Posted June 27, 2005
[Transcribed
by A. W., Exit & Support Network™ from tape RE-1]
ESN's Thoughts
and Comments Regarding Richard Armstrong's Death:
The death of Richard David Armstrong was no
doubt a tragic thing, especially in light of the above testimony from the
doctor who said that if a shot had been allowed to be administered to
Richard, it could have saved his life. Herbert Armstrong (of course) never
mentioned how he had said not to give his own son the shot. Instead, in
the Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong, HWA says that Richard
died a week later in route to UCLA Medical Center in order to get an
"artificial kidney" connected to him. (Vol. 2, p. 421, 1961;
revised 1987.)
How common were kidney transplants
back in 1958?
In researching a history of kidney
transplants we find that one was done in 1954 from one twin to another without any
immunosuppressive medication (twins do not reject the other's organ).
However, the first successful cadaver
transplant to non-twins wasn't until 1962. Notice:
1962: First cadaveric kidney
transplant is performed at Brigham
Hospital in Boston, Mass. (Timeline
for History of Organ and Tissue Transplantation) (Also see Transplant
Time Line/Kidney)
"Tissue typing and immune system suppression with drugs was first
used in a human kidney transplant in 1962, paving the way for
transplantation of other organs."
(Organ
Transplants: 50 Years of Sharing Life)
Dr. Mortimer Levy (History
of the Nephrology Division at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal puts
the date at 1964). He goes on to say:
"In the late 1950s, when I was
becoming interested in nephrology, nothing could be done about chronic
renal failure in any of its forms except when due to obstructive cause.
... the artificial kidney was considered highly experimental even 8 years
later. It was never used at Bart's when I was a student. It was used once
or twice when I was at Hammersmith but more as a desperate last-ditch
stand, and nearly always, as far as I remember, without success. At the
Royal Victoria Hospital in the late 1950s, it was still a procedure of
last resort."
Herbert Armstrong's teaching at this time was "no medical intervention" and
so Richard did not receive the needed shot for shock. Yet, it was
contradictory for HWA to write in his autobiography that the reason Richard was moved to the
second hospital (a week later) was to undergo a kidney transplant--an
operation which records show was considered highly experimental in those days, and
usually without success.
Read: How Did Worldwide Church of God
Instruct Ministers to Deal With "Health and Medical Problems"?
(These policies were taught to the ministers
to "avoid prosecution.")
Now let's look at an earlier
account of Richard Armstrong's accident--Herbert
Armstrong's July 17, 1958 Co-Worker letter to the members in which he says
Richard died the previous Wednesday. (Note: July 17 must have been a misprint and meant to
say July 27 since HWA mentions it being "Sunday afternoon." Read the
original letter.) In it HWA says that the first hospital (which he
doesn't name) refused to keep Richard unless he (Richard) would allow them
"free hand in medical treatment" and so they hastened to transfer him to
another hospital where he was given a blood transfusion. (Co-Worker
letter, July 17 [?], 1958, p. 1) He says Richard was actually "dying" when
removed from that first hospital. (Ibid., p. 2)
HWA says he and Norman Smith (WCG
minister) picked up Dr. Ralph E. Merrill (their college physician) and
drove to the hospital in San Luis Obispo. Richard's condition was
described as very severe (extreme shock; broken bones, broken jaw;
displaced organs; collapsed lung, etc.), yet members were led to believe
that Richard had been conscious enough to reject medical aid, pray
constantly for his own healing, bear up under the pain, and even able to communicate feebly to his
father! (Ibid., p. 4)
HWA goes on to tell how Richard's kidneys were "being
overloaded" and "unable to produce normally" and so the doctors were
unable to begin tending to his broken bones, displaced organs, etc. until
that condition was cleared up. In the same paragraph he says, "Yesterday
and today the kidney condition is improving. The doctors are
much encouraged." (Ibid., p. 2) [bolding ours]
We can see from what the
witness told Dr. McGee (see
above) that it is most likely that Richard went into shock in the emergency room
(due to HWA not letting them give him the necessary shot)
and was dead by the time HWA arrived at the
hospital.
Read 2005 letter to ESN which states
Richard was "dead on arrival" at the hospital.
Read: December 9, 2005 letter to ESN:
Richard's Armstrong's Accident Enabled HWA to Coerce More Money Out of
Members.
Footnotes by ESN:
1
J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988) was pastor of the Church of the Open Door in Los Angeles, California, and founder of
Thru the Bible Radio. He
lived in Pasadena, California.
2
Charles E. Fuller (1887-1968) became the director of The Old Fashioned
Revival Hour on radio.
3
Worldwide Church of God sold the Ambassador College Big Sandy campus to Hobby
Lobby Stores, Inc. in March 2000, who then leased the campus to Bill Gothard,
president of Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP). Gothard bought all the
property in the buildings. (Calvary Contender, May 15, 2000) For
an in-depth exposé
on Bill Gothard and his pharisaical, cultic
"system," read:
Bill Gothard.
4
The
"degree" that students received from Ambassador College after
graduation was virtually worthless in the real world.
5
This statement is part of HWA's double talk because AC was set up
basically to train young men to become ministers in the Worldwide Church of
God.
6
HWA's colleges made use of thought reform
in order to
control students' behavior and emotions. These methods do not create
balanced people in the long run.
7
Read: Herbert W. Armstrong: The Rich
Apostle.
8
The Worldwide Church of God eventually started making doctrinal changes in order to
join with mainstream Christianity. Read the
OIU
Newsletters and
articles under WCG Changes
and
History Revision.
9
Confusion is always a part of mind control
in cults.
10
The Nicene Creed was the
first written creed of the Church. In it the Church confesses that Christ
is very God of very God: begotten, not created; co-substantial with the
Father. Athanasius defeated Arianism, which stated that Jesus was only a
created Being. Athanasius said that Jesus was God.
11
D.
L. Moody (1837–1899). Many feel he was the greatest evangelist in the
history of the New Testament church. Within a 40-year period he won one million souls, founded three
Christian schools, and inspired literally thousands of preachers.
12
G. Campbell Morgan (1863-1945) was born in Tetbury, England; was a Bible
teacher and pastored many churches, including Westminster Chapel in
London.
13
Arno C. Gaebelein (1861-1945) was
an evangelist, author, journalist, and Bible expositor. Read his
article: The
Work of Christ.
14
Harry A. Ironside (1876-1951) was a Bible teacher; he published over
80 books and pamphlets. Read his article:
Eternal
Security of the Believer.
15
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952) was a Bible teacher, author and
lecturer; president and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary (originally,
the Evangelical Theological College) in 1924. His emphasis was on the
centrality of Christ and the grace of God. (Note: Today Dallas Theological
Seminary is a
New-Evangelical institution, promotes Spiritual Formation, and takes no
firm stand against Modernist views of the Bible.)
16
HWA's beliefs were indeed an eclectic mixture, since he plagiarized from
other religious cults along with adding his own views. Read ESN's
critical
review of HWA's book Mystery of the Ages.
17
The automobile accident happened in July 1958. Richard was 30 years
old.
18
Roman Catholicism.
19
Alton Billingsley (also known as Don Billingsley), long time WCG
minister, was the driver of the car Richard Armstrong was in when the
accident happened. Read:
Richard Armstrong's Tragic Death
(Letter to ESN which mentions Alton Billingsly)
20
The critical reviewer of
Mystery of the
Ages tells us that the Lost Ten Tribes actually ended up in Armenia,
Greece, Macedonia, Ethiopia--just about everywhere but Europe. In spite
of legends concerning Paul "going to England," Paul was the apostle to
the Gentiles, which should show that England was a Gentile country.
Richard Armstrong and the
Automobile Accident (includes the Co-Worker letter)
Richard
Armstrong's Tragic Death (Letter to ESN which
mentions Alton Billingsly)
How Did
Worldwide Church of God Instruct Ministers to Deal With "Health and
Medical Problems"? (These policies
were taught to the ministers to "avoid prosecution" and show the
main reason why WCG changed the healing doctrine.)
Questioning Herbert W.
Armstrong
(was he who he said he was?)
Back to
Worldwide Church of God Exposé Articles
Return to top
|