Redefining common religious terms into a cult’s unique dialect is known as "loading the language." HWA will spend the next 96 pages—the longest chapter in the MOA—redefining Christian terms into these new "loaded" terms—words that sound Christian but, as early church father Irenaeus observed, mean something completely different. Once HWA lured his readers into his web, he knew they could never find their way back out of this confusion-filled mess. They would have to stumble along and blindly follow his lead, putting their complete trust in him.

In this sixth chapter of the MOA, we will observe HWA pull off the ultimate con—getting the reader to buy into the belief that his church is the only true church that preaches the only true gospel. First, he will convince the reader that the gospel proclaimed today is a false gospel and that the true gospel was not proclaimed from A.D. 50 until the year 1953. (p. 198) HWA begins each doctrinal discussion with misrepresentations of "traditional Christianity" used intentionally to stir up feelings of outrage and discontent. Confident that he has secured the reader’s sympathy and loyalty, he offers what seems to be the "correct" biblical explanations to these seemingly "illogical" doctrines. HWA will quote history to establish his organization’s sacred roots, painting a legendary epic of a "small, faithful flock" being persecuted by institutionalized Christianity. HWA reassures the reader that this "passing of the baton" from one faithful group to the next has continued throughout the ages to this present day. He will claim to be carrying the baton of the Philadelphian Era. Having successfully immobilized this "small flock" against this formidable "false Christian" foe, the size and scope of HWA’s "Work" will be used as evidence that God is supernaturally backing this "end time messenger." The appeal to the reader’s conscience for help puts him in a precarious position—either be one of the few, faithful elite that God is calling to proclaim these "truths" to the end, or join the ranks of the bloodthirsty deceived "whore." The scam is on while the options are narrowed: partner with God, or partner with the devil—which will the reader choose?

One clever (and very effective) tactic used by con artists is to make the customer/victim¹ believe that he/she is in control and can walk away at any time when, in fact, the opposite is true. We will observe numerous examples of limited choices followed by the heaping of "guilt and bad feelings" if one chooses to go against HWA, as in the example above. Let’s revisit HWA’s usual methods to disarm and influence the reader. He will begin with a false premise—that the "truth" about the church is being withheld from the general public [bolding mine]:

The real truth about the Church, the reason for its origin, is as little understood as the Bible itself. The revelation of that mystery must come as a shocking truth. The real truth about the church…and its purpose has remained hidden from even the professing Christian world. (p.198)

Millions have read over this passage (II Cor. 4:3-4) without grasping its real meaning. (p. 198)

But is the Church a building? Many assume it is, which assumption reflects their ignorance of the purpose and meaning of the Church. (p. 199)

Yet almost no one has ever known that meaning. (p. 199)

What has been hidden from even the professing Christian world is the real purpose of the Church…(p. 199)

Again, the set up becomes increasingly transparent. HWA utilizes social pressure against the reader by placing him in the category with the "assuming and ignorant" masses for not knowing the true purpose of the church. But for those who are interested in finding the "hidden" purpose and meaning—one that "almost" no one has ever known, HWA will gladly initiate the reader into his secret society—his organization.

EKKLESIA—"CALLED OUT ONES"

HWA confidently gives the unscholarly reader a short lesson on the Greek meaning of the word "church":

The word church is an English-language word translated from the original Greek of ekklesia. Ekklesia means called-out-ones. (p. 199)

From where did HWA get this definition? He doesn’t say. When HWA doesn’t quote the Strong’s Concordance, then that should be our clue to see what he may be hiding. In the New Testament, the word "church" is assigned number 1577 in the Greek. Strong’s defines ekklesia as "a calling out, i.e., (concr.) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both)—assembly, church." Once again, we witness the purposeful omission of information that contradicts his teachings. We do not see the term "called-out-ones" as part of this definition. Obviously, the "assumptions of the many ignorant" have been correct. There is nothing erroneous with today’s definition of what a church is—a gathering or meeting of believers assembling together for worship. The type of building they meet in is irrelevant, but HWA wants to make issues out of non-issues to keep the reader suspicious and distracted.

In duplicitous mockery, HWA spewed all over the mainstream church for acquiring "worldly" real estate, telling members over and over that the "church building isn’t the church," but then he went out and acquired buildings and expensive real estate for himself. So here again, HWA holds a double standard. He spared no expense to lavish himself with the best, while the members footed the bill and went without.

When a new recruit attends a Sabbath Service for the first time, he/she will question the unappealing surroundings of the "rental hall," which is usually a school auditorium, Masonic or IOOF buildings; a basement of an office complex, or hotel conference room. Many of the buildings are musty, or run-down, with little or no heating or air conditioning, few or no windows, and many of these rentals are located in unsafe neighborhoods. More than a few elderly persons went home ill from the stifling heat, and many a child received "discipline" (spankings) for their inability to "sit still and be quiet" during services under these very difficult conditions. The new recruit—who mentally visualized "God’s Church" as being something exceptionally extraordinary—will be puzzled at the disparity. He has seen the lovely photos of the Ambassador College campus and the breathtaking pictures of the millennial paradise in the church’s literature. He has read about God’s love for "quality" and that inequality, squalor and poverty are against His desire for mankind. He was led to believe that God’s Church was restoring His government on earth, and portrayed this ultimate "Way of Life." Yet, this initial observation begins to raise a red flag. Unable to resolve this discrepancy, he will be reassured by the ministry that: "All of God’s tithes are being utilized to preach the gospel and finish the Work. We don’t waste His money on worldly things like carpet, padded pews, etc. just for our personal comfort. We’re going to go to Petra soon, so we don’t need to acquire buildings that do little more than swallow up resources that could be better spent on more important things. We’re not like those worldly churches that have fancy buildings and major upkeep expenses." What the new convert perceives as frugality is nothing more than a con.

Once HWA has poisoned the reader into believing that the real PURPOSE for the church has been withheld from him, he now has a free reign to define that purpose to his benefit and to the detriment of the reader.

"GOSPEL NOT ABOUT JESUS"

Herbert Armstrong hammers throughout the MOA that the gospel "ABOUT Jesus" is a false gospel. The loaded term, "the gospel OF Jesus" will be substituted as the correct definition of the gospel, which HWA has free reign to pervert to his benefit. This gospel OF Jesus is supposedly the "kingdom message"—the message he brought concerning the coming future kingdom of God to earth. (This will be covered more thoroughly in the Chapter 7 review).

HWA announces that the church isn’t used by God to save souls, nor did Jesus come as a personal savior:

It [the church] is not the instrumentality by which God is trying to "save the world." Few may realize it, but Jesus made no attempt to gain converts or to invite people to "give their hearts to him" or to "accept him as their personal savior." (p. 200)

The inexperienced reader, who has heard these familiar terms without fully understanding them, was easily tricked by this clever presentation. In the first sentence, HWA is speaking of the purpose of the church, and flatly denies that God is using it as an instrument to save the world. Without providing any proof for this particular statement, he simply announces that Jesus made no attempts to gain converts, negating his role as a personal Savior to the world. Instead, he introduces a twisted version of predestination—that those who are in the true church are drafted—handpicked and chosen by God Himself to be part of an elite force.

Christ came also to call out selected and chosen ones from Satan’s world to turn from Satan’s way into the way of God’s law, and to qualify to reign with Christ when he comes to replace Satan on the throne of the earth. Those called into the Church were called not merely for salvation and eternal life, but to learn the way of God’s government and develop the divine character during this mortal life in the Church age. (p. 201)

This seductive offer to be part of something unique is hard to resist. Since HWA loves "hidden meanings," he knows that the inexperienced reader doesn’t fully comprehend the hidden meaning of the phrase "learning the way of God’s government and develop the divine character," which is nothing more than enslavement to the works-based rules of his organization. In his usual cunning style, HWA ingeniously sidetracks the reader by quickly mentioning the seven annual festivals and their hidden meanings. All this distraction is designed so the reader never goes back to the question of why traditional churches teach Jesus as personal Savior and that one must "believe on Him" to be saved. Could there be some truth to this? Since HWA can’t be depended on to give an unbiased view, we will let the Bible speak for itself: [bolding mine]

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:15-16)

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (John 6:29)

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. (John 6:35)

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day…Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. (John 6:40, 47)

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. (John 11:25)

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus…And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he [the eunuch] answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:35, 37)

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom. 10:9-10)

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (I John 5:13)

If HWA was speaking for God, then why does he have trouble quoting these Scriptures, and many others just like them (which are so numerous it would be lengthy to quote them all)? Is it because they plainly don’t say, "Believe in the kingdom message about the government"? Look up the word "believe" in the Strong’s Concordance and prove it to yourself. It appears that traditional Christianity’s belief in the gospel ABOUT Jesus wasn’t a deception derived from the devil, but taken straight from Scripture. Modern vernacular such as "give your heart to Him" or to "accept Him as their personal savior" is simply another way of saying that one believes with all their heart that Jesus is Savior, as described in the verse with Philip and the eunuch above. Any honest person would not have twisted the meaning, nor withheld such important information. The key to eternal life is Jesus Christ, and believing with all our heart that He is the Son of God, the Savior of the world. (See: How Do I Receive Eternal Life?) This is pure, straightforward salvation. The gospel is not a complex concoction of "eighteen restored truths," various "mysteries," lost identities, sacred rituals and total submission to a hierarchical government. Is there any wonder why Paul marveled at those who turned away from the grace and simplicity of the gospel to these complicated, burdensome beliefs? (Gal. 1:6-7; II Cor. 11:3)

Throughout this whole chapter of MOA, we will observe HWA underhandedly avoiding Scripture whenever it dispels his doctrines. Observe that whenever he makes blatant statements against Christian doctrines, he doesn’t reveal any of the Scriptures that Christianity uses to back their beliefs. Instead, he will only give information that proves him right. Like any good salesman, he can’t let anyone know that the competition has a better product.

RELIGIOUS ASSUMPTIONS/SALVATION BEFORE JESUS

Grabbing the reins, HWA will launch into deep theological questions, putting the reader on the spot:

If the Church came into existence as an instrumentality for "getting people saved," then, I ask, by what means did God try to save people prior to Christ’s founding of the Church? (p. 202)

Again, HWA resorts to social proof that most people assume, or don’t know why the church exists, or its purpose: [bolding mine]

But when we ask, why do churches exist, how did the Church as an institution come into being?—what is its reason or purpose for its existence?—does it make any difference whether, or to which church you belong?—then, indeed, it becomes a mystery. The average person has no answer. (p. 203)

I was led to take it for granted that I was an immortal soul and that when I died I would not really die, but rather pass away into heaven where I would have no responsibilities but only a life of idleness and ease in sublime glory forever and ever. (p. 204)

Like millions of others, I assumed that "good people" went to church and so ought we. (p. 205)

Most people think of the CHURCH as a building with a sharply sloping roof, a steeple pointing heavenward atop and a cross on its face. (p. 205)

Back in early part of 1927 when my intense Bible study was bringing me toward conversion, I asked myself such questions. I supposed questions of that sort never enter the average mind. (p. 207)

HWA knew where to shoot his fiery arrows. The reader will readily nod his head and say to himself, "Yes, this man is right. I carelessly assumed these things." Now that the reader has admitted that he is like all "assuming" people and these questions never entered his "average mind," he will look to HWA as the all-knowing authority.

Of course HWA knew that his target market—Bible illiterates—would not know the answer to his tricky questions. That’s why he asked them. He quickly surmises the situation into another of his faulty conclusions: Since the reader couldn’t answer the questions, then it’s proof positive that Satan has blinded him. As the reader becomes more and more suspicious of the world surrounding him, he becomes more and more open to HWA’s teaching. The pattern is repeated over and over. From here we need to make a note of two things: 1. HWA, himself, did not answer these questions, but used them as a springboard to show that he was right about Satan deceiving the world, and, 2. HWA did not give anybody else’s answer to these questions—he never quotes any outside religious authorities, theologians, etc. He does not want any opposing opinions that may give legitimate answers to these questions—although he asks the questions with a tone of incredulousness, as if nobody out there had an answer! If HWA had the real truth, then he wouldn’t be afraid to show that there are other answers to the questions he proposed. His truths should easily stand against falsehoods. Let’s see what Dr. J. Vernon McGee had to say concerning this: [bolding mine]

"Now let me answer our critics who say that we who hold the dispensational view of Scripture teach that there are two or more ways of being saved, No, God has never had more than one basis on which He saves men, and that basis is the cross of Christ. Every offering before Christ came looked forward to the cross of Christ, and every commemoration since He has come looks back to the cross of Christ. (Thru the Bible With J. Vernon McGee, Vol. 4, p. 127)

"To illustrate this, let's go back to Gen. 4 and look at the offering which Abel brought to God. He brought a little lamb. If you had been there, you could have asked Abel, 'Why are you bringing this little lamb? Do you think that a little lamb will take away your sins?' He would have said, 'Of course not! I'm bringing this little lamb because God told me to do so. I am bringing it by faith." Then you could have asked him, 'Well, if it won't take away your sins, why would He ask you to bring it?' Abel's answer would have been something like this: 'This little lamb is pointing to One who is coming later, the seed of the woman, my mother. That One will take away our sins. I bring this little lamb by faith, recognizing that I am a sinner and need a substitute.' You see, Abel was looking forward to the One who was coming. (Ibid.)

"John the Baptist...also said, '...Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world' (John 1:29). John identified Him. Before the coming of Christ everyone who had come to God on His terms was saved on credit. And they were forgiven on the basis of the death of Christ. In the O.T. God never saved anyone by Law. At the heart of the Mosaic system was the sacrificial system. They brought a lamb to God because the Law revealed that they were lawbreakers, that they were not obeying God, and that they did need to have a substitute to pay the penalty of their sins. ..."  (Ibid)

"Thank God, He saves by grace today. In fact, grace has always been His method. In the Old Testament He never saved anyone by Law. They were saved by His mercy and grace to them, looking forward to the coming of Christ to die on the cross to take away their sins." (Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 561.)

"A great many people...feel that their denomination or their little group are the only saints there are. My friend, God has a pretty big family. In the Old Testament He had Old Testament saints. The nation Israel were called saints; the Gentiles who came in as proselytes were called saints of God. That's a different company from New Testament saints today who are in the church. Don't get the idea that your little group is the only group that will be saved or even the idea that believers in this dispensation of grace are the only ones to be saved. God saved people before the Day of Pentecost ..." (Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 574.)

So men were saved before the Cross—by grace through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:5-8). God has always saved, and will always save, by grace through faith in Christ. Can we see how true ministers of Christ focus on Him, giving Him due credit, and have confidence and assurance in Him? They don’t launch into conspiracies, elite status, British-Israelism, and other such nonsense that shines the limelight over His specialness and supernatural wisdom. If HWA were truly being honest and forthright, he wouldn’t have withheld information. All cults engage in "information control" and the doctrine of grace and salvation through Jesus alone is one major piece of information that will remain tightly controlled. HWA knows he cannot enslave those who know they are free.

Moving right along, HWA gives his personal story concerning his religious experiences as a youth, convincing the reader that he can "relate" to their own situation. ("I am reminded of my own personal experience, probably typical of many others.") He tells of his religious "assumptions" concerning the immortal soul and heaven, taking "churchgoing and a religious phase of life for granted." He also reveals that he stopped attending church after becoming a legal adult because other pursuits became more interesting and/or important. He still believed in God, but took His existence for granted. How many of us could easily relate to this scenario? Probably all who have made it this far into the MOA. HWA gained a stronghold into our minds through the use of trust. Once we trusted him, we believed anything and everything he said no matter how farfetched it could be.

IMMORTAL SOUL/MISREPRESENTING BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY

Earlier, HWA planted seeds of doubt in the immortal soul teaching by misrepresenting Biblical Christianity.

The teaching has been that man is an immortal soul and already has eternal life. It denies (Rom. 6:23) that the penalty for sin is death and that man can have eternal life only as the gift of God. (p. 124)

I was led to take it for granted that I was an immortal soul and that when I died I would not really die, but rather pass away into heaven where I would have no responsibilities but only a life of idleness and ease in sublime glory forever and ever. (p. 204)

Again, HWA gives a false view of Christianity’s "immortal soul" doctrine and paints an unpalatable picture of heaven. From where did HWA learn to make disparaging remarks about heaven? Let’s compare his remarks with that of the Watchtower Society’s:

And what is this? Bliss in heaven sprawled out on the billowy cloud, twanging a harp as you float along in space and eternity? No! It is not that vain and useless existence that idle dreamers have conjured up as heavenly life. (The Watchtower, 01/06/1981, p. 3)

All cults use the same tricks—don’t quote any Scriptures of heaven, but make it out to be a boring place where nobody wants to be!

Observe, however, HWA’s clear avoidance of quoting any sources to back up his allegations against Christianity. In his other literature, he poses the following familiar question:  

And if the saved go to heaven when they die, what need is there for a resurrection from the dead? Why a resurrection if they have already "gone to their reward"? (The Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course, Lesson 7, p. 3)

HWA capitalizes on the inexperience and lack of knowledge of the Scriptures by the average reader. HWA will do his best to give one-dimensional information while making it seem that he is divulging complete information, which we will later show. So what about the question proposed by HWA? Does Christianity teach that man has an immortal soul, already possessing eternal life? Why, if the saved go to heaven, is there a need for a resurrection from the dead? Is Christianity’s teaching redundant?

First we will examine whether pagan philosophers introduced the immortal soul teaching into Christianity as HWA claims, then we will touch on other teachings of the resurrection, the soul and spirit espoused by HWA.

DID PAGAN PHILOSOPHERS INTRODUCE IMMORTAL SOUL TEACHING INTO CHRISTIANITY?

Biblical Christianity understands that man consists of a physical body, soul and spirit (I Thess. 5:23). Though the body is mortal, the soul continues to live after the body is dead. (Rev. 6:9). The early church fathers understood that even this continued existence of the soul was "conditional existence" or "conditional immortality"—conditional upon the grace of God, for they knew that God could "destroy both body and soul in Gehenna" if He chose to do so. If HWA was as widely read in religious materials as he claimed, then it is certain that he fully understood this, but chose to misrepresent it anyway. HWA made his members falsely believe that Plato and other pagan philosophers, in cahoots with powerful religious leaders, were responsible for introducing the immortal soul teaching into Christianity.² This is simply not true. Plato and the pagan philosophers believed that the soul was always immortal, pre-existing before it entered the physical body; and even after leaving the body, the soul was inherently immortal and indestructible. There was no dependency upon God for one’s previous or continued existence. Let’s look at some resource material that supports this: [bolding and italics mine]

It was hinted that one use which the Greeks made of the metaphysical argument was to prove the indestructibility of the soul—its immortality in the sense of having no beginning and no end. This is not the Christian doctrine. The soul has no such inherent indestructibility. It is dependent on God, as everything else is, for its continued existence. Were He to withdraw His sustaining power, it would cease to exist. That it does continue to exist is not doubted, but this must be argued on other grounds. (Immortality: "Soul not Inherently Indestructible," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915)

So here we plainly see that Christianity does not embrace the pagan version of the "immortal soul" doctrine as HWA claimed. Let’s look at another source (Philip Schaff), one HWA frequently quoted from: [bolding mine]

HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH, Schaff, Philip, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. This material has been carefully compared, corrected¸ and amended (according to the 1910 edition of Charles Scribner's Sons) by The Electronic Bible Society, Dallas, TX, 1998.

CHAPTER XII: 155. Eschatology. Immortality and Resurrection. Plato, viewing the human soul as a portion of the eternal, infinite, all-pervading deity, believed in its pre-existence before this present life, and thus had a strong ground of hope for its continuance after death. All the souls (according to his Phaedon and Gorgias, pass into the spirit-world, the righteous into the abodes of bliss, where they live forever in a disembodied state, the wicked into Tartarus for punishment and purification (which notion prepared the way for purgatory)… Heathen philosophers, like Celsus, ridiculed the resurrection of the body as useless, absurd, and impossible.

(Footnote: Preliminary—Need of Definition and Distinction: In hardly any subject is it more necessary to be careful in the definition of terms and clear distinction of ideas, especially where the Biblical doctrine is concerned, than in this of "immortality." By "immortality" is frequently meant simply the survival of the soul, or spiritual part of man, after bodily death. It is the assertion of the fact that death does not end all. The soul survives. This is commonly what is meant when we speak of "a future life," "a future state," "a hereafter." Not, however, to dwell on the fact that many peoples have no clear conception of an immaterial "soul" in the modern sense (the Egyptians, e.g. distinguished several parts, the Ka, the Ba, etc., which survived death; often the surviving self is simply a ghostly resemblance of the earthly self, nourished with food, offerings, etc.), there is the more serious consideration that the state into which the surviving part is supposed to enter at death is anything but a state which can be described as "life," or worthy to be dignified with the name "immortality." It is state peculiar to "death" (see DEATH); in most cases, shadowy, inert, feeble, dependent, joyless; a state to be dreaded and shrunk from, not one to be hoped for. If, on the other hand, as in the hope of immortality among the nobler heathen, it is conceived of, as for some, a state of happiness—the clog of the body being shaken off—this yields the idea, which has passed into so much of our modern thinking, of an "immortality of the soul," of an imperishableness of the spiritual part, sometimes supposed to extend backward as well as forward; an inherent indestructibility.)

The pagan philosophers believed that the body held back the soul and had to be shed (or shaken off) in order for the soul to obtain its ultimate, blissful state. It seemed absurd to return to something useless and corrupt. This is why they did not believe in a bodily resurrection. They believed they would exist in a disembodied state, as a spirit, and enter into eternal bliss. This is in direct opposition with the Christian teaching, which upholds the resurrection—a return of the soul to the body. (Schaff points out how the term "immortal soul" has passed into our modern thinking, even though this is not the correct Christian belief).

HWA wanted readers to believe Christians teach that believers go to their final reward in heaven and permanently remain as disembodied immortal souls, just as the pagan philosophers taught. This is a clear misrepresentation. The pagan belief goes against the Christian belief of a bodily resurrection, where the soul and body would be reunited, although changed. The pagan philosophers simply could not conceive the soul returning to the body, as this seemed a hindrance. To them, the body was corruptible and contemptible, so why return to it? They simply could not comprehend the redemption of the body, where the soul of the redeemed would return to it and be resurrected in glorified, spiritual perfection. This promise of a bodily resurrection was unheard of in any pagan religion and is unique to Judaism and later, Christianity.

Contrast the pagan belief of "inherent immortality" with the Christian belief about the resurrection: [bolding mine]

It will be seen as we advance, that the Biblical view is different from all of these. The soul, indeed, survives the body; but this disembodied state is never viewed as one of complete "life." For the Bible "immortality" is not merely the survival of the soul, the passing into "Sheol" or "Hades." This is not, in itself considered, "life" or happiness. The "immortality" the Bible contemplates is an immortality of the whole person—body and soul together. It implies, therefore, deliverance from the state of death. It is not a condition simply of future existence, however prolonged, but a state of blessedness, due to redemption and the possession of the "eternal life" in the soul; it includes resurrection and perfected life in both soul and body. The subject must now be considered more particularly in its different aspects. (Immortality: 2. Biblical Conception, "Soul not Inherently Indestructible," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915.)

Upon death, the soul survives the body, but in a disembodied state. This is not considered "immortality," nor does Christianity espouse this. One does not gain immortality until he is resurrected. This is when the whole person—body and soul—are joined back together and completely delivered from the state of death. In the book, The Great Doctrines of the Bible let’s observe what this "deceived theologian" has to say about immortality [bolding mine]:

The word [immortality] as used in the Bible means deathlessness, or exemption from the physical death of the body. It is not to be confused with the eternal life of the saved or the unending existence of the lost, though popular usage confuses these terms. The word is used only with reference to the body (Rom. 6:12, 8:11), and never in connection with the soul. Men are unable to kill the soul. Only God can destroy it (Matt. 10:28) where a word is used which does not mean to deprive the soul of life.

With the coming of Christ, light was cast upon the subject of immortality, which had been clothed in obscurity since OT days (2 Tim. 1:10, Gr.). Only Christ now possesses that immortality (1 Tim. 1:17, 6:16). All men, including saved persons, are now mortal (Job 4:17, 1 Cor. 15:22, Heb. 9:27). Men will continue to die until death is destroyed (I Cor. 15:26).

At the translation of the church all believers will put on immortality. They will be clothed with deathlessness as with a garment (1 Cor.15:51-54). Mortality will then be "swallowed up of life" (2 Cor. 5:4) and believers will never again be able to die. In the same member that their bodies become immortal, they also become incorruptible, or immune to change and decay. (William Evans, 1974, Immortality, Page 299)

HWA brought a scathing accusation against Christianity for teaching a "pagan immortal soul doctrine." Then he fraudulently positioned himself as "the One" who will now reveal "the truth" about the Resurrection. We can plainly see, from the above sources, "deceived scholars and theologians" teaching a future Resurrection. They acknowledge that Jesus Christ only has immortality, for He only, has been bodily resurrected. This is why "no man has ascended to heaven except the Son of man who came down from heaven." Before the resurrection of Christ, the souls of the saved went to Paradise, a.k.a. the "Bosom of Abraham" (Luke 23:43); however, no man, but Jesus, has experienced a bodily resurrection and bodily ascension to heaven. (We will go more in-depth about the bodily resurrection a little later). This book I quoted from was originally published in 1912, long before HWA was "given understanding" about this revealed truth.

Another interesting topic that HWA avoids is the Jewish view of the soul. Do the Jews believe that "the SOUL is composed of physical MATTER, not Spirit "³ and subject to DEATH along with the body, and ceases to exist, as HWA taught? Or do they believe that the soul departs from the body to an underworld? Schaff’s commentary concerning the Jewish belief is continued below: [bolding mine]

CHAPTER XII: 155. Eschatology. Immortality and Resurrection. 

The Jewish doctrine is far in advance of heathen notions and conjectures, but presents different phases of development.

(a)    The Mosaic writings are remarkably silent about the future life, and emphasize the present rather than future consequences of the observance or non-observance of the law (because it had a civil or political as well as spiritual import); and hence the Sadducees accepted them, although they denied the resurrection (perhaps also the immortality of the soul). The Pentateuch contains, however, some remote and significant hints of immortality, as in the tree of life with its symbolic import; in the mysterious translation of Enoch as a reward for his piety; in the prohibition of necromancy; in the patriarchal phrase for dying: "to be gathered to his fathers," or "to his people;" and last, though not least, in the self-designation of Jehovah as "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," which implies their immortality, since "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.  What has an eternal meaning for God must itself be eternal.

In the later writings of the Old Testament, especially during and after the exile, the doctrine of immortality and resurrection comes out plainly. Daniel’s vision reaches out even to the final resurrection of "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth to everlasting life," and of "some to shame and everlasting contempt," and prophesies that "they that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever."

But before Christ, who first revealed true life, the Hebrew Sheol, the general receptacle of departing souls, remained, like the Greek Hades, a dark and dreary abode, and is so described in the Old Testament. Cases like Enoch’s translation and Elijah’s ascent are altogether unique and exceptional, and imply the meaning that death is contrary to man’s original destination, and may be overcome by the power of holiness. (Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.) 

Of great interest is what HWA doesn’t say that is usually worthy of note. Even though he taught his members about Sheol and Hades being nothing more than a "pit or grave" where dead bodies were buried, he failed to mention that there was more to it than that. He gives his members the impression that the Jews also held the point of view (since he quoted OT Scriptures) that the soul was mortal and ceased to exist upon death of the body.  But this is not so. The Jews believed that Sheol (Hades) is the general receptacle of departing souls. In Genesis 35:18, we read an example of Rachel’s soul departing from her body when she died after giving birth to Benjamin. HWA did not believe that the soul could be separated from the body since he believed it was composed of living matter, the same substance as the flesh and blood human body.⁴ He taught that, "Man IS a soul as soon as physical LIFE enters him."⁵  When the body died, the soul ceased. There was no personality or entity to the soul that would depart from the body.

In Chapter 5 of the MOA, HWA revealed the Mystery of Israel. In it, he unveiled the hidden identity of the British, American, and Western European peoples as the "Lost Tribes of Israel." (See my research paper: Where Are the Tribes of Israel Located?) If HWA taught that the American and British people are actually ancient Israelites, then why does he not teach the same doctrines of the Jews concerning the soul? If the Jews believe that the soul is a separate entity that departs from the body at death, descending to the dark and dreary abode of Sheol or Hades, then why does HWA teach differently? HWA made his followers believe they were descendents of the ancient Israelites; therefore, he made them follow the OT customs of the Sabbath (like the Jews), clean and unclean (like the Jews), Holy Days (like the Jews), etc. But here, we see HWA give deference to the Watchtower Society’s "soul sleep" doctrine over the Jewish belief concerning the soul. If HWA has his followers behaving like Jews, shouldn’t he have them believing like Jews?

HWA also avoids a thorough discussion of Revelation 6:9-11 which show that the souls under the altar of God that were told to "rest yet for a little season." (Members are told that this is proof that the souls are sleeping). Notice that these souls were conscious when they asked their question—they certainly didn’t snore through it. Verse 10 says that, "they cried with a loud voice." The Strong’s Concordance states that this particular Greek word rest (number 373) means "to refresh—take ease, refresh, (give, take) rest." Contrast this with the Greek word for sleep (number 2837) which means "to decease—sleep, be dead. There’s a big difference between resting and being dead. HWA knew this, and as usual, doesn’t bring it to the forefront.

BODILY RESURRECTION OR A DISEMBODIED SPIRIT (SPIRITUAL BODY VERSUS SPIRIT BEING)?

So back to the original question, "If the saved are in heaven, then why is there a need for a resurrection?" Christianity teaches that the saved have not reaped the fullness of their reward. They believe that the soul continues in a conscious state after death (1 Kings 17:21-22, Matt. 10:28, Rev. 6:9-11) and that those who put their faith and trust in Jesus as their personal Savior will go to heaven when they die (1 Cor. 5:1-2; 2 Tim. 4:18; 1 Pet. 1:4-5; 1 John 5:13). There, they await a bodily resurrection from the dead at Christ’s second coming (I. Cor. 15:22-23, I Thes. 4:14-17). HWA accuses Christianity for not teaching a future resurrection, but this is far from true. In HWA’s scenario, believers die and their souls do not continue to exist. They are unaware of anything going on, like being in a sound sleep and "utterly unconscious"⁶  (this doctrine is also known as "soul sleep" and is taught by the Watchtower Society). The next instant they awaken will be at the first Resurrection when Christ returns to earth. Then they will be raised up from the grave as a spirit being—changed from matter into spirit composition—and finally be born into the "God Family" to immortality.⁷ HWA claims that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit.⁸ This teaching also came from the Watchtower Society. They believe that Jesus was resurrected from the grave as a spirit being, and his physical body disappeared by dissolving into gases while in the tomb. HWA simply announces that Christ’s dead body disappeared, but never explains how. This will become an important point, as we will see later in this review. Now let’s continue with the Christian view.

Christianity teaches that believers’ souls go to heaven upon their deaths to be in the presence of the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8). There, they wait for a bodily Resurrection, where their body will be reunited with their soul and raised up again to immortality. This completes their reward—immortality in their resurrected body, but changed. This body is now perfect, free from disease, and is no longer subject to sin and death. It has changed from a mortal body, to an immortal body, from corruptible to incorruptible. This body is a spiritual body, no longer a flesh-and-blood body, and certainly not a disembodied spirit. Look at Paul’s own words concerning the spiritual body:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening [or life-giving] spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. (I Cor 15:44-46)

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body… (Phil 3:20-21)

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (Rom. 8:11)

Why is this distinction important? HWA teaches a spirit resurrection, and Christianity teaches a bodily resurrection:

When man’s creation is finally complete, he will be a spiritual creation, formed wholly of Spirit. (p. 109)

Those who died with God’s Holy Spirit will be in the first resurrection (Rev. 20:4-5). They will come forth IMMORTAL, in a glorious body of SPIRIT composition, their faces aglow as the SUN. (The Incredible Human Potential, p. 88.)

HWA was very clever in not pointing out these distinctions. He knew that most people did not understand the difference and he certainly wasn’t going to reveal other viewpoints that would easily prove him wrong. Below, we see what "deceived theologian" J. Vernon McGee has to say concerning the bodily resurrection:

"The first heresy in the church was the denial of the bodily resurrection. We see how Paul has shown the truth of the Resurrection. He has spoken against the three major philosophies of his day. Stoicism said the soul merged into Deity at death and there was a destruction of personality. Paul says our bodies shall rise. Epicureanism said there was no existence beyond death. Paul says Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and our bodies, too, shall rise. Platonism believed in the immortality of the soul but denied the bodily resurrection. Paul says that our physical bodies shall be made alive as spiritual bodies." (Thru the Bible With J. Vernon McGee, Vol. 5., Notes on I Corinthians 15, pp. 79-80.)

HWA knew that readers cannot refute what they have no knowledge of. Because of trust, they simply believed that he knew what he was talking about. How many members can say that they fully understood the orthodox Christian teaching concerning the Resurrection so they could compare it against HWA’s version? Church members understand the well-worn loaded phrase in the MOA—"God is reproducing Himself"—covertly means that one day they will become "God as God is God."⁹ Members believe that they will be resurrected as spirit beings (since God is a Spirit and is reproducing Himself) and will rule the universe as co-rulers with Christ. Then, they will "participate in the completion of the CREATION over the entire endless expanse of the UNIVERSE!" (Mystery of the Ages, p. 103). The promise of future Godhood is the reward that keeps members sacrificing all that they have now in order to obtain this tremendous prize in the future.

Since HWA taught that "God is a Spirit," he believed that man had to be resurrected as a spirit being in order to be "God, as God is God." He repetitiously taught that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." On page 71 of The Incredible Human Potential, HWA clearly states: "Matter is NOT Spirit—cannot be converted into Spirit." HWA claimed that Jesus was resurrected a spirit; therefore, he was not composed of matter or flesh. His body simply "disappeared" from the grave when he was resurrected. Now this poses more than a few problems. For instance, to where did Jesus' body disappear? And when Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, whose body did He use? If Jesus was composed only of spirit at that time, since "matter is not spirit," then how was he able to appear in a material body? Finally, we need to ask whether a spirit can eat, or be touched—actually be felt by human hands? In Luke 24, we have an account of the risen Christ appearing to his disciples:

And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, "Peace be with you." But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And He said unto them, "Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, "Have ye here any meat?" And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:36-42)

Inviting the disciples to handle him, Jesus clearly stated that a spirit does not have flesh and bones as He did. He also ate physical food to further prove that he was not a disembodied spirit. So if Jesus was changed to Spirit, "no longer composed of matter or flesh," as HWA claimed, then how does he explain that Jesus Himself plainly said he was composed of flesh and bones and that he was not a spirit? Scripture says that Jesus showed Thomas the nail prints in his hands and the spear mark in his side. (John 20:27) Unless somebody else was resurrected that day with the same nail holes and spear mark, then we will have to believe that Jesus showed Thomas his original body! If Jesus’ physical body "disappeared" after the Resurrection, then how did He make it reappear to Thomas (John 20:24-27), including the other nine distinct appearances recorded in Scripture? HWA stated that matter cannot be converted into spirit, but he wants his readers to believe that spirit can be converted to matter. Members are taught that Jesus "manifested himself as human" so he could appear to his followers after His resurrection. Again, this is simply another way of HWA contradicting his own teaching without making it obvious.

Now let’s examine a clear explanation concerning the bodily resurrection of Jesus given in the following Bible footnote:

His [Jesus] resurrection body, though real and tangible (John 20:27)—and even capable of ingesting earthly food (vv. 42,43)—nonetheless possessed certain properties that indicate it was glorified, altered in a mysterious way (cf. 1 Cor. 15:35-54; Phil. 3:21). Christ could appear and disappear bodily, as seen in this text. His body could pass through solid objects—such as the grave clothes (Luke 24:12), or the walls and doors of a closed room (John 20:19, 26). He could apparently travel great distances in a moment, for by the time these disciples returned to Jerusalem, Christ had already appeared to Peter (v. 34). The fact that He ascended into heaven bodily demonstrated that His resurrection body was already fit for heaven. Yet it was His body, the same one that was missing from the tomb, even retaining identifying features such as the nail-wounds (John 20:25-27). He was no ghost or phantom. (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1567)

The truth is, believers are not going to become spirit beings so that they can "become God as God is God."⁹ We will return to our bodies, and be resurrected once again, only this time, in bodies that are glorified and not subject to death and decay and fully restored to a sinless spiritual state. Most importantly, believers will not become God, but will be subject to a loving Savior who redeemed them from death through His shed blood. (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14) By not acknowledging a bodily resurrection—a return to the body—HWA was able to put his followers on the same plane as God. This is the highest form of conceit that anyone can ever engage in. Hypocritically, on page 111 of the MOA, HWA declares:

They [philosophers] make mortal man to think of himself as immortal God.

SOUL AND SPIRIT

Earlier in this review, I touched on HWA’s description of the soul and the doctrine of soul sleep. HWA believed that the soul was mortal and can die:

Man, formed from material dust of the ground, upon breathing air, BECAME a living soul. It does not say man is, or has, an immortal soul. What was formed from material ground BECAME a soul. (p. 104)

Therefore the SOUL is physical, composed of matter, and can die. (p. 104)

HWA did not believe that the soul was a separate entity from the body or in its continued existence after death. The physical, living "man" was the living soul. From here, HWA separates the soul from the spirit. HWA taught that man has a human spirit:

Many passages of Scripture show that there is a spirit in man. Spirit is not matter, and man is matter…I designate it as the "human spirit". Nevertheless, it is spirit and not matter. (p. 105)

HWA taught that this human spirit was a "spirit essence" IN the man, and not made of matter, nor was it a spirit person, being, or soul.¹⁰  Carefully observe what HWA says that this human spirit can and cannot do:

This human spirit cannot see, hear, taste, smell or feel. The brain sees through the eye, hears through the ear, etc. The "human" spirit cannot of itself think. The physical brain thinks. (p. 105)

Now let’s ponder this. If the human spirit cannot see, cannot hear, cannot think (but imparts the intellect to the brain), and it is not a soul, nor a spirit person nor being—just an essence that imparts intellect, and if the soul is nothing more than the living man who can think, but has no intellect without the human spirit—then what part of man is held responsible for sin? If this human spirit "essence" only imparts intellect, then this spirit essence is causing the brain to think some pretty sinful thoughts! If the man (soul) didn’t have the intellect to keep himself from sinning (without the human spirit, he would be nothing more than a brute animal following instinct), it hardly seems fair for God to hold this soul responsible for the spirit’s actions! In fact, God does. HWA’s oft quoted verse "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezek. 18:4, 20) plainly states that the soul is held responsible for sinning. HWA does not speak about the regeneration of the soul because he would have to acknowledge its personality and that it is a separate entity from the body. (The regeneration of the soul will be covered in more detail under the subtitle "Spiritual Death/Eternal Life).

As if this wasn’t confusing enough, HWA informs readers that this human spirit, at death, returns to God.

When mortal man dies, the body reverts to dust, and the spirit returns to God. (p. 110)

According to HWA, this spirit is an unconscious "mold" of itself that will bring back all the memory, knowledge, character, form, and shape of the person (even the fingerprints!)¹¹ in the Resurrection. Of course none of us knew enough to question why a resurrected SPIRIT being would need fingerprints??

But then HWA makes this interesting remark:

The human spirit of itself cannot see, hear, think or know. (p. 110)

If the spirit can’t "know," then how can it know to keep an accurate mold of all this intricate information? Even though HWA speaks confidently about his theories, they simply don’t make sense.

Why HWA has such a problem with the soul being in heaven with the Lord Jesus until the Resurrection should tell us something. He will go to any lengths to keep one away from the Savior, even after death! In my review of chapter three, I covered the Watchtower teaching that states that the spirit is like a recording of the person and goes up to God, although unconscious and filed away until the Resurrection. HWA also holds to this teaching and selects his wording carefully. Notice that in a round-about-way, HWA is saying that something tangible goes to heaven without using similar terminology as Biblical Christianity. He nonchalantly says the human spirit "returns to God" hoping that readers won’t figure out that God is in heaven! So he is admitting that something of man goes to heaven (returns to God, who is in heaven), but by cleverly omitting the word "heaven" and by rephrasing it to "returns to God" he ensures that the reader is never aware of a heavenly hope but will have to depend on the destination of the World Tomorrow as their earthly hope. Since HWA does not give the Christian view of the soul and spirit, below is a simple description:

BODY, SOUL, SPIRIT

Man consists of body, soul, and spirit, distinguished in 1 Thess. 5:23. The body is the material part of man, created by God (Gen. 2:7) as the instrument by which soul and spirit relate to the material universe and fulfill His will. Spiritual and physical death came to the body in the day man sinned, as God reckons time (2 Pet. 3:8). Believers present their bodies to God for His use (Rom. 12:1-2). Redeemed and transformed (Rom. 8:23, Phil 3:21) the body will be resurrected for life in a new environment (1 Cor. 15:35-54).

The soul is immaterial, intermediate between body and spirit. It is the seat of the will, affections, personality. Man is called a soul (Gen. 2:7) because he has a soul (Psa. 103:1, 2 Cor. 1:23). The body is now suited to the life of the soul. In resurrection [form] it will be suited rather to the life of the spirit. The soul continues to live after the body is dead (Acts 2:31, Rev. 6:9).

The spirit is the immaterial part of man which is related to worship and communion with God. It gives man God-consciousness. We are to win souls, not spirits (Prov. 11:30). Men worship and serve God with the spirit, not the soul (John 4:24, Rom. 1:9). The spirit is distinguished from the soul in Hebrews 4:12. (The Great Doctrines of the Bible, William Evans, 1974, p.. 281)

Again, notice the use of Scripture to back up each statement. (In my review of chapter three I covered how HWA was unable to give a single Scripture to support his phrase "the human spirit empowers intellect to the brain.") HWA makes the simplest things so complicated, then lauds himself for his simplicity! If members were honest, they would admit that they never really studied into the orthodox beliefs of the body, spirit, and soul before they came into contact with HWA’s teachings. They would also have to admit HWA’s version is the only version that they have believed and memorized (and never challenged).

SPIRITUAL DEATH/ETERNAL LIFE

HWA further confuses the immortal soul and having eternal life as one and the same. He does not distinguish that the penalty for sin is spiritual death now, and later, a physical death of the body. Christianity understands that when Adam and Eve sinned, it brought not only physical death, but also spiritual death. The spiritual death came immediately upon disobedience, while their actual physical death did not occur until hundreds of years later (although their bodies were now subject to death at the moment they sinned). Scripture plainly speaks of being spiritually dead, and by believing in Jesus, one will pass from spiritual death to spiritual life [bolding mine]:

But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth (1 Timothy 5:6).  

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1).

Most assuredly, I say unto you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. (John 5:24)  

Most assuredly, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. (John 5:25)

There are two things the believer receives upon his conversion: Eternal life at his regeneration, and immortality at his resurrection. But in both instances he already has life and existence. HWA, who received no formal training in the Scriptures, clearly did not understand this and confused the two terms (or did understand them but intentionally confused the two). He made readers believe that "immortality" and "eternal life" were one and the same. (Recall his earlier accusation against Christianity for making people believe that "man has an immortal soul and already has eternal life"). Although related, they are distinct. Eternal life is a newness of life that the believer attains at his regeneration that begins the new life in the soul. As William Evans states, "Man is conscious that he does not have this holiness by nature; he is conscious, too, that he must have it in order to appear before God (Ezra 9:15) … To live the life of God, we must have the nature of God.¹²  Man is regenerated by personal acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior. This is the clear teaching of John 1:12-13, and Gal. 3:26. We become 'children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.' When a man, believing in the claims of Jesus Christ receives Him to be all that He claimed to be—that man is born again.^"13  

There is absolutely no denial in orthodox Christian teaching that the wages of sin is death as HWA tries to make it seem (p. 124). It is plainly obvious that the physical body dies, and it is plainly obvious that the soul of the person is no longer there. Does he really want us to believe that scholars and theologians are standing around, scratching their heads and wondering why people are dying? Christianity fully understands that eternal life is a gift of God through Jesus Christ. This is exactly why they preach the gospel ABOUT Jesus! He is the only solution to the sin problem. It is HWA who refused to acknowledge this free gift of eternal life, teaching that one could lose his salvation if he didn’t do enough good works to "qualify" to rule! And HWA does not want the reader to understand that eternal life is something he can have now. This is known as regeneration, or the new birth (born again).

BORN AGAIN

HWA wanted his readers to believe that being "born again" wasn’t about spiritual regeneration. Instead, he taught that "born again" meant an actual birth into a spirit being. Naturally, he didn’t want readers to know that they could have eternal life now (why let them be happy and rejoice in Christ?). He invites readers to write for his free booklet "What Do You Mean—Born Again?" so they could be further poisoned. Since HWA never gives the Christian view of this doctrine, it’s up to the reader to look up his own resources. Following are excerpts from The Great Doctrines of the Bible:

C. REGENERATION, OF THE NEW BIRTH

It is of the utmost importance that we have a clear understanding of this vital doctrine. By regeneration we are admitted into the kingdom of God. There is no other way of becoming a Christian but by being born from above. The doctrine, then, is the door of entrance into Christian discipleship. He who does not enter here, does not enter at all. (p. 152)

1. THE NATURE OF REGENERATION

Too often do we find other things substituted by man for God’s appointed means of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. It will be well for us then to look, first of all, at some of these substitutes.

1. Regeneration is Not Baptism

It is claimed that John 3:5—"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit," and Titus 3:5—"The washing of regeneration," teach that regeneration may occur in connection with baptism…That the Word of God is an agent in regeneration is clear from James 1:18, and 1 Peter 1:23.

If baptism and regeneration were identical, why should the Apostle Paul seem to make so little of that rite (1 Cor. 4:15, and compare with it 1 Cor. 1:14)? In the first passages Paul asserts that he had begotten them through the Gospel; and in 1:14 he declares that he baptized none of them save Crispus and Gaius. Could he thus speak of baptism if it had been the means through which they had been begotten again? Simon Magus was baptized (Acts 8), but was he saved? Cornelius (Acts 11) was saved even before he was baptized.

2. Reformation is Not Regeneration

Regeneration is not a natural forward step in man’s development; it is a supernatural act of God; it is a spiritual crisis. It is not evolution, but involution—the communication of a new life. It is a revolution—a change of direction resulting from that life…

3. Regeneration is a Spiritual Quickening, A New Birth

Regeneration is the impartation of a new and divine life; a new creation; the production of a new thing. It is Gen. 1:26 all over again. It is not the old nature altered, reformed, or re-invigorated, but a new birth from above. This is the teaching of such passages as John 3:3-7, 5:21, Eph. 2:1, 10; 2 Cor. 5:17.

By nature man is dead in sin (Eph. 2:1); the new birth imparts to him new life—the life of God, so that henceforth he is as those that are alive from the dead; he has passed out of death into life (John 5:24).

4. It Is the Impartation of a New Nature—God’s Nature

In regeneration we are made partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). We have put on the new man, which after God is created in holiness and righteousness (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). Christ now lives in the believer (Gal. 2:20). God’s seed now abides in him (1 John 3:9). So that henceforth the believer is possessed of two natures (Gal. 5:17).

5. A New and Divine Impulse is Given to the Believer.

Thus regeneration is a crisis with a view to a process. A new governing power comes into the regenerate man’s life by which he is enabled to become holy in experience: "Old things are passed away; behold all things are become new" (2 Cor. 5:17). See also Acts 16:14, and Ezek. 36:25-27; 1 John 3:3-6.

2. THE IMPERATIVE NECESSITY OF THE NEW BIRTH

1. The Necessity Is Universal

   The need is far-reaching as sin and the human race: "Except a man [lit. anybody] be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." No age, sex, position, condition exempts anyone from this necessity. Not to be born again is to be lost. There is no substitute for the new birth (Gal. 6:15). The absolute necessity is stated by our Lord: whatever is born of the flesh, must be born again of the Spirit (John 3:3-7).
    

2. The Sinful Condition of Man Demands It

   "That which is born of the flesh is flesh"—and it can never, by any human process, become anything else… "They that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8); in our flesh dwelleth no good thing" (Rom. 7:18). The mind is darkened so that we cannot apprehend spiritual truth; we need a renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2)…No education or culture can bring about such a needed change. God alone can do it.

3. THE MEANS OF REGENERATION

1. Regeneration Is a Divine Work

We are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13)…Our regeneration is a creative act on the part of God, not a reforming process on the part of man…The Holy Spirit is the Divine Agent in our regeneration. For this reason it is called the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5). We are "born of the Spirit" (John 3:5).

Is there any wonder why HWA avoided discussing the doctrine of regeneration? To do so would cause him to acknowledge the Personage of the Holy Spirit—something he is not about to do! He wants believers to rely on him, not on the Holy Spirit. He wants them to look to him for salvation, (which is a l-o-n-g process—they don’t gain it until the first resurrection, and who knows when that will be?) instead of knowing they can posses salvation and eternal life now. Members, convinced they have been duped by "traditional Christianity," never question what is so bad about receiving a new nature, experiencing forgiveness, sanctified, having the fruit of holiness and righteousness, looking to a heavenly hope, no longer fearing death ("to die is gain" - Phil. 1:21), being in the immediate presence of the Lord upon ones’ death, dwelling in heaven where there is no evil, and awaiting the promise of immortality in a glorified spiritual body—and having all of this because of belief in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (faith alone), which one can do now. (How did we ever let HWA convince us that these things were so wrong??) Instead, HWA has members continually focusing on the Adversary instead of the Savior: "People have no realization of the tremendous power of Satan." (p. 144) HWA, clearly, has no realization of the tremendous power of Jesus Christ who has won the victory over Satan and all the powers of darkness!

Shifting focus away from the facts comes as second nature to HWA. He harped over and over that Christianity did not believe that the penalty of man’s sin is death, and that they believed the lie of the serpent when he said to Eve, "You shall not surely die." (Gen. 3:4) Two things HWA failed to point out: Adam and Eve did not die physically that very day (although the ability to die had entered their body at that moment), but they had also experienced a spiritual death. This is why there is sin and suffering in the world. The second deception was the promise the devil made to Eve—the very same promise that HWA made to his followers: "Ye shall be as gods…"

THE CHURCH IN PAST HISTORY—TRUE, TRUE, FALSE

Let’s play a game called "True, True, False." This is where the first statement made is "true," but the second and third statements made might be "true," or they might be "false"—but it is up to you to discern whether they are or not—and that’s how the game goes. Advertisers play this game all the time. Take a minute to think about the commercials and infomercials seen daily on TV. Remember the last time you purchased something that sounded so good and later you discovered that the claims were either overstated or downright untrue?  ("Try Sweet and Simple Hair Remover! It goes on easy (true), it doesn’t contain any harmful chemicals (true, it’s made from honey and beeswax), and hair removal is pain free and lasts up to two weeks! (FALSE! It hurts and only lasts three days!). HWA employs this technique throughout his writings. Let’s see some examples below:

Indeed Webster defines the word church as a building. (p. 205) (FALSE!—Webster says, "1: a building for public and esp. Christian worship." [Bolding is mine.] In typical fashion HWA only quotes part of the definition and leaves out the rest.)

People suppose a church is a building to which people…flock on a Sunday morning for "worship." (p. 205) (TRUE)

They think people go to the church. (TRUE)

...And the Church assembled on a Saturday, not Sunday. (p. 205) (FALSE!—See my research article on church history for proof: True Original Church/Faith Once Delivered (Proof Herbert Armstrong Lied About the "Lost" Church Century)

The first place in the New Testament where the word church appears is Matthew 16:18, where, speaking to Simon Peter, Jesus said, "I will build my church." (pp. 207-208) (TRUE)

As noted above, the inspired Greek word for church was ekklesia, meaning called-out-ones. (p. 208) (FALSE!)

Stated in more clear English language, Jesus said "I will call out of Satan’s world disciples, to grow into the altogether new and different world, which will be God’s kingdom." (pp. 208) (FALSE!—Fully quoted, Matthew 16:18 only says: "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." HWA clearly altered the meaning of this verse to fit his agenda.)

Institutionally the CHURCH is thought of today as a religious organization, association, or society (true). One—if "good"—is supposed to join the "church of his choice" (p. 206) (FALSE—Sinners and believers alike are invited to attend the church of their choice. It’s only in HWA’s church that one cannot freely attend).

Of course there are the "good guys" and the "bad guys" and the "good" go to church. (p. 206) (FALSE—The church is not an exclusive "Good Boys Club" but a place where sinners can find salvation, and where believers gather together for worship, prayer and fellowship).

From here, HWA cleverly steers readers to jump on the bandwagon by the use of a carefully calculated story designed to place mistrust toward the mainstream church. He gives a narrative of "a minister without a pastorate" on pages 206-207. He creates a sense of indignation when he quotes the minister as saying, "I’ll preach whatever doctrines they want me to preach." He capitalizes on the discontent by offering the usual solution—his church. What the unsuspecting reader doesn’t perceive is that he is being groomed to further adopt the belief that there is only ONE WAY TO BELIEVE. Later, HWA will introduce the loaded phrase, "God is not the author of confusion" in order to get the convert to never hold any personal views that differ with his doctrines.

JESUS—KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

Another incredulous statement HWA makes against Christianity is their supposed ignorance that Jesus was born to become king:

Next, what nearly all "Christians", including theologians, do not realize: Jesus was born to become a KING! (p. 209)

The churches of this world—"traditional Christianity—DO NOT speak of the government of God. They do not picture Jesus as coming world RULER. They do not preach Jesus as coming KING—but only as Savior. They overlook— reject—scriptures speaking of Christ as King and coming Ruler, and government rule in the kingdom of God. And that is to say, they deliberately REJECT and OMIT the gospel MESSAGE of Christ in their teaching and preaching! They teach that one is already saved on "receiving" (GETTING) Christ! (p. 257)

Once again, we observe HWA indicting "traditional Christianity" of wrongdoing while he intentionally misrepresents what they do believe. Even though he accuses them as picturing Jesus as only a Savior but not a King, in glaring hypocrisy, the reverse can be said of HWA teaching Jesus as King and Ruler, but not as personal Savior. Notice how HWA equates those who receive Christ as "GETTING" Christ. Of course, the loaded term, "Satan’s way of GET" is repeated throughout the MOA and HWA, skilled in advertising, knew the reader’s mind would pick up these visual cues. Now he tells readers that "receiving Christ" is equal to "getting Christ," which is the same as living Satan’s way of GET.

What about this accusation against Christianity and theologians not realizing that Jesus was born to become King? What HWA doesn’t tell his readers is that Christians already believe that Jesus is King and Living Ruler over all. They look forward to His Second Coming when the kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdoms of our Lord (Rev. 11:15), and they acknowledge that He rules his creation with all power and glory NOW and adds believers to His Kingdom daily ("Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" (Col. 1:13-14). HWA accuses Christianity of gross neglect for not SPEAKING about the government of God. So here we must pause and ask: Which is more important—the government of the Ruler, or the Ruler of the government? It’s not too hard to figure out which is more important to HWA, and which is more important to Biblical Christianity.

DEATH OF JESUS ON THE CROSS—THREE ERRONEOUS TEACHINGS

1. Laws of Health

HWA begins to exert more control over the loyal convert. Inserted between the graphic details about the suffering and death of Jesus are three false teachings. The first teaching that the unwary reader is being introduced to is the "Healing Doctrine."

Because he [Jesus] had never even broken a law of health, he suffered the process of dying as no other human ever did. (p. 211)

The indescribable scourging was endured that believers might be healed from physical transgression, sicknesses or disease (Isa. 53:5; I Peter 2:24). What a terrible price our own very Maker paid that we might, by believing, be healed. Yet nearly all professing believers totally ignore what their Savior provided for them, and instead of relying on him, put their faith in human doctors, drugs, medicines and knives. (p. 212)

The focus has clearly shifted away from a loving Savior, who came to voluntarily die for our sins because He loved us, while HWA cleverly inserts his "law of health" teaching. Notice how HWA induces tremendous feelings of guilt over the death of Christ. By describing in gory detail how Christ was scourged, he evokes a powerful emotional response. It is through this insidious moment—a moment of vulnerability experienced by the reader—that HWA manipulates the reader into the belief that he is not "thankful" for Christ’s provision because he had relied on medications and doctors for healing his physical illnesses. The reader becomes mortified when he realizes that he’s in the same category as one of the "professing believers that ignore what their Savior provided for them" since he’s readily used doctors and medications in the past. Again, another clever set up. Either believe in HWA’s healing doctrine, or join the ranks of deceived traditional Christians (which follow Satan). HWA takes advantage of the reader’s conscience and will use it against him. Who wants to be guilty of spitting in the face of God? The reader, who experienced great joy at finally being given "the key" in the previous chapter, will now experience deep guilt and shame over his sins in this chapter. This manipulation of emotional highs and lows is typical of cult mind control methods. (See: Behavior, Information, Thought and Emotional Control which explains the four aspects of mind control. [offsite article])

Once the convert joins the group, he will be informed that taking medications is a form of sorcery and witchcraft, and going to doctors is idolatry. He will be informed that having faith in Christ’s provision, and being anointed with oil, and having prayed the prayer of faith to claim that provision, will bring healing. What is not explained to the convert is what happens when anointing doesn’t work. Either the person: a) lives with the pain and blames himself for "not having enough faith," or b) dies, leaving members wondering whether he had enough faith, or whether he had some "hidden sin" in his life, or c) dies, but is looked upon as a "wonderful example of faith" for not buckling in to the devil and getting proper medical treatment. (Category "c" is reserved for mostly ministers.)

Members are conditioned to judge those who do not receive healing as "lacking faith." Those who do seek medical attention are whispered about behind their backs and treated with disdain. Others are "put out" (depending on the capacity for compassion held by the local minister). Members see illnesses as a personal trial sent by God to test their "faith" in His provision. If they give up and seek medical care, they believe they have failed the test. Members are also taught that sin falls into two categories: spiritual sin and physical sin (e., g. the account in Luke 5:18-25 is used to prove that there is "physical sin" when Jesus said to the man sick with palsy, "Man, thy sins are forgiven"). Illnesses are supposedly the penalty for transgressing physical laws that God had made to "govern our bodies." Members are taught that when Jesus healed the sick, their physical sins were forgiven. This teaching places a heavy burden of guilt on the member. Instead of offering a joyful and peaceful heavenly hope for the terminally ill, the dying convert is left wondering if God is still testing him and will heal him at the "last moment" or if God has even forgiven the physical sins he had committed.

By quoting Isaiah 53:5 and I Peter 2:24 HWA wanted readers to believe that Christ paid for our physical healing: Let us see what  Dr. J. Vernon McGee had to say about these two verses:

The phrase "with His stripes we are healed" may cause questions in your mind. Of what are we healed? Are we healed of physical diseases? Is that the primary meaning of it? I am going to let Simon Peter interpret this by the inspiration of the Spirit of God. First Peter 2:24 says, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." Healed of what? Peter makes it quite clear that we are healed of our trespasses and sins. (Thru the Bible With J. Vernon McGee, Vol. 3, p. 314)

I notice that when so-called faith healers use the words, "by whose stripes ye were healed," they refer to Isaiah 53:5 rather than to this verse in I Peter, because Peter makes it evident that the healing is of sins. I certainly agree that the Lord Jesus came to be the Great Healer—but the Great Healer heals of sins. No human physician can handle that problem. And Peter's use of these words from Isaiah 53:5 reveals that the prophet Isaiah was not speaking primarily of physical healing but of that which is more important and more profound, healing from sin. (Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 695)

This subject of "physical sin" is commented on in What Were the Lies and What is the Truth?

What are these "Seven Laws of Radiant Health" that can cause one to "sin" a "physical sin" if broken? They are listed below:

1. Maintain a Tranquil Mind, 2. Food and Fasting, 3. Cleanliness and Dress, 4. Sunshine and Fresh Air, 5. Exercise, 6. Sleep and Rest, 7. Avoid Bodily Injury

Although these "laws" may help maintain good health, they are not a guarantee against illnesses, accidents or death! Some people can break all of these laws and still have good health. Others can obey all of them and still develop terminal illnesses. These obviously are not "laws" but common sense principles that HWA tried to disguise as physical laws to support his phony healing doctrine. We can readily see that by obeying the tithing laws (especially in 3rd tithe year where 30% of one's gross income is required) causes one to break the first "Law of Health"! 

Exerting control over personal decisions is another characteristic of a cult. Paranoia over standard institutions (government, educators, church) will now spill out onto the medical community.  Isolation plays a key part of mind control, and HWA does his best to get his converts to continually cut ties with the outside world. Rejecting the medical establishment prevents the convert from being physically and psychologically evaluated for signs of physical or emotional abuse, depression, and/or spiritual abuse.  It also prevents the convert from getting real help for his conditions, which in turn, will cause him to question why the medical community can alleviate his suffering, which in turn will cause him to question the organization and doubt the healing doctrine.

Questioning leads to challenging the system, and HWA’s totalitarian government cannot tolerate this. It is a known fact that HWA used doctors himself, and even had his own private physician.¹⁴ Like the religious hypocrites in Jesus’ day, HWA was more than willing to place burdens on the members that he, himself, would not bear.

Read: How Did Worldwide Church of God Instruct Ministers to Deal With "Health and Medical Problems"? (shows the polices WCG used in order to avoid prosecution in case someone died)

2. CROSS OF CHRIST

The second erroneous teaching, cleverly inserted into this emotional story of Christ’s suffering and death, is the belief that He was not crucified on a cross, but on a "stake":

Scourging was intended to weaken the victims so they would die quickly on the stake of crucifixion. (p. 212)

Although HWA mentions that Jesus was "unable to carry his cross," he is being very deceitful. He engages in "Christian" sounding terms, but will redefine them later. Once in the organization, converts will learn to despise the cross, and will be taught that he was crucified on a pole or "stake." The familiar arguments are given below:

Why do [your] publications show Jesus on a stake with hands over his head instead of on a traditional cross? The Greek word rendered "cross" in many modern Bible versions ("torture stake" NW) is stau-ros'. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary [by P. Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol 1, p376] acknowledges this saying: "The Greek word for cross [stau-ros'], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground….Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole." (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1989, p. 89.)

What were the historical origins of Christendom’s cross? "Various objects, dating from the periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples…The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times and among non-Christian peoples may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946, Vol. 6, p. 753).

The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt.

Is veneration of the cross a Scriptural practice? 1 Cor. 10:14: "My beloved ones, flee from idolatry." (An idol is an image or symbol that is an object of intense devotion, veneration, or worship.) Ex. 20:4-5: (Notice that God commanded that his people not even make an image before which people would bow down.)…Concerning first century Christians, History of the Christian Church says: "There was no use of the crucifix and no material representation of the cross." (New York, 1897, J.F. Hurst, Vol. I, p. 366).

Does it really make any difference if a person cherishes a cross, as long as he does not worship it? How would you feel if one of your dearest friends was executed on the basis of false charges? Would you make a replica of the instrument of execution? Would you cherish it, or would you rather shun it?…So by cherishing the cross, a person is honoring a symbol of worship that is opposed to the true God.

As stated at Ezekiel 8:17, apostate Israel also 'thrust out the shoot to the Lord's nose.' He viewed this as "detestable" and 'offensive.' Why? This "shoot", some commentators explain, was a representation of the male sex organ, used in phallic worship. How, then, must the Lord view the use of the cross, which, as we have seen, was anciently used as a symbol in phallic worship?

After this discussion, is there any wonder that members of the WCG held the cross with such derision and disgust? Did God really reveal these truths directly to HWA, or did he get them from another source? The above quotes were not taken from any WCG publications, but were extracted from the Watchtower Society’s handbook, "Reasoning from the Scriptures," under the topic "Cross" (1989, pp. 89-93). The similarities are undeniable. Why would HWA derive this teaching from a known cult? Ironically, what HWA didn’t know was that the Watchtower Society lied about the cross of Christ to their own members. In their "Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," the Watchtower Society intentionally misquoted Roman Catholic scholar, Justus Lipsius (Joost Lips), in his book, "De Cruse Liber Primus" while deceptively displaying only one of the three illustrations shown in this book.¹⁵  The first illustration shows a man being crucified on a single beam, with his hands nailed above his head. The next two illustrations in Lipsius’ book—which were deliberately omitted by the Watchtower Society—show the correct cross upon which Jesus was crucified. Lipsius states that four pieces of wood were used: The upright stake, the crossbar in which his hands were nailed in an outstretched position, the piece of wood above the crossbar which contained the entitled superscription ("JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS"), and the final piece of wood fastened below for his feet. Justus Lipsius affirms that Jesus was nailed to a cross as displayed in the latter two illustrations, and not on a simple stake as shown in the first. HWA never realized that he was being duped by the Watchtower Society while he was gleaning his doctrines! The Interlinear is not available to the general public,¹⁶ so HWA was never aware of how the Watchtower Society lied about this particular teaching.

HWA made a big deal over the pagan origins of the cross. What about the cross being pagan? Of course it is—Jesus certainly wouldn’t have been hung on a "Christian" cross, would he? The cross was an instrument of execution used by Romans. This is what HWA wanted his members to focus on. What he didn’t point out was the fact that Jesus transformed this instrument of death into a symbol of hope, and opened the door to forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Remembering the cross of Calvary reminds believers that he conquered death and was resurrected. One must ask why would HWA look to the Watchtower Society for his doctrines instead of quoting Scripture? There are 28 scriptural references using the word "cross" and none of them are derogatory, nor do any support derision against the cross. On the contrary, we see Scriptures that show us the cross was a reminder of the sacrifice of Jesus, and we are not to be the enemies of the cross.

But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. (Gal. 6:14)

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (I Cor. 1:18)

For it pleased the Father that in him should fullness dwell; And having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Col. 1:19-20)

(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ;) (Phil. 3:18a)

When we focus on the Savior and his endless love and sacrifice, "pagan paranoia" fades into deserved irrelevance. Let’s "believe the Bible" and not him (HWA).

3. JESUS SCREAMING

The third erroneous teaching introduced by HWA is the final death of Jesus. On page 212 he quotes from the Moffatt Bible—a modernist translation, which denies the infallibility of the Bible:

…As he [Jesus] hung on the cross, helpless, a soldier stabbed him with a spear, he screamed in pain (Matt. 27:50, Moffatt) and then he died.

According to the gospels, Jesus had already died before the soldiers came.

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. (Matt. 27:50, KJV)

And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. (Mark 16:37)

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"; and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. (Luke 23:46)

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished"; and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. (John 19:30)…Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs; But one of the soldiers, with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. (vs. 32-34).

Why would God’s apostle misrepresent Scripture? If HWA was personally trained by Jesus, then why does he plainly contradict what the Scriptures say concerning him? HWA’s rendition of Jesus’ death on the cross does not show a Savior who voluntarily gave up his life on the cross, but instead, depicted one who was involuntarily slain by a soldier. Saddling the reader with guilt, HWA says this happened because of transgression of the Law. Now the reader is placed in the position of having to make up for this awful death by keeping the Law as dictated by HWA. The focus here is on guilt, and not on sacrificial love, nor on forgiveness.

CHURCH—ONE CANNOT JOIN

Secret societies never allow anyone just off the street to join:

Anyone who "joins the church of his choice" has not come into God’s true Church. Once cannot just "join" the TRUE Church of God. (p. 229)

Advocating the belief that God selects those He wants in his church, the reader easily plays into HWA’s hands. The reader doesn’t know what insiders’ already know—that he must jump through several hoops before he will be allowed "in." Locating a local church will prove to be a challenge. He won’t be able to find a telephone listing in the Yellow Pages of the nearest church, nor will he be allowed to simply walk into a church service without ministerial approval. If the reader is convinced that he must be part of this church to save his skin from the impending cataclysmic holocaust, he will write away to the headquarters and request a visit from a minister. Eventually, the minister (with another person) will visit and question the person to see how much literature he has ingested and observe how compliant he is to the organization’s teachings. Even after this initial visit, he will still not be invited to church, much to the surprise and disappointment of the potential recruit. This alone should have raised a big red flag to this unbiblical practice. Refusing easy entry into the church creates a deep longing and willingness to do anything to be part of the organization. Further ministerial visits are sessions to screen potential members by their willingness to submit to requirements. Is he smoking? Then he must quit. Is he "shacking up"? Then he must marry. Is he eating unclean foods? Then he must change his diet. Is he keeping the Sabbath, etc.? This initiation process can take weeks, even months, depending on the number of hoops he must jump through. [For a personal experience showing how this process works, read: How Did Herbert W. Armstrong Recruit People?] As time passes, the recruit becomes more urgent as his desire to obtain access to the church becomes insatiable. When he is finally granted permission to attend services, he is elated, at long last, to be "in." Ironically, the new convert will, in turn, defend this initiation process and jealously guard against unconverted "intruders" walking into services "uninvited."

SALVATION NOT ONLY FOR A MINUTE FEW

HWA introduces the notion that only a "minute few" are being called to salvation in this present age. Church members always understood this minute few to be the converted members of the Worldwide Church of God (also known as the 144,000). This illustrious plan of salvation teaches that the majority of the human race is "NOT YET JUDGED" while God lets them willingly and willfully follow Satan’s "GET" way. From this description, we can easily conclude that God allows men to disagree with Him, even disobey Him, without any condemnation. HWA said that they are not being judged at this present time. He clearly explained on page 235 that "Christ had already atoned for their sins." According to HWA, "uncalled" humans would be allowed to continue living in their sinful state, but they would "reap what they sowed." Sounds easy enough.

They [Christians] do not know they are deceived and wrong in their beliefs. But they are not now being judged! They are neither condemned to the lake of fire nor "saved." They are among the WHOLE WORLD, swayed by the deceptions of Satan, CUT OFF from God! (p. 272)

"This is not the time when salvation is opened to those in Satan's world." (p. 270)

So according to HWA’s own words, traditional Christians, along with the WHOLE WORLD, are not being judged nor are they condemned. God is opening the eyes, in this present time, of only a minute few. Now contrast this with the following. In the book, The United States and Britain in Prophecy (1980), we see HWA plainly condemn those who disagree with his British-Israel/Sabbath doctrine to the Lake of Fire:

"Yes," says the rebellious one who would argue his way out of obedience, "but it is between God and the children of ISRAEL. It is throughout Israel's generations; it is between God and the ISRAELITES forever.

Oh—then you admit it is binding FOREVER on Israelites—and throughout their generations? There are TWO answers to that argument that will condemn you, if you so argue, to the LAKE OF FIRE! (Chapter XI, "Sign for Israel Only?" p. 141)

HWA, once again, has contradicted his own teaching. If millions read the United States and Britain in Prophecy, and did not believe this particular teaching concerning the Sabbath, ARE they or are they NOT condemned? Either they are or they aren’t. Here, HWA says those who argue with this teaching and try to wiggle out of it, ARE condemned. This means, millions who have read this book (including born-again Christians), and decided it was pure hogwash, are condemned. Apparently, it is okay to willingly and willfully disobey God, but one cannot argue with and willfully disobey HWA without his invoking God’s wrath upon him!

HWA performed this doctrinal flip-flop in order to trap people into his organization. In the MOA, the reader is invited to write for a free copy of the United States and Britain in Prophecy for more detailed explanations. He will be spoon-fed a steady diet of sensational claims concerning the lost identity of the tribes of Israel. [See my research article: Where Are the Tribes of Israel Located?] The reader, weak in doctrine, does not see how he was tricked into believing that if he doesn’t agree with HWA—does not believe that he is an Israelite, and that he is required to keep the Sabbath (including the annual Sabbaths)—then he is condemned to the Lake of Fire for questioning and resisting this. Notice how HWA labels those who won’t submit to this teaching as "rebellious ones." We have revisited this set-up umpteen times. HWA, a shrewd salesman, cannot allow the customer to walk away.

HWA offers a palatable salvation solution—one that is irresistibly reasonable and universally fair—a scenario where almost everybody wins. But after the convert takes the bait, he is blindsided by a clever switch.¹⁷ HWA ridicules the teaching of a literal hell, but will hang "annihilation in the Lake of Fire" over his converts' heads for anything that smacks of "rebellion," "bad attitudes" and "bitterness" against him and his organization. "The Lake of Fire" is another loaded term which is nothing more than HWA’s redefinition of hell—only, in cruel irony, he is willing to cast his chosen, elite "converted members" into it for being "unsubmissive" and "rebellious," but lets off those outside of his organization with a wink and a promise of a second resurrection in a future paradise.

The reader does not have enough doctrinal learning to think through the cruelty and unfairness of HWA’s plan of salvation since he does not understand what all that entails. HWA fools the reader into thinking that Christianity teaches a false plan of salvation, where God has favorites:

If God is opening salvation to the few in his Church only to give them salvation, while he excluded the preponderance of the world as a whole until later, then God certainly would be a respecter of persons, discriminating against the world as a whole. Jesus said plainly no man can come unto him except that the Father draws him (John 6:44). A professed Christianity believes precisely the opposite. This false Christianity teaches that God is calling and trying to save everybody in this present time. If that were so, then Satan is certainly winning a great victory over God. For the overwhelming majority of mankind knows [sic] little or nothing about Christ or salvation through him. (p. 215)

Although this argument sounds logical, it is full of loopholes and misrepresentations used to push the right buttons to get the reader to side with him. Again, HWA will not quote Scripture to show why Christianity believes what it does. He simply declares it unjust, and then introduces his own "fair" salvation plan. Claiming that the "overwhelming majority of mankind know little or nothing about Christ," he fails to mention the millions of professing Christians located throughout the world, even in Communist countries such as China. But since they don’t ascribe to his version of "Christianity," he disregards them altogether.

Does God really "call" those He wants into the WCG (or any other splinter), or does HWA underhandedly intimidate people into his group? On page 269, the reader is invited to take an in-depth Bible course. The Bible Correspondence Course is given "gratis" upon request. One does not realize that this poisonous "freebie" is another tool used to make the reader take the bait through use of fear, intimidation, and end-of-the-world threats—techniques used by master scammers. The first several lessons (1969 version) consist of the "paradoxes of mankind"—great achievement versus appalling evil—and world leaders declaring that there are no solutions to these problems. As the lessons continue, they cover the Millennium and the supposed "deceptive lies" of "traditional Christianity." The next lessons focus on natural disasters and impending nuclear war. Finally, in Lesson 8, the pressure is on:

Dangerous Knowledge

We frankly doubt whether all of you FULLY GRASP the dangerous knowledge that you have learned from your own Bibles through this Course. We want to impress on you the seriousness of knowing what the future holds. YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE whenever you fail to act upon God’s warning—BECAUSE YOU NOW KNOW what God plans to do! (Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course, 1969, Lesson 8, "This is GOD Speaking…"! p. 4.)

The above technique, used by scammers, is known as "commitment and consistency." The lessons leading up to this point were designed to get one to agree with HWA’s assessment of the world—that it’s a rotten, evil, polluted, crime-filled, confused mess. Even though something as simple as agreeing with HWA’s opinions seems small, professional scammers know how to later use this against someone. Once the reader arrives at this lesson, he now discovers he is responsible for what he knows. If he still does not take the bait, then he will be made to feel that he is being inconsistent—after all, he did agree with HWA for seven full lessons and now he is trying to renege:

Beware the lethargy and confusion of which NEWSWEEK magazine warns: …

Incapable of determining the truth, people have developed a skepticism, a "you-show-me" attitude, which resists taking advice from God’s verbal warnings. (Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course, 1969, Lesson 8, "This is GOD Speaking…"! p. 4.)

Using personal insults, HWA slaps on the labels of lethargy, confusion, skepticism and an arrogant attitude toward God Himself for not heeding his warnings. Combine this with the carefully planted doomsday threats:

But soon God is going to show the disobedient world the consequences of its evil. He will speak in a language the world will understand—He will unleash terrifying forces of nature. Through these forces He will inflict physical punishment for our own good until we learn how WRONG we have been. (Ibid.)

The rest of the lesson is filled with graphic pictures of a dust storm, locust plague, hurricane-ravished homes, and a steaming volcano. Cap this off with a Basil Wolverton¹⁸ illustration of Sodom and Gomorrah going up in smoke and this can leave one fearfully trembling in his boots! If the pictures aren’t convincing enough, then throw in capitalized words like COSMOCIDE, EXCRUCIATING SORES, WAR MACHINES, CAPTIVE INTO VARIOUS COUNTRIES, and PRESENT GENERATION, and in hopes that the scammer will succeed in hitting the epicenter of raw fear that will push the individual into action. Why focus on all this fear? What does the Bible have to say about fear?

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. (I John 4:18)

Fear causes torment. Why does HWA focus on fear, doomsday scenarios, and divine punishment instead of telling us about the perfect love of Christ, which will cast out all these fears?

In his usual inconsistent manner, HWA wants the reader to believe that God is only "calling a minute few," and that mankind, on the whole, is not being judged for his actions in this life. But here in this lesson, HWA now portrays an angry and vengeful God that will punish the world for being disobedient and stubborn. If God isn’t calling these people in the first place, then why is He punishing them? HWA explained earlier that God is not judging mankind, but here HWA claims that God will actively execute divine punishment against mankind for his rebellion. This doctrinal flip-flop and Jekyll/Hyde image of God is employed at HWA’s convenience.

GRACE

Herbert Armstrong despised the doctrine of grace. On one hand, he taught that grace was "unmerited pardon," but he emphasized endlessly the loaded term "grace was license to sin." This kind of double talk produced a cognitive dissonance in the members, who never questioned this disparity. He openly expresses indignation and continually impugns guilt toward "traditional Christianity" for "nailing the law to the cross." So disdainful was HWA’s attitude toward this particular doctrine that the Subject Index at the end of the MOA has the word grace listed twice and it is found on the same page:

He [Simon Magus] accepted the doctrine of "grace for the forgiveness of sin (which the pagan religions never had), but turned grace into license to disobey God (Jude 4). (p. 52)

Now this brings us to an interesting point. HWA tries to make the reader believe that grace was nothing more than a license to sin. But in his own contrived "Plan of Salvation," he announces that the whole of mankind will not be judged for all the sins committed in this present life—he will merely reap the consequences of what he sows. Listen closely to what HWA is saying. "Sin all you want in this present life. God isn’t judging you or condemning you for anything you have done, no matter how evil, although you will have to reap the natural consequences. When Satan is removed, then you will be resurrected in a beautiful paradise on this earth, have your eyes opened and given a chance to qualify for your salvation. Only this time, it will be a cakewalk since Satan won’t be around to influence you to sin."¹⁹ Now whose plan of salvation is giving license to sin? Although HWA accuses "traditional Christianity" for teaching others to sin with impunity, we see just the opposite happening here. Careful examination of this salvation plan makes one thing obvious: It is better that one not be part of the Church in this present age. There are too many disadvantages. You have Satan and the world fighting against you (in the next age he will be bound), and you can fall out of favor with the organization and be condemned to eternal death in the Lake of Fire! Yes, what HWA doesn’t reveal in the MOA, is that one who leaves the church will lose his salvation. Once one has "tasted this way of life" and turns his back on it, he is considered incorrigible and is condemned.²⁰ Never mind that the majority that "left" were forcefully put out and not allowed to return, but as observed earlier, HWA is a master at leaving out important details when it plays to his disadvantage. (Although HWA states on page 272 that one "put out of the church could be readmitted upon repentance and renewed belief," members know this happens rarely.)

Why didn’t HWA ever challenge his followers to look up the word "grace" in the Strong’s Concordance? He repeatedly guided his followers to the oft-quoted passage in Jude 4, but never mentioned the numerous Scriptures found in the NT using the word grace (129 of them to be exact). Shouldn’t we find this odd coming from a man of God? Grace must have been very important to have been mentioned this many times in the Bible. Why would HWA overlook this very fact? HWA doesn’t want his readers to know about grace because he cannot enslave those who fully understand the true meaning of grace.²¹ He minimized grace, perverted its meaning, so his followers turn up their noses in disgust whenever this word is mentioned.

CO-SAVIORS/FIRSTFRUITS

HWA taught his followers that they would be the Firstfruits, resurrected into spirit beings in the first resurrection and becoming "God, as God is God."⁹ But this blasphemy only gets worse. On page 240, HWA will offer the ultimate prize—to be on equal footing with Jesus as co-saviors!

In a sense, then, the Church shall become co-saviors with Christ.

After we have attained to the resurrection of the dead, as the wife of the Son of God [the Bride of Christ], and members of the God family, we shall be not only heirs and coheirs with Christ, but in a sense, co-saviors.

The family of God will grow. As kings and priests, the Church in the resurrection will be co-rulers under Christ in restoring the government of God over all nations. But we shall be, as priests, co-saviors with him in saving the world.

Notice the lack of scriptural backing to this particular claim. One would think that something as important and earthshaking as becoming a "co-savior" would be plainly stated in Scripture. Instead, God’s handpicked and personally trained apostle failed to quote this Scripture plainly revealed in Isaiah 43:11:

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Time and time again, we see HWA outright lie while he accuses Christianity of engaging in this practice. HWA knew that the offer of ultimate status and power would be difficult to ignore. Once in the group, he/she will learn that God is reproducing Himself through him/her. He/she will be resurrected into a spirit being at Christ’s return and become God, as God is God.9 His/her future will have a purpose and a master plan. He/she will help Christ rebuild the destroyed earth (after Armageddon), and restore it back to Paradise. Following the Millennium, the second and third resurrections²² will take place. After this, the whole earth will be purified with fire. Then there will be new heavens and a new earth, and the New Jerusalem will descend from heaven to earth. At this time the fully trained convert will have a chance to re-create the universe and fulfill his/her "incredible human potential" as a God-being. Speculations such as "becoming a God on your own personal planet, and having to die like Jesus did for the sins of the people on your planet" were commonplace. Warped theology leads to warped conclusions. The uniqueness of Jesus’ sacrifice was diminished when followers entertained thoughts that they, too, could become a savior.

ONE CHURCH WITH ONE GOVERNMENT

Against mainstream denominations, HWA stated on page 206:

Jesus founded only one Church. Yet in the Western world today there are many different churches—Catholic, Protestant, independents. And within them many denominations, sects and divisions or congregations, each with its differing beliefs, teachings, rituals and programs.

HWA gives the impression that his church is the "only one church" that Jesus founded and doesn’t suffer from division. Is this true? On pages 241-242, HWA makes some telling remarks about the origins of his organization:

When I came among the brethren of the Church of God, there were questions among the leaders respecting the nature of Church organization….But division over Church organization and government began about 1930. Two leaders organized a new Church, departing from its headquarters at Stanberry, Missouri, setting up its new headquarters at Salem, West Virginia. They adopted a system of organization that they erroneously called "Bible organization."

Selecting his words carefully, HWA does not point out that his church is a splinter from this Salem, West Virginia church, which split off from the Stanberry, Missouri church, which split from the Seventh-day Adventist church, etc. (See the chart on: Roots of the Worldwide Church of God) He disguises this fact forty-five pages later, pretending these splits are "batons" being passed between the different church eras (which will be discussed later in detail).

Though he accuses religious organizations of confusion and division, his organization was no better. He doesn’t mention the split by his son, Garner Ted, or the "rebellion of the 70’s." Following HWA's death in 1986, two major splinter groups formed (the Philadelphia Church of God, and the Global Church of God, which is now Living Church of God.) Later, during, and after 1995, the only "one church" that Jesus founded spiraled into hundreds of splinter groups, claiming either to be the only true church, or the continuation (or restoration) of the original true church. The house built on the sand has collapsed, but the various landlords won’t allow the tenants to pack up and leave.

CHURCH OF GOD—WHAT'S IN A NAME?

HWA reassures his readers that God has provided a safe enclave against the heresies of this world—his church—which he claims is the ONLY TRUE CHURCH. He dismisses other denominations (Congregational, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, etc.) for not using the specific words "Church of God" in their namesake while spurning them for holding a democratic form of church government.

HWA will build the case that this particular denomination—the only true church—must hold the name "Church of God."

Jesus said his true Church was to be KEPT in the name of the Father—GOD. Twelve times in the New Testament, the NAME of this one true Church is the CHURCH OF GOD! It is God’s Church, and Jesus Christ is its guiding, sustaining, directing HEAD! (p. 247)

HWA quotes the twelve Scriptures proving that "Church of God" is the true NAME of the church, and reminds readers that it "CANNOT BE DIVIDED" and everyone must "SPEAK THE SAME THING." HWA also states that, "There must be no division in what is believed, taught or preached." (p. 249). Here, strict conformity of the organization’s rules is cleverly masqueraded as "unity." Before the reader has time to process this, HWA quickly distracts him with the eye-catching, bolded subheading, "Traditional Christianity." For the next few pages, he hammers into the reader’s head that the true identity of traditional churches is "Mystery Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth." After elevating his own church, HWA must vilify and burn in effigy, the competition.

First, we will look at the assertions by HWA that the true church must have the name "Church of God."  Later we will look at some interesting allegations made concerning this false Mystery Babylon church.

Withholding pertinent information is a trademark of HWA. Although he informs readers that the true church must have the name "Church of God," he fails to mention that there are approximately twenty other denominations (and countless WCG splinter groups) that hold the name "Church of God." This link on Google Search lists them.

Of course, HWA does not bring any of this to our attention. He also takes liberties in embellishing the name of his church (Radio Church of God, and later, Worldwide Church of God²³) without explaining why this is permissible for his church to do. While describing other denominations calling themselves after their leaders, doctrines or systems (Luther—Lutheran, Wesley—Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc.) he opportunely forgets that his own members call themselves "Worldwiders" and are known as "Armstrongites."

Just in case one discovers that there are other "Church of God" branches not affiliated with his church, HWA requires further qualifications to "God’s Church":

Yet none is truly the Church of God, unless it is GOD’S CHURCH, continuing in doctrine, practice, organization, in all ways on the original biblical pattern, headed by Jesus Christ, yet belonging to God the Father, empowered by the Holy Spirit, having GOD’S TRUTH, fulfilling Christ’s commission of proclaiming his GOOD NEWS of the KINGDOM OF GOD to the world as a whole. (p. 249)

And it CANNOT BE DIVIDED. It remains ONE. (p. 249)

The reader is unaware of the hidden meanings of the loaded words shown in capital lettering. Once in the organization, the member will quickly learn to refer to this organization as "THE Church" (denoting the one and only church) or "GOD’s Church" (meaning no other church outside of this organization belongs to Him), and he will learn to call the doctrines of the church "THE TRUTH." This "TRUTH" will become his central reference point for every decision he makes in life, no matter how wrong this "TRUTH" may be. He will learn to internalize this word more than he will ever internalize the name Jesus, and it will flow incessantly from his lips. When one carefully listens to sermons and conversations between members, he will find this word used with suffocating regularity.

MYSTERY BABYLON

Now what about his Mystery Babylon? If Mystery Babylon is the false church, or false religious system, why doesn’t HWA mention the Mormons, the Watchtower Society, the Seventh-day Adventists, and other well-known heretical groups? Of course, he knew that if he condemned them, he would condemn himself, so he must remain silent. Since HWA accuses "traditional Christianity" of being this Mystery Babylon, let’s take a look at a particular group that has written a book with the word "Mystery" in the title. This highly esteemed book of "mysteries" is on equal footing with the Bible. The author claims that "seven basic mysteries" were revealed to him, and declares, "I want to fully reveal the MYSTERY."²⁴  The central message is not about Jesus Christ and finding salvation through Him. It’s about the author, and his special calling, his understanding of these various mysteries about God, angels and evil spirits, man, civilization, Israel, the Church and the Kingdom. He boldly claims that the Bible itself is a confusing jigsaw puzzle that only he can put together. On page 243 of this special book of mysteries we read:

The CHURCH is not divided. There is only one Church. Not a parent church and many little daughter churches that have split off in disagreement. Divisions splintering off are NOT STILL IN THE CHURCH. It is the CHURCH that is to marry Christ in the resurrection at his coming—not disagreeing churches—not groups who have broken off! Not a parent church and apostate daughters. That will become more obvious as we continue.

Yes, it has become painfully obvious that the author of these seven mysteries died almost two decades ago, leaving behind his parent church. This parent church has splintered into countless daughter churches, many claiming to be the ONLY TRUE Church (or the continuation or restoration of the original true church.)—disagreeing with one another—while still claiming to uphold these MYSTERIES. Using the author’s specific criteria to identify this "Mystery Babylon," it seems HWA has described his own organization in amazingly accurate detail.

NO PROPHETS IN THE N.T. CHURCH

On page 244-245, HWA makes the clear statement concerning the role of New Testament prophets:

The prophets set in the foundation of the Church are those of the Old Testament, whose writings were used to form a considerable part of the New Testament and gospel teaching and functioning. No prophets are mentioned as having either administrative, executive or preaching functions in the New Testament Church."

Gerald Flurry, founder of the Philadelphia Church of God (and who now owns the copyrights to the Mystery of the Ages), couldn’t allow these words to remain since donning the lofty title of "That Prophet." Understanding fully the ramifications of that sentence, he removed it entirely.

Even though Flurry causes his followers to virtually worship the infallibility of HWA (even believing he was "the Elijah to come"²⁵), apparently it wasn’t beneath Flurry to alter HWA’s "infallible" words in the MOA to his advantage.

DEVIL

HWA wants his followers to believe that the traditional churches have "some" of the truth, and declares that this is due to the devil’s deceptions:

Many Protestant denominations, and some personal "ministries," quote certain scriptures, especially concerning Christian living, faith, love, etc., correctly. But they ignore numerous basic scriptures, cited in this book. Satan seems willing to let the deceived have parts of the truth. (p. 251)

Do the Scriptures say that the devil has any truth to "let the deceived have parts of"?

…He [the devil] was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him…for he is a liar and the father of it. (John 8:44)

The Bible states that there is no truth in the devil. He cannot give what he does not have. HWA simply cannot admit that these "Protestants" got their "correct" ideas from the Bible without tainting it in some way. Just like the Pharisees in Matthew 12, he gives the devil undue credit. Accusing Christians of ignoring "basic scriptures," HWA opportunely ignores numerous Scriptures that contradict his teachings. Hypocrisy runs deep in the veins of false teachers. Appearing as "an angel of light" is not the same as having truth, and HWA is an excellent example of this. He sounded so logical, and reasonable. His arguments seemed to make sense. But when we begin to peel back the layers, we see that behind every logical argument, there were hidden lies to make his claims seem true.

CHURCH ORGANIZED—RAH! RAH! RAH! WE'RE A TEAM!

HWA must continually remind his readers that he is special:

God put it in my mind and heart when I was a child only 5 years old to desire—literally to crave—UNDERSTANDING! (p. 231)

Through this and other revealed knowledge of the Holy Bible, God gave me UNDERSTANDING of the working out of his great PURPOSE! (p. 231)

Oozing with "humility," thirty-six pages later, HWA reassures his readers that he, the author, is "Christ’s apostle"²⁶ (pp. 267, 269). He describes those in his church as ORGANIZED into a TEAM, cooperatively performing TEAMWORK. (p. 271) This is a continuation from the last chapter, where HWA described the different "teams" (Abraham/Isaac/Jacob team, etc.) that God would utilize in the World Tomorrow. HWA actively recruits the reader to become part of the TEAM, which he elevates as "an ORGANIZED SPIRITUAL ORGANISM unlike any secular or worldly organization" (p. 268). He lets the lay member know his role:

The individual lay member HAS HIS VITAL PART in proclaiming the GOOD NEWS (gospel) to the world. How? Not by going out and himself proclaiming Christ’s message to the neighborhood or to the world. (p. 266)

HWA tells the reader that he is not to go out and proclaim Christ’s message. Yet, three paragraphs later, he says the spreading of the gospel was done by "personal proclamation" by the early church:

In the first century it was done by personal proclamation. (p. 266)

So much for restoring the teachings of the "original church."

Proselytizing is not permitted in HWA’s organization. Once the recruit is "in," he learns that only the "apostle" is allowed to publicly preach the gospel. The members learn to PAY, PRAY and OBEY. At first this comes as a relief. The individual is off the hook for personal evangelism—the discomforting burden of approaching others with the gospel has been removed. Later, the financial burden of tithes, offerings, and various "needs" begin to drain him financially, and the strict obedience drains him physically and emotionally. In due time, he realizes something is amiss. Instead of questioning the organization, he begins to question his own loyalty and dedication "to God and His Work," certain that he, himself, is the cause. The recruit is unaware the isolation process working in his life. He does not share what he believes, which in turn, keeps the society secretive. Sharing his beliefs leaves the member open to questions by outsiders, something that HWA wanted to avoid at all costs. Isolation is a key element in mind control, and HWA employs this technique effectively. By appointing himself as sole-declarer of the gospel, he absolves his members of any personal responsibility in sharing the gospel. The avoidance of proselytizing keeps the organization out of public scrutiny. Members are known as "quiet, keep-to-themselves kind of people that devoutly go to church on Saturday." Aside from this, neighbors, co-workers, and friends know little else of their personal convictions and beliefs. Members are taught that people on the outside "don’t understand the truth," so they are told not to "cast their pearls before swine."

Just in case the reader gets the idea that he is going elsewhere to gain his reward, HWA warns him that "only those so trained in the Church will be kings and priests in the kingdom of God." (p. 270)

LOST HISTORY OF THE CHURCH

HWA wants his readers to believe that early church history is "scanty and suspicious," a product of a great cover up orchestrated by the devil himself. Nevertheless, the surviving early church documents have been covered extensively in my article True Original Church/Faith Once Delivered (Proof Herbert Armstrong Lied About the "Lost" Church Century!) Confident of his findings, HWA paints a picture of scholars and historians agreeing with his assessment:

Scholars and church historians recognize that events in the early Christian Church between A.D. 50 and 150 can only be seen in a vague outline—as if obscured by a thick mist. (p. 280)

In the interest of "proving all things" we will look at the sources that HWA gives in the MOA and see if he is guilty of misquoting, omissions, and misrepresentations, which would certainly not be the fruits of a man of God. First HWA quotes Edward Gibbon:

Now we quote from a book of history, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I and chapter 15: "The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the Church." I have often called it "the lost century" because the history of that Church was lost at that time. (p. 280)

Now I will supply the full quote. The red text is the sentence quoted in the MOA. The bold lettering is my emphasis, while the historians’ footnote commentaries to Gibbon’s writings are in brackets:

Part I. The Progress Of The Christian Religion, And The Sentiments, Manners, Numbers, And Condition Of The Primitive Christians. ^*

[Footnote *: In spite of my resolution, Lardner led me to look through the famous fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of Gibbon. I could not lay them down without finishing them. The causes assigned, in the fifteenth chapter, for the diffusion of Christianity, must, no doubt, have contributed to it materially; but I doubt whether he saw them all. Perhaps those which he enumerates are among the most obvious. They might all be safely adopted by a Christian writer, with some change in the language and manner. Mackintosh see Life, i. p. 244. - M.]

But this inquiry, however useful or entertaining, is attended with two peculiar difficulties. The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church. The great law of impartiality too often obliges us to reveal the imperfections of the uninspired teachers and believers of the gospel; and, to a careless observer, their faults may seem to cast a shade on the faith which they professed. But the scandal of the pious Christian, and the fallacious triumph of the Infidel, should cease as soon as they recollect not only by whom, but likewise to whom, the Divine Revelation was given. The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion as she descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption, which she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings. ^*

A candid but rational inquiry into the progress and establishment of Christianity may be considered as a very essential part of the history of the Roman Empire. While that great body was invaded by open violence, or undermined by slow decay, a pure and humble religion gently insinuated itself into the minds of men, grew up in silence and obscurity, derived new vigor from opposition, and finally erected the triumphant banner of the Cross on the ruins of the Capitol. Nor was the influence of Christianity confined to the period or to the limits of the Roman Empire. After a revolution of thirteen or fourteen centuries, that religion is still professed by the nations of Europe, the most distinguished portion of human kind in arts and learning as well as in arms. By the industry and zeal of the Europeans, it has been widely diffused to the most distant shores of Asia and Africa; and by the means of their colonies has been firmly established from Canada to Chili, in a world unknown to the ancients.

[Footnote *: The art of Gibbon, or at least the unfair impression produced by these two memorable chapters, consists in confounding together, in one undistinguishable mass, the origin and apostolic propagation of the Christian religion with its later progress. The main question, the divine origin of the religion, is dexterously eluded (otherwise avoided) or speciously conceded (erroneously accepted); his plan enables him to commence his account, in most parts, below the apostolic times; and it is only by the strength of the dark coloring with which he has brought out the failings and the follies of succeeding ages, that a shadow of doubt and suspicion is thrown back on the primitive period of Christianity. Divest this whole passage of the latent (underlying or hidden) sarcasm betrayed by the subsequent one of the whole disquisition, and it might commence a Christian history, written in the most Christian spirit of candor. - M.] (Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Random House, N.Y., ch. 15, p. 382).

Read in complete context, we begin to understand the full meaning of what was really said. This book concerns the Roman Empire—its rise to world power, and its fall— and how Christianity triumphed in the face of the Empire's decay and final collapse. When one understands how fervently the powerful Roman officials tried to stamp out this "new religion," it truly is a miracle that it not only survived, but prospered, outlasting the Empire itself. So in spite of what seemed to be "silent and obscure" beginnings for this humble religion, it has managed to triumph beyond the confines of the Empire, and become established throughout the world. The great Empire that once was responsible for persecuting this new religion, by quirk of fate, was now responsible for the spread of this same religion. The historian accurately discerns the error of Gibbon’s comments concerning the unfair impression he gives concerning the "shadow of doubt and suspicion" of primitive Christianity. He correctly points out Gibbon’s error in blending the early origins of Christianity (which exist as accurate records) with its later progression (possibly referring to the thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.) in order to reach his conclusion.

HWA undoubtedly read these very same records, but extracted one sentence to prove that his claims of lost church history were true. HWA misrepresented the writings of Gibbon’s by not divulging the full context of Gibbon’s discussion. His failure to point out the authentic historical church documents in existence is nothing short of deception.

Now let’s examine the second quote given by HWA:

The noted English scholar Samuel G. Green in A Handbook of Church History wrote: "The thirty years which followed the close of the New Testament Canon and the destruction of Jerusalem are in truth the most obscure in the history of the Church. When we emerge in the second century we are, to a great extent, in a changed world." (p. 280)

HWA continually challenged his followers to "prove all things." How can one prove these things if HWA refuses to give out precise information so one can follow this specific dictate? Notice that the source that HWA has quoted above contains no publisher, no dates, no pages numbers, no footnotes, nor an Appendix. For one who claims to have the "truth," he isn’t very forthcoming with particulars. One reason, of course, is to make it difficult to verify his information. But another reason for this is to screen out those who were willing to put their total trust in his claims—these are the ones HWA is looking for. How many of us thought, "I’ll have to look that up and see if what he says is true," only to never get around to doing it? Others of us started to look up these claims, only to be frustrated by the inability to locate the information. So we gave up and said, "He seems to know what he’s talking about, so I’ll trust he’s telling the truth." Still others, who questioned the minister about these sources, were told, "These books are no longer in publication. They were written in the early 1900’s, back before evolution and other false teachings permeated society. These older books contained valuable information before Satan caused worldly scholars to edit most of these truths out." (Members can easily recall HWA’s penchant toward the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica as a prime example of this reasoning).

Today, fortunately, the Internet can be very helpful with procuring information and after much searching I was able to locate a copy of this book. The full quote is provided below. The red lettering is the portion quoted in the MOA:

Obscurity of the History, A.D. 70-100. - The thirty years which followed the close of the New Testament Canon and the destruction of Jerusalem are in truth the most obscure in the history of the Church. When we emerge in the second century we are, to a great extent, in a changed world. Apostolic authority lives no longer in the Christian community; apostolic miracles have passed; the Church has fairly begun her pilgrimage through "the waste of Time." (A Handbook of Church History, From the Apostolic Era to the Dawn of the Reformation, Samuel G. Green, D.D., The Lutterwoth Press, London: 1937, p. 22).

Notice that the sentence quoted by HWA states, "When we emerge in the second century we are, to a great extent, in a changed world." The sentence says "changed world"—not "changed religion." In fact, if there had been specific quotes about this, we can guarantee that HWA would have quoted it in his usual dramatic, over-emphasized style. Remember—what HWA doesn’t say is just as important—if not more so—than what he does say. This author also does not validate HWA’s "lost century" dogma. Green states that church history was obscure (but not completely lost) for only 30 years—from 70 A.D to 100 A.D. Remember, HWA stated (bolding mine):

Scholars and church historians recognize that events in the early Christian Church between A.D. 50 and 150 can only be seen in a vague outline—as if obscured by a thick mist. (p. 280)

I have often called it "the lost century" because the history of that Church was lost at that time. (p. 280)

This is why HWA omitted the first part of the paragraph "Obscurity of the History, A.D. 70-100." He didn’t want to publish any dates that would be contrary to his theory and make readers suspicious. Clearly, Dr. Green does not support the notion of a "Lost Century" and HWA knew this and tried to hide this fact.

Now let’s look further into the context of Green’s book and see if it supports this "lost century/false church emerges in Rome" theory. Predictably, HWA does not quote the previous paragraph of this book.

Extent of the Church at the close of the Century. On the whole, the later part of the first century instructively shows that the kingdom of God cometh not with observation. At its close, however, Christian Churches were already planted in the chief cities of Syria and of Asia Minor; possibly also in Mesopotamia; in Greece, in Macedonia, and Dalmatia; in Rome, and possibly in Northern Africa and Western Europe. The remnant of the Church of Jerusalem, returning from Pella, lingered amid the ruins of the Holy City (now called Aelia Capitolina), under, it is said, the Presidency of Symeon; the Gentile mother-church in Antioch flourished under the care of Ignatius; Polycarp had commenced his lengthened and illustrious ministry in Smyrna; and in Rome the chief pastor Clement, often thought, but on insufficient grounds, to have been the "fellow-labourer" of the Apostle Paul (Phil. 4:3). (A Handbook of Church History, From the Apostolic Era to the Dawn of the Reformation,  Samuel G. Green, D.D., The Lutterwoth Press, London: 1937, p. 22).

If church history had been lost, then these historians seem to have had no trouble finding it. In fact, by the end of the first century, the church was well established and thriving, and many of their writings were preserved. HWA did not quote Samuel G. Green’s previous paragraph, because he knew it would flush his bogus "lost century" theory down the toilet.

If HWA taught that "theologians and scholars are deceived" and "don’t understand" even the simplest "truths," why is he quoting these very same "deceived" scholars and theologians? If they are truly instruments of the devil, why would he quote them at all? HWA bashes them throughout this chapter of MOA, but whenever he can find something they say that remotely agrees with him, he quotes them as sources of proof!

HWA quotes another historian without giving any precise information:

In Lectures on Ecclesiastical History William Fitzgerald wrote: "Over this period of transition, which immediately succeeds upon the era properly called apostolic, great obscurity hangs…." (p. 280)

While that city stood, the Church there formed a sort of local centre to the early churches, with far higher claims than Rome could reasonably pretend to. It was, in reality – what the Church of Rome so falsely and so absurdly calls herself – the mother of all churches, to which all the lines of spiritual descent in other places converged, and in which they met. It was the place in which our Lord's own ministry had closed, and in which the presence of the Comforter had been first manifested, and it was the golden link of connection between the old and the new dispensations.

With such advantages as these, it is not wonderful that the Church of Jerusalem should have exercised great influences over the whole circle of the Christian community, and there certainly was no small danger that, especially after the guiding hand of the inspired Apostles was withdrawn from this central wheel as it were of the ecclesiastical machine, its movements might have been highly prejudicial to all that depended on it. There was manifest danger that the national peculiarities of the Church of Jerusalem might be impressed upon Christianity itself, and a character thus given to the religion which would render it unsuitable to discharge its important function of blending freely with the institutions of all nations and all climes and all ages, in which the true secret of its real strength and permanence lie.

The almost synchronous events of the removal of the Apostles, and the disruption of the Jewish polity, seem thus to have been so arranged by Providence that the latter to some extent compensated for the former. And just at the time when the Judaising tendency of the Church of Jerusalem was likely to do most mischief, the Roman arms drove it from its metropolis and violently broke up the associations of local dignity to which it owed its influence.

By these events, however, as I said, the churches were for a certain space deprived of the means of combined action. That central tie of common government, or at least a common point of contact, which had been supplied by the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem, was taken from them, and nothing of the same sort substituted in its room. Thus each separate Christian community was thrown upon its own resources for the conservation of the apostolic faith and the working out of such institutions of church order as might suits its own case.

Over this period of transition, which immediately succeeds upon the era we call apostolic, great obscurity hangs. I shall endeavor presently to assign some reasons for that obscurity.

But what I wish to remark at present is that the fact of such obscurity, combined with with all the antecedent probabilities of the case, and the little that we do know of the history of that interval, seems to make it certain that no great piece of combined action on the part of the whole Church in its federative capacity can have taken place during it. Such an event could not have occurred without impressing some permanent record of its occurrence upon the annals of the time. And therefore, when in the middle of the next century the mist begins to clear off, and shows us the spectacle of the churches diffused over the whole surface of the Roman Empire, and beyond it, acknowledging everywhere the same essential articles of faith – tracing their religion to the same persons, founding their faith upon the same miraculous facts, appealing unanimously to the same documents as the well-attested records of their founders' teaching – and practising the same external rites as delivered down to them by those founders, this is very strong and convincing evidence that such an uniform system of belief and practice could not have originated in that short, dark interval. There was in that interval no common authority which could have fixed these things for all the churches diffused over so wide a surface...It is surely incredible that any such universal empire as this should, like Jonah's gourd, spring up in a night and vanish with the day. But if there was none, then it is plain that the unanimity which meets our view in the second century was the result of the independent testimony of the several churches, each preserving for itself, by diligent inquiry and examination, the records of the apostolic teaching. It is the uncoerced testimony of a multitude of independent separate witnesses to the same truth. (Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, William Fitzgerald, D.D., Vol. 1, pp. 132-134; London, 1885.²⁷)

The next proof that HWA gives states: (bolding mine)

In The Course of Christian History William J. McGlothlin wrote: "But Christianity itself had been in [the] process of transformation as it progressed and at the close of the period was in many respects quite different from the apostolic Christianity." (p. 280)

Let us once again, carefully observe what is said. Since HWA lifted this sentence out of context, we cannot know what exact "period" that the author was referring to. We can clearly see that the author was speaking of a definite historical time period that had come to close. Knowing what specific time period the author was referring to would make a major difference in the context of this sentence. Past experience with HWA’s dishonesty in quoting and/or omitting historical records would appropriately cast suspicion toward his direction.

HWA repeatedly refuses to supply precise information so one can look up this quote. How difficult could this have been? He doesn’t even provide a footnote! I was able to locate a copy of Dr. McGlothlin’s book. Below is the full quote in context, plus the exact source from where it was derived. The red type is quoted in the MOA, while the bold type is my emphasis:

Second Period – 100 to 323 A.D.

No. 18

BEGINNINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH²⁸

We have now followed the rapid spread of Christianity over the empire during the second and third centuries, and have seen it finally conquer the emperor and achieve its freedom. But Christianity itself had been in process of transformation as it progressed and at the close of the period was in many respects quite different from the apostolic Christianity of A.D. 100. At every step it had been changing and these changes were making the Catholic church.²⁸ (The Course of Christian History, page 27; W. J. McGlothlin, Ph.D., D.D., The MacMillan Company, 1919).

HWA plainly tampered with this sentence, omitting the date of A.D. 100. Why? Because on page 293 of the MOA, he claimed: (bolding mine)

There ensued a hundred years in which all history of the New Testament Church was destroyed.

HWA claims that these scholars recognize that events in the early Christian church between A.D. 50 and A.D. 150 can only be seen in a vague outline, as if obscured by a thick mist. In this book, William J. McGlothlin makes no such claim. Instead, Dr. McGlothlin confidently states that apostolic Christianity existed up until A.D. 100, reducing the time of the "lost century" by 50 years! HWA obviously couldn’t have that piece of evidence floating around, so he altered the sentence to make it agree with his theory. How can anyone trust a man that would knowingly alter a pertinent piece of information in order to make his theories sound correct?

Also contained in this book are thorough outlines of eight historical periods of the Church to the present day, and lengthy details of each period. At this point in our review, we are only interested in the first two periods. The First Period covers the time from 1 A.D. to 100 A.D. The Second Period extends from 100 A.D. to 323 A.D. This should adequately cover the "lost century." Dr. McGlothlin makes some interesting observations during these time periods. Under the First Period, Dr. McGlothlin writes:

"What is certain is that by the end of the first century Christianity was firmly established in most if not all the great cities of the empire, that it had spread into many of the smaller towns and even into country districts. In some sections Christians constituted a large and influential element in society." (The Course of Christian History, page 17, Section 10, Saul’s Conversion and Work).

This author certainly doesn’t seem to agree with HWA’s assessment of a lost century. Primitive (apostolic) Christianity, by the end of the century, was firmly established throughout the empire and flourishing, which easily corroborates with Samuel Green’s earlier assessment.

On page 247, HWA faulted traditional churches for having a "democratic" form of government. Dr. McGlothlin also informs us what type of church government the early church established: [bolding mine]

"Organization is necessary to success in any great task and so we very early find the Christians organized into bodies which they called ecclesiae, a word which is translated into English by the word churches. The basis of organization was fraternal equality. "Call no man your father, for one is your Master and all ye are brethren." This is fundamental democracy, and these early churches were undoubtedly democracies in principle as far as possible in practice. Paul appointed elders for the churches, but it must have been in consultation with the brethren in whose hands the ultimate authority rested. (The Course of Christian History, page 17, Section 11, The Churches).

HWA’s top-down government (which he claims to be theocratic, but in reality is a dictatorship) that he had supposedly "restored" from the early church is a false claim. We also see that the word ecclesiae (ekklesia) simply means churches, and contains no "hidden meaning" such as "called out ones."

The final quote HWA gives as proof that a century of church history was lost:

In History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff wrote: "The remaining thirty years of the first century are involved in mysterious darkness, illuminated only by the writings of John. This is a period of church history about which we know the least and would like to know the most." (pp. 280-281)

How difficult would it have been for HWA to give the exact source of this information? One would think that he would be enthusiastic for his readers to "prove all things" and would have made it easier for the reader to locate these quotes. Instead, he has intentionally made this an arduous task so the reader would become discouraged and simply take his word at his claims. Notice carefully that Schaff states that the remaining 30 years of the first century were considered obscure (70-100 A.D.), which corroborates with Samuel Green’s statements. Schaff’s statement clearly does not support a lost century, but only three decades, and those decades weren’t completely lost. John was still living and writing during this time.

Below we have supplied Philip Schaff’s full quote in context. The red type is the quote found in the MOA: [Bold type mine, comments in brackets mine]

Sources of Information.

The author of Acts records the heroic march of Christianity from the capital of Judaism to the capital of heathenism with the same artless simplicity and serene faith as the Evangelists tell the story of Jesus; well knowing that it needs no embellishment, no apology, no subjective reflections, and that it will surely triumph by its inherent spiritual power.

The Acts and the Pauline Epistles accompany us with reliable information down to the year 63. [HWA’s "50 A.D.- 150 A.D." date is clearly debunked here]. Peter and Paul are lost out of sight in the lurid fires of the Neronian persecution which seemed to consume Christianity itself. We know nothing certain of that satanic spectacle from authentic sources beyond the information of heathen historians. A few years afterwards followed the destruction of Jerusalem, which must have made an overpowering impression and broken the last ties which bound Jewish Christianity to the old theocracy. The event is indeed brought before us in the prophecy of Christ as recorded in the Gospels, but for the terrible fulfillment we are dependent on the account of an unbelieving Jew, which, as the testimony of an enemy, is all the more impressive.

The remaining thirty years of the first century are involved in mysterious darkness, illuminated only by the writings of John. This is a period of church history about which we know least and would like to know most. This period is the favorite field for ecclesiastical fables and critical conjectures. How thankfully would the historian hail the discovery of any new authentic documents between the martyrdom of Peter and Paul and the death of John, and again between the death of John and the age of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, First Period Apostolic Christianity A.D. 1-100, Volume I, Chapter III. THE APOSTOLIC AGE.)

Observe how HWA carefully avoided quoting the sentence immediately following the one displayed in the MOA. Could it be because, as Schaff astutely described, he is guilty of propagating critical conjectures and ecclesiastical fables concerning this time period? Notice that Schaff did not say historical writings were non-existent. He simply states his desire for any new authentic documentation that would shed more light during this 30-year period. This would undoubtedly put to rest the many fables generated by false teachers concerning this time period. HWA has discovered a fertile field in which to sow his seeds of suspicion, much to the chagrin of church historians.

In conclusion to this Lost Century discussion, we have seen HWA clearly omit information in order to prove his false theory true. He built up the false belief that church history was lost, and then excerpted comments to make it seem that church historians agreed with him. If HWA were truly a man of God, he would have had nothing to fear IF he did indeed have the Truth. Apparently, he knew better and had to stoop to lying through omission of key information that didn’t substantiate his claims.

SEVEN ERAS OF THE CHURCH

Another fable generated by HWA is the belief of the "Seven Church Eras"²⁹ listed in the second and third chapters of Revelation. Every cult has their "sacred myths" and "sacred roots" and this teaching is another example. HWA will trace his present day organization back to the original church through these "eras."

The unwary reader does not understand the significance of these "church eras" until he becomes a convert. Once in the organization, he will learn that this present era is considered "Philadelphian." This Philadelphian era was commissioned by HWA to "finish the Work" in order for Christ to return. The convert will be trapped, in stages, to a grueling "financial plan" that will supposedly support this "End Time Work." What began as a work "supported through voluntary contributions of the members and co-workers" has now become a burdensome obligation, lest one be accused of "stealing from God." HWA will also extrapolate his sole authority from this era as the one that Christ had set before an open door that "no man can shut." Following the Philadelphian era is the Laodicean era. During the Laodicean era, those members who are lukewarm, will not "qualify" to go to the place of safety, and will be left behind to suffer through the Great Tribulation. Needless to say, converts will be suckered into adopting this erroneous view out of fear. Again the options are narrowed: Either be a Philadelphian (and be part of the most blessed era by funding it) or be a Laodicean (and suffer agonizing pain).

Ephesian Era

Let us return and closely examine each of these eras to see whether HWA’s theory stands up to scrutiny. Once again, the reader will think he is being given detailed and thorough knowledge of biblical history, but upon closer examination, the opposite will be proven true. HWA claims that:

The history of the Church would fall into seven distinct eras—each with its own strengths and weaknesses and its own special trials and problems. (p. 283)

With an introduction like that, one would think that HWA would provide all the information one would need in order to prove him true. Let’s see how "distinct" this information is when it comes to revealing these particular eras:

Some time during the early decades of the second century, the baton was passed from the Ephesian era to the people that God had called to the Smyrna era of his Church.

Powerless, often persecuted, and rejected as heretics, the world lost sight of them. (p. 283)

Curiously, HWA mentions that the baton passed from the Ephesian era to the Smyrna era during the early decades of the 2^nd century, but gives no specific identities of the groups from which this "baton exchange" had occurred. If the eras are so distinct, why is HWA so vague? Why does he not reveal the names of specific groups and give specific dates? He avoids mentioning names until he arrives at Peter Waldo, three church eras and ten centuries later. So enraptured is the reader concerning the significance of the "seven eras" that he scarcely noticed that HWA glossed over a millennia of historical data! But this matters little to HWA—he is looking for those who believe in him and will take him at his word.

If the Ephesian era of the church is the first era, then it is important to ask when was the church founded? HWA informs readers that the church was founded in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost in A.D. 31 (pp. 233, 283), when the Holy Spirit came (Acts 2:1-4). One would think this first church era would plainly be named the "Jerusalem era" of the church, but historical inconsistencies never stopped HWA from declaring them as fact, especially if it plays to his advantage. Why does he avoid giving information about the churches that these verses in Revelation are actually referring to? Simply because the reader would discover that the history of the church was never really lost, which would, in turn, debunk his myths.

Smyrna Era

No specific details are given concerning the Smyrna church either. HWA simply marches forward two hundred years to A.D. 365, quoting the decree from the Catholic Council of Laodicea.

This decree of A.D. 365 definitely shows that there were true Christians observing the Sabbath.

The small remnant of Christians of the Smyrna era fled once more—to seek the religious freedom they needed to practice their beliefs.

They left few records. Occasionally they appear as a footnote of history, rejected as heretics, ridiculed, and hounded by their enemies. (pp. 284-285)

HWA informs readers that the Smyrna age began around A.D. 110-130 (sometime during the early decades of the second century) and after the Council of Laodicea in A.D. 365, the Smyrna Christians fled. Carefully note the complete lack of details and footnotes to corroborate these claims. Why doesn't he reveal this little "footnote of history"? If these "facts" are indeed historical, then HWA should be excited to share them with his readers. Below, we have supplied the full quote of the "famous canon" of the Catholic Council of Laodicea. The red type is the quote found in the MOA, and the bold type is what HWA conveniently omitted:

THE CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF LAODICEA IN PHRYGIA PACATIANA

CANON XXIX.

CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ. (Canon XXIX)

Why can’t HWA give a simple historical quote without tampering with it? He didn’t bother inserting the usual ellipses ("…") to show that this information was omitted. Evidently he altered this decree to make it sound more sensational than it actually was, giving the impression of a state-enforced, strict Sunday observance.

Since HWA frequently quotes Philip Schaff, a renowned church historian, let’s see what else was written concerning this decree that HWA conveniently omitted:

Notes:

BALSAMON.

Here the Fathers order that no one of the faithful shall stop work on the Sabbath as do the Jews, but that they should honour the Lord’s Day, on account of the Lord’s resurrection, and that on that day they should abstain from manual labour and go to church.  But thus abstaining from work on Sunday they do not lay down as a necessity, but they add, "if they can."  For if through need or any other necessity anyone worked on the Lord’s day this was not reckoned against him. (Canon XXIX)

Notice the clear distinction between Christians (the faithful) and the Jews (not to be confused with Jewish believers). Historians have documented the vehemence of the Jews against the Messiah (the early church fathers also bear record to this). This is one of the reasons for the purposeful distinctions placed between the believer and the Jew in this particular canon. The Jews do not acknowledge that Jesus is the Savior, they do not acknowledge His Resurrection; therefore, they do not recognize the authority of the Sunday remembrance of His Resurrection. They still keep the Sabbath and wait for the Messiah to come.

Does being anathematized from the church mean an automatic death sentence? During this Laodicean Council, several decrees were made that could get one anathematized (see Canons 34, 35 and 36), but HWA does not mention this.

No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, that is, to those of the heretics, or those who formerly were heretics; for they are aliens from God. Let those, therefore, who go after them, be anathema.

Canon XXXV

Christians must not forsake the Church of God, and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, anyone shall be found engaged in this covert idolatry, let him be anathema; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over to idolatry.

Canon XXXVI

They who are of the priesthood, or of the clergy, shall not be magicians, enchanters, mathematicians, or astrologers; nor shall they make what are called amulets, which are chains for their own souls. And those who wear such, we command to be cast out of the Church.

In Canon 34 and 35, we see other conditions for being declared "anathema." The tone of these two Canons in comparison to the tone of Canon 36, appear to be less reprimanding. In Canon 36, the punishment of the clergy for engaging in the magical arts is severe—they are "cast out of the Church." So being anathematized may have gotten one excommunicated, but the door of repentance, reconciliation and restoration remained open. The clergy did not seem to have this option since they were "learned" shepherds and should know better than to engage in sorcery. Their punishment was harsh and appears to be permanent.

Although HWA claims that Canon 29 caused these "Judaizers" to be tortured, or put to death, he gives no historical data to back this claim! Had there been such an event, it would not have escaped the attention of historians, and HWA would have readily seized the opportunity to bring this to everyone’s attention. But as usual, the silence speaks volumes. After charging hateful murders to the established church (without giving proof), HWA simply skips along to his summary of this canon: "This decree shows that there were true Christians observing the Sabbath." (p. 284-285) HWA qualifies "true Christians" as those who "observe the Sabbath" and not as those who "believe in Christ as Savior."

There are other interesting points that HWA failed to bring to his members’ attention. There were over 50 canons declared during this Council of Laodicea. If the established church wanted to stamp out any vestiges of religious activities on the Sabbath day (the word "Saturday" in brackets is not mine but in the original), then let’s look at Canons 16, 49 and 51:

Canon XVI

The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures.

Canon XLIX

During Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and on the Lord’s Day only.

Canon LI

The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and Lord’s days.

From these Canons, we can easily ascertain that religious observances were not completely banned on the Sabbath. Why didn’t HWA bring this to the reader’s attention? In Canon 29 (the one partially quoted in the MOA), Christians were not limited to, nor commanded to a "strict Sunday observance." What was banned was the practice of Judaizing—declaring that one must practice the Jewish law in order to be saved! Judaizers not only held to a strict Sabbath observance (and demanded others do the same), but they also held to circumcision, and other Jewish practices. HWA wanted his readers to believe that Sabbath-keepers were the "true Christians," but did not distinguish between "Christians" and "Judaizers," because to him, they were one and the same. He did not qualify Christians as "believers in Christ," but clearly alleged true Christians were "believers in Judaism"!

The Gentile churches were faithful to the teachings of Paul, making it clear that Sunday would be kept as the Lord’s Day in honor of His Resurrection. This practice is in harmony with the early church fathers (of whom HWA avoids quoting). HWA purposefully wanted to depict a "blood-thirsty, Sunday-keeping, false Church" that would execute "true Christians" for "being faithful to the Sabbath" (which is not the same as being faithful to Christ—one is faithful to a "day," the other is faithful to the "Savior"). All this is done in order to continually provoke an emotional response in the reader so he would side with the "faithful underdogs" and jump on the bandwagon with HWA.

Pergamos Era

Continuing with the Smyrna church passing the baton, HWA paints a picture of valiant heroism by the faithful few in the Pergamos era (p. 285):

And so the baton was passed from the Smyrna Christians to those of the Pergamos era.

These had been called to carry the truth through one of history’s most difficult periods—the Dark Ages.

But they were never far from the threat of persecution and martyrdom.

And so very few of the Pergamos Christians remained faithful.

One thousand years after Jesus had founded his Church, the exhausted remnant of the Pergamos era handed over the baton.

Once again, there are no specific details given. HWA glibly jumps forward from the Council of Laodicea (365 A.D.) to the Dark Ages and pronounces this period as the Pergamos era. (HWA does not supply any dates, but history records this as the time from 410-800 A.D.) From here, he jumps forward again to "a thousand years after Jesus had founded his Church" and states that the "exhausted Pergamos era handed over the baton." Once again, observe the complete lack of dates or details. If HWA knew that there were martyrs during this period, then who were they? Who are these "very few" that remained faithful? Why doesn’t he name them? He had to have had some group in mind, or he would not have made this statement. But details (let alone accurate information) matter little to HWA. He is too busy perpetuating his sacred myths to be bothered with details.

Thyatiran Era

Somewhere around 1000 A.D., the Pergamos era hands over the baton to the Thyatiran era. Of this era, HWA says:

The Thyatiran era got off to a vigorous start, preaching repentance throughout the Alpine Valleys of Southern France and Northern Italy. Many heard and were converted.

The religious authorities quickly reacted to this challenge. Leaders of the true Church were arrested. Some were martyred.

After the death of its first leaders, the Church went into a temporary decline—but emerged once more under the dynamic leadership of Peter Waldo. For several years in the 12^th century, these Waldensians flourished in the Alpine Valleys, preaching what truth they had. Booklets and articles were written and copied by hand. This was still before the days of printing. (pp. 285-286)

But once again, persecution followed, as the full force of the Inquisition was felt in the peaceful valleys that had once provided a safe haven for the work of God.

Once again, witness the lack of corroboration to these claims. Why can’t HWA give the names of the leaders that were martyred? Where are the dates? If they "got off to a vigorous start" then who were these hardy members? The reader must wait another two hundred years before HWA reveals the name of Peter Waldo in the 12th century. Finally, HWA gives a name and a date—but not without an interesting qualifier. HWA quickly inserts that these Waldensians preached "what truth they had." Why would HWA make this peculiar statement? Finally revealing a name and date, HWA knew that history buffs would look this up and question why there weren’t any similar teachings between the Waldensians and his church.

The Inquisition began in 1232, but HWA doesn’t offer up any historical details, let alone the date. He simply jumps forward to the 15^th-16^th centuries (another date he doesn't reveal) to the Protestant Reformation stating that it "broke the monopoly of the Church of Rome." Whizzing past this significant piece of history, he jumps into the 17^th century England, which he states "Jesus was raising up the fifth era of his church— Sardis. (In the book Daughter of Babylon: The True History of the Worldwide Church of God, Bruce Renehan details in chapter 9 and chapter 10, the discoveries he had made concerning Stephen Mumford and Roger Williams.) [Note: Please be aware that this book is now posted on an agnostic/atheist site.]

Sardis Era

Now church history gets very interesting as HWA begins to give a few details. Remember, it’s what HWA doesn’t say that’s more important than what he does say. HWA states that William Miller was part of this Sardis era in the mid-1800’s. William Miller was a false prophet—not a single one of his prophecies came to pass. Why would HWA consider him part of the true Church? Then he mentions Ellen G. White and some of her bizarre doctrines, but fails to mention that she also is a false prophet. (See the chart on: Worldwide Church of God Roots.) Why would God trace His church through false prophets? A true church can’t hold false beliefs, let alone a false prophet at the helm. But that doesn’t faze HWA. Without skipping a beat, he runs along, evading important details, into the 19^th century to his church, where the baton will now be exchanged from the Sardis era to the Philadelphian era.

Philadelphian Era

Once at the Philadelphia era, the focus will now be turned back to HWA as he invokes the "principle of duality" to interpret the Greek word aggelos:

This word angel is translated from the Greek aggelos means messenger or agent. This is not necessarily always referring to a spirit angel but can refer as well to a human agent. It is possible that God’s principle of duality may apply here. (p. 289)

Or it may also apply to the human messenger or agent God has raised up to lead this era of his Church. (p. 290)

It may apply to the Church of this era as a whole, and also it could apply to the human leader God had raised up to this ear of his Church. (p. 290)

To this era—or to its human leader—God had set before it an open door. (p. 290)

The human leader to be raised up somewhat shortly prior to Christ’s Second Coming was to prepare the way —prepare the Church—for Christ’s coming…(p. 290)

The set-ups get easier to discern. HWA has appointed himself as this special "human leader" that was to prepare the way for Christ’s coming. Is anybody really surprised? He appropriated all the authority and privileges of the Philadelphian church described in Revelation 3:7-12. Of course, many of the splinter groups today want to believe that they, too, are this dynamic Philadelphian church—and certainly none of them are calling themselves the Laodicean church!

Laodicean Era—Any Volunteers?

Even though HWA lists the Seven Church Eras by name at the beginning of this section, he never expounds upon the seventh and final era—the Laodicean Era.  HWA has the reader so absorbed in the Philadelphian era, and on himself as the special "human messenger" of this era, that he never notices absolutely nothing is written in this chapter about the final era of the church! As we have shown throughout this review, when it comes to HWA, what the reader doesn’t know can hurt him. There are two reasons why HWA never gives details about this particular era. The first reason is that he made members believe that he was going to lead them to the place of safety before the Great Tribulation began. He was seen as a type of Moses who would lead his people to the promised land (the World Tomorrow). Just as Moses journeyed through the wilderness with the children of Israel, members would journey with HWA (and HQ’s personnel) to the wilderness of Petra, where they would undergo their "final training" while awaiting for the returning of Christ. Those in the Philadelphian era were considered "worthy to escape" the coming worldwide destruction—if they "qualified."  Of course, HWA died in 1986 and none of these prophecies ever transpired.

The second reason is that HWA used this Laodicean era as a type of punishment. Those who didn't support HWA financially, who were "lukewarm" and not "on fire" for the Work, would be left behind when it came time to "flee."  These "worldly" members would comprise the Laodicean church and would have to suffer through the Great Tribulation. The Laodicean Era is looked upon with contempt. This is why nobody wants to be a part of this era, and precisely why the various splinters refuse to acknowledge themselves as the "next era"!  They try to justify their "defection" from the mother church by using HWA's personal example when he defected from the Sardis church in Oregon.  But what they failed to see is that HWA claimed that the Sardis era ended and the Philadelphian era began when he defected.  If they are truly following HWA's example, these splinters need to see that their defection signals the beginning of the Laodicean era!

Calling the original parent church that HWA founded as the present Laodicean church, the splinter groups fail to explain how the church eras have fallen out of sequence. The baton is supposed to be handed from the Philadelphian church to the Laodicean church. But the splinters are claiming that the Philadelphian church era of HWA has now become Laodicean, becoming the only church era that has handed the baton back to themselves! The splinters are reluctant to admit that this baton has to be passed forward (according to HWA’s historical accounts) to the next generation. Here, we see the splinters taking the Philadelphian baton forward and passing the Laodicean baton backward! Why? Because none of them want to bear the description of "lukewarm, wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked"!! How do you recruit people into that kind of a group?

When speaking of the original apostles, HWA makes his readers believe that although they would be astonished at the size and scope of the Work, other things would be surprisingly familiar:

But some things would not be strange —the Sabbath and Holy Days, the name, the Church of God, and the gospel of the kingdom—these they would recognize—handed down through the ages from the time of Christ to the end of time. (p. 292)

On the last page of this chapter, HWA claims that, "the name, the Church of God [has been] handed down through the ages from the time of Christ to the end of time." This is clearly not the case and neither did HWA give concrete proof of this. HWA never once has shown an unbroken continuation of the name "Church of God" through these seven church eras. He quoted twelve Scriptures on pages 248-249 showing the name "Church of God" as proof of the "one true church," and then thirty-four pages later, he used the name "Church of God" when speaking of his fledgling church in Oregon. He simply let our imaginations fill in what wasn’t there! Go back and read the section about the Seven Church Eras (pages 282-288) and you will not see him once give any proof that these groups handed down the name "Church of God" through history. He so enraptured readers with the heroic story of the "passing of the baton" that they failed to notice the missing details!

It is interesting to note that HWA does not invite readers to write away for a booklet that gives concrete proof that his church has descended from these eras. Why didn’t the WCG print a booklet called "The Seven Eras of the True Church"? If this information is truly factual, then HWA would have undoubtedly printed such a booklet (and distributed it for FREE to every household at the Feast). Is there a real reason why a booklet of this importance never existed? Certainly, every other subject under the sun was written about—from nutrition, marriage, child-rearing, doctrines, and every "mystery" covered in the MOA—but not a specific booklet concerning the seven eras.  Why? Because HWA did not get this privy information from the mouth of Jesus, but from his past associates in the Church of God 7^th Day. None who entered the WCG during the early 1980’s were aware of a big skeleton hiding in the WCG's dark closet of deceit.  In 1959, church "historian" Herman Hoeh, wrote a booklet entitled, A True History of the True Church.  The historical information in this booklet by Hoeh was stolen from HWA's ex-affiliates,  A. N. Dugger and C.O. Dodd (See chart on Roots of Worldwide Church of God).  In 1936 Dugger and Dodd published "A History of the True Church"³⁰ , over two decades before Hoeh published his booklet with a similar title.  Since this booklet was proven fictitious—even publicly denounced by HWA's son, Garner Ted,³¹ it was quietly dropped from publication, unbeknownst to the general membership.  Instead, HWA heavily promoted and perpetuated this myth to the members through "church history" sermons, even producing a video shown at the Feast of Tabernacles depicting scenes with the "passing of the baton."  Not wanting to come under public scrutiny, nor wanting to abandon this sacred myth (which was very useful in keeping the members focused on him as the undisputed carrier of the Philadelphian baton), HWA cleverly provided a "sanitized" version in the MOA. 

When Ronald Kelly ran a 12-part series in the Plain Truth magazine in 1990-1991 about the history of the "true church" and the seven eras, the WCG received outcries for their inaccurate information and outright falsifications.  Kelly had to provide historical details for these articles, which, in turn, were easily proven false.  (See Bruce Renehan's book Daughter of Babylon, The True History of the Worldwide Church of God).

It is also of great interest to note that HWA plainly states on the very first page of this chapter that "the true gospel hadn’t been preached from 50A.D. until 1953." If this statement is true, then why is HWA bothering to trace his church’s roots back through these eras? If the true gospel wasn’t preached until 1953, then what gospel was Peter Waldo preaching? What gospel was William Miller and Ellen G. White preaching? If HWA charged "traditional Christianity" for preaching a false gospel, how are they any different than Waldo, Miller, and White? According to HWA, it was all a false gospel until 1953! The "seven Church eras" is just another example of where HWA adds in more complicated details to keep the reader preoccupied and confused.