Herbert W. Armstrong and the “Whole, Pure Gospel”

Herbert and Loma Armstrong (from Autobiography, Vol 1)
What an incredible amount of abuse Mr. Armstrong is taking from those who claim to be "following" him. I suspect he will "have words" with some in the resurrection....

Well, thank God for Roderick C. Meredith. His article in this month’s Living Church News, “Which ‘Armstrong’ Do You Follow?” not only made the same point I did back in my “Recreating Herbert W Armstrong in their own image” post, but he said it better. (Go figure!) More importantly, as someone who spent so much of his life working with Mr. Armstrong so intimately, he said it more authoritatively than I–or, really, anyone else–ever could.

God’s Word is incredibly clear. It is a lie that the gospel is simply a story about Christ’s life. That’s not the gospel of the Bible. Even secular resources recognize the vital and central position that the Kingdom of God had in the message of Jesus Christ and the apostles. For anyone actually reading the Bible, the Kingdom of God cannot be escaped in the teachings of Jesus, and it is a scandal that mainstream Christianity neglects it so. It is also a lie to say that salvation through Jesus Christ is not a part of that gospel of the Kingdom of God and is not to be preached to the nations. It is. Don’t believe me, believe your Bible. And it is also a great lie to say that Jesus taught nothing about Himself in the message He brought from God. He did. Again, just read your Bible. Really, try to read the book of John while skipping over all of the teaching Christ gave about who He was to the masses. He truly was going to be the King of that coming Kingdom. He didn’t walk around telling everyone stories about His birth, etc., yet He truly did explain His role as the King of the kingdom and His role as the Way to that Kingdom.

When one reads the Bible—actually paying attention to it the way Mr. Armstrong taught us to do instead of simply trying to grab from it what they already agree with and ignoring the rest—the gospel brought by Jesus Christ and taught by His disciples, and by His Church today, is one of the greatest subjects ever discussed, truly vast in its scope, implications, and power.

Really, the Bible is clear, and that should be enough for us. But there are those who are so enamored by their own version of Mr. Armstrong and how their version of him emboldens them in their own stances and pursuits that they fail to see the truth of the Bible that Mr. Armstrong taught us so much about. They fail to see the man through the caricature they’ve created.

But Mr. Armstrong was clear, too. He preached the whole gospel. Indeed, I wouldn’t understand any of the gospel at all save for what God taught me, and many of us, through the words of Mr. Herbert W Armstrong.

Did Mr. Armstrong recognize that the gospel taught by mainstream Christianity was disastrously off? Of course! If anyone reads anything Mr. Armstrong wrote and doesn’t pick that up, they haven’t read much at all! He recognized that the “gospel” being touted by most was simply a story about Christ—not the actual Divine Message that He preached at all! Most cut the very heart of the gospel right out: the coming Kingdom of God! And the part they tried to teach about salvation, he recognized was a counterfeit that didn’t explain salvation, at all!

Plenty of quotes could be provided from Mr. Armstrong demonstrating that he understood this—and many provide such quotes. That Mr. Armstrong recognized that the shallow “gospel” about Christ had replaced the actual gospel OF Christ is a given, as easily demonstrated by ample amounts of “quotable quotes.” Who disputes that? I don’t. No one I know in the Church does.

But what about the quotes that those who attack the gospel don’t give? What about the quotes that illustrate Mr. Armstrong understood the gospel more fully than those who attack his message (while claiming to believe in it) give him credit for? Why don’t they provide those quotes, as well? And in the rare case when they do provide one of them, why do they insert their own commentary into the middle of Mr. Armstrong’s words, making him out to be the world’s worst writer instead of the powerfully effective “plain truth” preacher that he really was?

Again, for the sake of emphasis: The Bible record is clear about the gospel brought by Jesus Christ, and I am humbled to be allowed to be a part of a Work that continues—just as Herbert Armstrong did—to preach that gospel. If anyone would like to prove to me that what we preach is not that gospel, they are free to open their Bibles and try. I’d rather be shown to be wrong and be right with God, than to be declared right but be wrong with God. Really: Show me. Put your Bible where your mouth is.

However, this post isn’t about that. It’s about the fact that many continue to, in effect, slander Herbert W Armstrong by saying that he preached an incomplete gospel—all while claiming to “stand for Herbert W Armstrong.” Some seem to do so with good intention, being honestly deceived by those skilled at quoting a lot without (wink, wink) quoting too much (nudge, nudge). Those who are self-deceived by their Jeremiah 17:9 hearts are another matter. It’s one matter to believe a lie out of confusion, but another entirely to continue in a lie because it serves one’s ego. As for which category one falls into, thankfully it is not my task to judge, but His. I’d rather assume the best until I have good reason to believe otherwise.

So, in the interest of serving those who can be served and of showing deception about a man many of us love and learned so much from for what it truly is, I provide the following far-from-exhaustive list of…


Mr. Armstrong’s emphasis on the coming Kingdom of God is legendary—he restored to the gospel what was lost or, worse, covered up. Quotes could be piled up forever to demonstrate that. But he also clarified and rectified that part of the gospel that others claimed to preach but corrupted and counterfeited. Here are some quotes a few seem to have forgotten and some self-appointed teachers seem to ignore. If you’ve never seen them before, perhaps they will help.

(Note: Where possible, I provide a link to the source, as well, so that you can also examine the quote in context. Many deceptively claim that the context changes the meaning of these quotes—I invite everyone to check the context for themselves to prove that this is not the case. In most cases, you can click on the title of the work or the date of the letters to see the whole file for yourself.)

In each case the emphasis is Mr. Armstrong’s except for any underlining I might use to draw attention to the parts relevant to the point at hand–which I will try to avoid, tempting as it may be!

“Now for centuries that Gospel has not been preached! It’s the ONLY true Gospel–the Message Jesus brought and preached–the one His first-century disciples DID carry to all the world of that day. Today that which is being preached around the world is a DIFFERENT gospel–a preaching which DENIES the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM. The Message of this KINGDOM is the Message of Christ as Saviour, but it’s MORE than that. It’s the Message of the coming KING, to establish GOD’S KINGDOM, which shall replace all present kingdoms and governments on earth, and rule over all peoples. The whole, pure Gospel OF THE KINGDOM is not being preached today to all the world for a witness to ALL NATIONS, and it has not been preached since Jesus’ first-century disciples carried it!”

(from September 21, 1944 co-worker letter)

Yes, the message preached by the world’s Christianity is, indeed, a “DIFFERENT gospel.” But does that mean that Christ’s role as Saviour is not a part of the message? Well, not according to Mr. Armstrong: “The Message of this KINGDOM is the Message of Christ as Saviour, but it’s MORE than that.” Wow. You’d think Mr. Meredith had written that very statement today. Those who erect a version of Mr. Armstrong in their own image try to make one part of the gospel replace the other, but—as Mr. Armstrong understood—they are part of the same gospel together!  It’s not that “Christ as Saviour” is NOT part of the gospel (as some would say)—rather, there is so much more to the gospel!

Read it again if you didn’t get it the first time: “The Message of this KINGDOM is the Message of Christ as Saviour, but it’s MORE than that. It’s the Message of the coming KING, to establish GOD’S KINGDOM, which shall replace all present kingdoms and governments on earth, and rule over all peoples.” Note: “MORE than that,” not one instead of the other. This is exactly what we are saying, and it is exactly as Mr. Armstrong understood: we are to preach, in his words, not mine, “The whole, pure Gospel OF THE KINGDOM.” To completely leave out “Christ as Saviour” from the message would FAIL to be the “whole, pure” gospel just as leaving out the Kingdom of God. Why should we make EITHER error? The first century Church didn’t. Mr. Armstrong didn’t. And we won’t. Why won’t others preach the whole gospel? I don’t know, but they certainly can’t claim Mr. Armstrong as their reason (let alone the Bible).

(And in case someone claims that the context changes the meaning of the quote, please feel free to read the entire letter. It’s clickable there at the date under the quote.)

“The Message of this KINGDOM is the Message of Christ as Saviour, but it’s MORE than that.” Thanks, Mr. Armstrong—we couldn’t have said it better ourselves.


“Over 1900 years ago Jesus Christ came into this world with a Message direct from GOD. His Message was the GOOD NEWS (Gospel) of His coming WORLD GOVERNMENT to abolish all present governments, to rule the whole earth, and bring, at last, PEACE, PROSPERITY, HAPPINESS, JOY, to sin-cursed suffering humanity.

“He proclaimed Himself the future KING of that world-ruling Kingdom of God. He revealed plainly WHY we have no peace today–no real happiness or joy! The ways of God are the TRUE values. But men are living wrong. Jesus taught men how to live–revealed and taught the LAWS of His coming millennial Kingdom. He called on men everywhere to REPENT of the ways they live now, to live by the laws of God, to accept Him as Saviour, High Priest, and coming King, that we might be converted–CHANGED by the power of God from sinning mortal flesh into righteous immortal spirits.”

(from June 9, 1947 co-worker letter)

So, the “Message direct from GOD” that Jesus came into the world to give about the Kingdom of God included a lot of things, didn’t it!  Mr. Armstrong says that Jesus “proclaimed Himself the future KING of that world-ruling Kingdom… revealed plainly WHY we have no peace today… called on men everywhere to REPENT… to live by the laws of God, to accept Him as Saviour, High Priest, and coming King, that we might be converted…”

Just to be clear, Mr. Armstrong says here that Jesus Christ’s message to those who heard Him included—among many things—that they should repent, live by God’s laws, and accept Him as Saviour.  Don’t believe me, believe Mr. Armstrong! (Of course, believe your Bible, but notice how Mr. Armstrong’s message matches that Bible.) Those who claim that Mr. Armstrong denied part of the gospel or that he taught that teaching “men everywhere” Christ as our Savior has no part in the gospel brought by Christ really have no leg to stand on.

Some try to make this mean that Christ had two “good news” messages (despite Mr. Armstrong’s statement that “Christ Brought No Other Gospel” on p.13 of The Incredible Human Potential) or that salvation and Christ as Savior is only taught to those who’ve been called and have responded (despite his comment that Christ taught these things to “men everywhere” and despite the fact that our booklets included Mr. Armstrong’s wonderful “Just what do you mean… SALVATION” (linked to below) which was offered publically and which tied in the truth about salvation and the kingdom of God nicely).

In the event that this quote from that letter doesn’t do the trick, Mr. Armstrong makes it explicit later:

“THIS is the TRUE GOSPEL–the Good News of the Kingdom of God, its Message of the right way to live, its Message of redemption thru Christ, and God’s gift of eternal life! Yes, THIS is the KINGDOM OF GOD which Christ revealed over 1900 years ago–THIS is the true NEW TESTAMENT GOSPEL–the true GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST!”

(from same June 9, 1947 co-worker letter)

(By the way, I’d like to see a certain self-appointed apostle stick some commentary into the middle of that sentence and change its meaning.)

Who can read that sentence and claim that Mr. Armstrong thought that the “TRUE GOSPEL”—“the Good News of the Kingdom of God”—did not also include the “Message of redemption thru Christ, and God’s gift of eternal life”? Notice, he calls redemption through Christ and salvation “its Message of redemption thru Christ, and God’s gift of eternal life!” The “its” refers back to the “Good News of the Kingdom of God”! If it isn’t clear enough, after mentioning the Message about the right way to live, redemption through Christ, God’s gift of eternal life, Mr. Armstrong says immediately after: “Yes, THIS is the KINGDOM OF GOD which Christ revealed over 1900 years ago—THIS is the true NEW TESTAMENT GOSPEL—the true GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST!”

Don’t read my commentary—read what Mr. Armstrong wrote! Don’t believe what I say that he said, read what he said! And don’t fall for the line that the quote is out of context—click on the date and read the entire letter. You tell me if the context changes anything. (Hint: It doesn’t.)

The letter explains how the false “gospel” of mainstream Christianity has rejected the Kingdom of God and perverted that portion of the gospel—“salvation”—which they claim to retain. Mr. Armstrong explains that “They [ministers today] have, thru deception and without knowing it in most instances, rejected the true way of salvation and entrance into that Kingdom!” He continues, explaining that they pervert “born again” and try to do way with God’s law. It’s good stuff! And stuff we preach, ourselves. To say that Mr. Armstrong’s condemnation of the world’s counterfeit “gospel” meant that he did not preach the whole gospel, himself, is to tell a lie. Or, at best, it is to mistake what he powerfully emphasized for the whole. (I may emphasize to my wife over wine and candlelight that she is beautiful, but that doesn’t mean that she isn’t a smart cookie, too. Don’t mistake emphasis for entirety—Mr. Armstrong didn’t. Many who boast of carrying his banner do.)

“Back in 1934 God began RESTORING the knowledge of THE KINGDOM of GOD to those who would listen. That knowledge–the true GOSPEL of Jesus Christ–is being thundered with constantly multiplied power over ever-increasing areas, now WORLD-WIDE. God is now pleading with people around the world, THRU PREACHING–by A MESSAGE OF LOVE–to REPENT, surrender and return to GOD in obedience thru Jesus Christ as Saviour and High Priest and soon-coming KING.”

(from November 27, 1958 “Dear Friend” letter)

So, preaching the “true GOSPEL of Jesus Christ” means preaching “A MESSAGE OF LOVE—to REPENT, surrender and return to GOD in obedience thru Jesus Christ as Saviour and High Priest and soon-coming KING.”

How does this differ from the gospel we are preaching? Not a bit. Why do some want to perform a “Saviorectomy” on the gospel—as if “soon-coming KING” is a part of the gospel, but “Jesus Christ as Saviour and High Priest” is not. Sure they have the right to claim that. But it’s not in the Bible. And it’s not in the writings of Herbert W Armstrong.

“Yes, what GOOD NEWS! A world filled with good, sound, vigorous HEALTH—beaming, happy faces—PEACE—prosperity—JOY—SALVATION! It is to be real UTOPIA. It’s not impossible! ALL things are possible with GOD, and this is the DOING OF GOD.

“The original apostles carried on GOD’S WORK thru their lifetime. They preached this GOOD NEWS. They preached OBEDIENCE to GOD! They preached, not only believing in Christ—not only believing He is the divine Saviour—but also BELIEVING CHRIST— that is, believing what He preached and taught.”

(from January 8, 1958 co-worker letter)

How crucial a “not only” can be, hmmm? Apparently, it has the ability to make certain words invisible to some people. “Not only” implies a “this too” not a “that instead.”  Mr. Armstrong understood.

“Yes, JESUS CHRIST is opening doors–SPEEDING UP His powerful Message to a dying world. As world events hurl a helpless humanity faster and faster toward DESTRUCTION, so CHRIST hurls to a deceived world, faster and faster, His Message of PEACE, and SALVATION by God’s GRACE (those who try to deceive people into thinking we preach a gospel of salvation “by works” are deceived or deliberately misrepresenting to serve Satan)! The way is being prepared before CHRIST’S RETURN TO EARTH! Christ’s own Gospel is being RESTORED!”

(from April 18, 1961 co-worker letter)

So, Christ’s own Gospel, His Message, included “SALVATION by God’s GRACE.” For those who do not include it, as Christ’s gospel did, what does that say about their gospel?

 “Christ’s new Message for this hour — His TRUE Gospel — is going to ALL THE WORLD, into all nations, where it HAS NOT GONE, and could go in NO OTHER WAY, than this way God has opened up — of giving me such providential FAVOR in the eyes of heads of state — of delivering the Message through the very TOP officials in these nations. It is the MESSAGE OF WORLD PEACE — for universal PROSPERITY — and of salvation and ETERNAL LIFE — the Message of THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

“NOBODY ELSE is carrying this Message to these nations! NOBODY!!!”

(from July 25, 1974 co-worker letter)

So the “Message of the KINGDOM OF GOD” that we are to preach to “ALL THE WORLD” is the Message of “salvation and ETERNAL LIFE” – pretty clear. They are a part of the Message about that coming Kingdom.

I could quote letters all day—the point would be the same. YES, Mr. Armstrong condemned the false gospel of his (and our) day. YES, he pointed out that the Gospel of the Kingdom of God was not being preached, and that he was restoring what so many had rejected or lost—and how thankful we should be that he did! YES, he illustrated that the “substitute” gospel about the person of Christ instead of the message of Christ was a deceptive slight-of-hand by Satan the devil! YES, he pointed out that the world’s version of “salvation” is corrupt and degraded and that the true Way to salvation is not truly taught, unlike the vibrant fullness of salvation as described in the Bible and the true Way revealed there!

But, YES, he also understood that true salvation and redemption through Christ by grace, acceptance of Jesus Christ as our perfect Savior, the gift of eternal life and the true WAY to eternal life were all a part of that Message, as well—the Message Christ brought of the coming Kingdom of God. No one can legitimately deny that Mr. Herbert Armstrong believed these things. And though he recognized, as we recognize, that not all would “get it”—that not all would understand in this age—he also recognized that the mission to preach these things is still our mission, and that the Gospel will go out as a witness to the entire world, whether believed or not!

Since the theme of this (long) post is the “Quotes They ‘Forgot’” let’s look at a few others from the literature Mr. Armstrong produced.

One I won’t quote from because it would be too much, but here is a link to it: “Just what do you mean… SALVATION?” In this booklet offered to the public, Mr. Armstrong explains the topic SO plainly and he ties it in with the Kingdom of God. Anyone who does not believe that preaching the gospel does not involve preaching forgiveness through Christ’s blood on repentance and the unearned gift of eternal life (including what both of those things actually MEAN) either haven’t read this booklet in too long or else are in denial.  Feel free and read it for yourself.

Then there’s Herbert W Armstrong’s booklet “What Is the True Gospel?” In it, like Mr. Meredith does in our booklet “Do You Believe the True Gospel,” Mr. Armstrong makes the powerful case that the Message of Christ was the Message of the Kingdom of God! Makes sense to quote from this one, huh? But why is page 10 avoided?

“Conditions of Entering

“Now, HOW do we enter into that glorious KINGDOM? Jesus came preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and saying, ‘REPENT,’ and ‘BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.’

“Just TWO things we do – REPENT and BELIEVE. We must BELIEVE the Gospel, and that means also believing on JESUS CHRIST, the KING of the Kingdom of God, and coming KING of kings over all the families of the earth. It means believing in Him as personal SAVIOUR, as High Priest now, and as coming KING.”

(What Is the TRUE GOSPEL?, p.10)

So believing the Gospel includes “believing on JESUS CHRIST” and “believing in Him as personal SAVIOUR” (Mr. Armstrong’s emphasis, not mine). This makes no sense whatsoever if Christ’s role as our personal Savior were not a part of the Gospel.

Feel free to read the entire booklet. Get all the context you want. Nowhere does it contradict the idea that Christ’s role as our Savior, yours and mine, is, indeed, a part of the Gospel.

Mr. Armstrong makes the inclusion of these things even more explicit in his article “Seven Keys to Understanding the Bible”—published no less than FIVE TIMES while he was alive (July 1949, July 1953, July 1959, January 1971, January 1980) [Note: The one I link to is the original July 1949 publication, but feel free to look any of them up that you like in various resources on the Internet. If anyone claims that one of them says something different, I will happily post it here, too.]

Read what Mr. Armstrong says so clearly in the section titled “The True Gospel”—I will quote a large section partially because some say that we’ve taken his statement out of context and partially because some have inserted their own commentary into Mr. Armstrong’s plain words so as to twist what he says. Read it for yourself—no twists, just the facts:

“What is Christ’s Gospel? What is the Message God sent to mankind by Jesus Christ? It is the GOOD NEWS of the KINGDOM OF GOD! ‘Kingdom’ means GOVERNMENT! It is the Message of Divine Government–government by GOD’S LAWS!

“It is the prophetic proclamation of the coming WORLD GOVERNMENT to rule all nations and bring today’s confused, chaotic, war-weary earth PEACE, and JOY! It is the vital, dynamic, powerful living Message of GOD’S GOVERNMENT, first in individual hearts now in this world, later over all nations internationally in The WORLD TOMORROW!

“Of course that power-filled Message includes the knowledge about the Saviour, High Priest and coming King! Of course it includes the true way of salvation, which the churches seem to have lost! And it includes also knowledge of the location of the TERRITORY to be ruled over by the King of the coming Kingdom–the fact it is this earth, and not heaven! But there can be no GOVERNMENT without LAWS, and so the TRUE GOSPEL also must proclaim the LAW of God, which alone can bring peace to the world and success, happiness and joy to the individual!”

(Plain Truth, July 1949, “The Seven Keys to Understanding the Bible”)

Again, if you don’t trust the context, read the whole article. Nothing in that context changes the simple truth of what Mr. Armstrong says. And, just as importantly, the actual context completely disproves the silly commentary that certain pretenders have inserted themselves, as if Mr. Armstrong couldn’t carry a coherent thought through a handful of paragraphs. Unbelievable.

Reading the whole helps to shine light on the deception in some who claim that somehow in that entire passage, “Message” means Gospel except for the one sentence where Mr. Armstrong says that the Message includes “the knowledge about the Saviour” and “the true way of salvation.” Look at the VERY NEXT SENTENCE: “And it includes also knowledge of the location of the TERRITORY to be ruled over by the King of the coming Kingdom…” The “it” refers to the Message just discussed—you know, the one that “of course” includes the knowledge of the Savior and the true way to salvation. Was Mr. Armstrong truly the worst writer in the world, or did he actually mean what he said? Did he actually write an entire section about the “Message” of the Gospel, but—in one, single, weird non sequitur sentence—change “Message” to mean something else, and then CHANGE RIGHT BACK to meaning the Gospel, again?!? In the very next sentence?!? Did Mr. Armstrong use “Message” five times in one small section of an article and mean “Gospel” in four of them and “Not Gospel” in one of them—and changing the meaning without notifying the reader that he had done so, and then changing it back, all in the space of two or three sentences?

One who claims this is either a deceiver or self-deceived (cf. 2 Tim 3:13). Regardless, they insult Mr. Herbert W Armstrong.

The fact is, those things—“knowledge about the Saviour” and “the true way of salvation” are so obviously a part of the Gospel that Mr. Armstrong prefaces each statement with an “Of course”: “Of course that power-filled Message includes the knowledge about the Saviour, High Priest and coming King! Of course it includes the true way of salvation, which the churches seem to have lost!”

No wonder particular deceivers have to insert commentary into Mr. Armstrong’s words and fail to quote the entire passage. Mr. Armstrong really did write the plain truth. Why are we criticized for including something in the Gospel that Mr. Armstrong said was included “of course”?

Again, the Bible is clear. But, for the record, so is Mr. Armstrong.

I know this has been a long post, and I do beg your forgiveness, but given the way a tiny few desire to twist and pervert Mr. Armstrong’s words, this topic gets me rather riled up. While we could swim in quotes forever, let me just give you one more reference: the first two chapters of Mr. Armstrong’s amazing book The Incredible Human Potential, both of which cover the Gospel.

There is WAY too much to quote from this source, and I encourage the reader to obtain a copy of this magnificent book. You can find it on Amazon or Ebay at times. My copy is the orange-covered “Special Commemorative Edition” from the 1978 Feast of Tabernacles. Rather than link to the entire book (though I do encourage you to read the entire book!), let me provide a link to a copy of the first two chapters.

Read the whole thing, but here are some highlights that put the lie to the idea of a narrow Gospel that has no room for salvation, and Jesus Christ as our Saviour and the true way to salvation…

“I must call the reader’s attention again at this point to the fact that a full and complete understanding of the message sent by God to all mankind, by His Divine Messenger Jesus Christ, involves a vast comprehension of God’s great purpose, and of events prehistoric, historic, present and future.

“I might say that it means an overall understanding of everything!

(The Incredible Human Potential, p.15)

Interesting that it somehow isn’t supposed to include the meaning of or need for Christ’s sacrifice for us, huh? I suppose that “everything” doesn’t include those things. (I hope you note that my tongue is in my cheek.)

Please note this passage on p.16.  Those who believe that preaching the truth about Jesus Christ or about salvation or about a right understanding of grace (which Mr. Armstrong explained thoroughly) need to understand the real problem Mr. Armstrong saw in the world’s “gospel”! The following passage has his usual emphases (with full caps for small caps, though), but the underlining is mine to highlight what so many seem to miss:

“I have said that you hear many gospel programs today. One uses the slogan, ‘Preaching Christ to the Nations.’ One might ask, ‘Well what’s WRONG about preaching ABOUT Christ?’ Or, ‘Well what’s wrong about preaching a gospel of grace?’ Or, ‘What’s wrong about proclaiming a message about salvation?’

“I have shown you the scriptures showing they started, even in the first century, preaching about a DIFFERENT Jesus – a Jesus supposed to have abolished His Father’s commandments – who turned ‘grace’ into license to disobey (II Cor. 11:4, 13-15 and Jude 4). They do not today preach the REAL Jesus, who said, ‘I have kept My Father’s commandments,’ setting us an example that we should keep them also.

If those who claim to preach a gospel of SALVATION understood and proclaimed WHAT salvation really is – whether it is going to a PLACE, being changed into a different CONDITION, or WHAT – or WHERE – and HOW it may be obtained, it might be a part of the true gospel. But today’s ‘gospel’ programs do not teach what salvation really is or how one may receive it. Then the blind lead the blind, they all fall into the ditch.”

(The Incredible Human Potential, p.16)

How much plainer can Mr. Armstrong make it? In fact, if you’ve actually read his booklet on Salvation, linked to above, then you know this is EXACTLY WHAT HE DID PREACH ABOUT SALVATION! By his own words, if the TRUTH about salvation—what it really is, what it truly means, and how it is truly obtained—were taught, then it could be—according to Mr. Armstrong—a part of the true gospel! Did he teach correctly about these things? Yes, he did! Then they were a part of the true gospel!

He didn’t take issue with the fact that Jesus and salvation were being talked about, in and of themselves. Rather, that a DIFFERENT Jesus and a COUNTERFEIT salvation were being preached!  Not only were these things, alone, insufficient to encompass the Kingdom of God, they were counterfeits of the truth! And he showed repeatedly the plain truth of this in his own writings.

For anyone to say that teaching biblically and accurately who Jesus Christ was and what salvation truly means and how salvation may truly be received is somehow NOT part of the gospel, they disagree with Mr. Armstrong.  Again (again, again, again,), the most important thing is whether or not the BIBLE says these things! But for those who are smearing Mr. Armstrong by claiming that he preached otherwise, it’s important to know that he preached them, too.

Really, read both of those chapters from The Incredible Human Potential—if not the whole book.

For those who are simply confused about how salvation through Jesus Christ relates to the Kingdom of God, Mr. Armstrong touches on this in his last section of Chapter 2 (pp.18-19):

What Christ’s Gospel Was All About

“I say Christ’s gospel – the message He brought from God – as the advance good news of the establishment of the Kingdom of God.

“But just what does that include?

“And why is the Kingdom of God necessary?

“Just how does it affect and relate directly to your personal and individual life?

“Actually, Christ’s message of God’s coming Kingdom is directly concerned with world origins as they are – with human nature – its source and origin – with world evils, suffering, unhappiness – with world peace. It’s concerned with government – with the reason present human governments fail to be the benefactors of their peoples they are supposed to be.

“His message hits directly at the very roots of individual personal happiness and at the awesome transcendent potential of each human life. It is concerned with the CAUSES of present conditions that affect every human and with the WAY that will solve all problems.

“But it is concerned with far, far more.

“It is concerned with God’s tremendous, overwhelming, overall purpose a Creator of the entire universe. It’s concerned with the entire vast universe, filled with its uncountable galaxies, nebulae, suns, stars, planets, and with God’s purpose for them. It’s concerned with all the angels – with the fact that one third of all God’s created angels turned to SIN from which there can be no redemption, and God’s great purpose and plan to prevent such a catastrophe happening to the other two thirds.

“Most of these things are never remotely considered in religious teachings in this world. God’s message is concerned with overall truth.

“What has been covered so far should be considered as merely the introduction to the entire story of Christ’s gospel message.”

(The Incredible Human Potential, pp.18-19)

Wow. The purpose of man, his whole history, the way he has failed and the Way to succeed—the universe in all its created majesty and all it contains…  All of this, “merely the introduction to the entire story of Christ’s gospel message.”

Those who claim—against all evidence—that the sacrifice of Christ, His living in us, and the way of salvation are no part of the gospel should be ashamed. The Bible shows them to be wrong. Mr. Armstrong’s words show them to be wrong. The Gospel that Jesus Christ brought to mankind and asks us to proclaim really is, as Mr. Armstrong described it, “all-encompassing subject that can enter the mind of man.”

For those who’ve too quickly taken the word of confused individuals concerning what Mr. Herbert Armstrong said about these things, I hope this is a help.

There are so many more quotes we could go through, but this post is gigantic as it is.

In conclusion:

  • Thank God for Mr. Roderick Meredith and his willingness to be faithful to the Bible, which just so happens to mean being faithful to Mr. Armstrong in this vital issue, as well. Thank God for his friendship with Mr. Armstrong, and for living long enough to provide a living link to the man instead of the false images of the man crafted by others.
  • Thank God that Mr. Herbert Armstrong did not match any of the caricatures his supposed, self-appointed “standard bearers” make of him.
  • Thank God for the truth about what Mr. Armstrong called “the whole, pure gospel.”
  • Don’t let anyone slander Mr. Herbert W Armstrong by saying he only preached part of the gospel—waving their hands like a magician and trying to turn what he powerfully emphasized in the gospel into the “only” thing he taught of the gospel.
  • Don’t let anyone perform any similar “hand waving” to make you think that Mr. Armstrong said something other than what he actually said. Don’t take their word for it—read the original in context and without their inserted commentary.
  • Don’t let anyone take advantage of your love for Mr. Armstrong and what God did through him in such a way that they ironically pull you away from the very gospel he, himself, preached.
  • If anyone can prove to me from God’s Word that the gospel is somehow different than what we are proclaiming, they are free to do so. I’m all ears. Until then, we’ll preach the same biblical message Mr. Armstrong believed and preached in. Thanks.
  • And, as always, don’t believe me—believe your Bible.

I do believe that Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong was used as an Apostle by Jesus Christ. It is a shame to those who would twist his words today while professing some sort of weird faithfulness to him.

40 thoughts on “Herbert W. Armstrong and the “Whole, Pure Gospel”

  1. Michael O'Byrne

    I’ve just glanced through the first few paragraphs and I know I’ll have to return to read it all of it carefully. There is real substance here and I’m going to enjoy reading and studying it.

  2. John Wheeler (Johanan Rakkav)

    Now THAT’S a massive missive! 😀

    In Yoda-speak: Inexcusable in any form, extremism is. 😛 And isn’t the essence of idolatry making a god (under whatever name) in one’s own image?

    Consider the pretty decent definition of “gospel” given by the abbreviated e-Sword version of Thayer’s Greek Dictionary:

    Thayer Definition:
    1) a reward for good tidings
    2) good tidings
    2a) the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom. After the death of Christ, the term comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for the men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God
    2b) the glad tidings of salvation through Christ
    2c) the proclamation of the grace of God manifest and pledged in Christ
    2d) the gospel
    2e) as the messianic rank of Jesus was proved by his words, his deeds, and his death, the narrative of the sayings, deeds, and death of Jesus Christ came to be called the gospel or glad tidings
    Part of Speech: noun neuter
    A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from the same as G2097
    Citing in TDNT: 2:721, 267

  3. TeapotTempest

    “Now THAT’S a massive missive!”
    LOL! Couldn’t have said it better than Mr. O’Byrne.
    I just printed it out – four pages in Times Roman, Font #9, and it may take me the rest of the evening to read it all.
    Thanks, Mr. Smith. 😉

  4. John Wheeler (Johanan Rakkav)

    That was me… just for the record, you understand… 😉

    But both of you are better off than I. I’d be reading it this evening too, except that I have too much before it in the dock as it is. 😀 Soon, I promise – soon!

  5. Mr. Smith!

    This nonsense that Mr. Armstrong somehow ignored the fact that Jesus Christ is our Savior is so easily refuted and ridiculous, it seems the only logical conclusion.


  6. John Wheeler (Johanan Rakkav)

    Deano: In one of these cases a local member (one of our older ladies) was speaking with Dr. Meredith after he spoke to us, asking why he thought this particular minister had defected (he’d come up with his own brand of “Armstrongism”, if you will). They let me in on the conversation and I pointed out to Dr. Meredith a very helpful pair of verses (to me) in discerning why such things go on. He said he believed that was indeed the right explanation for this particular case. I’ll add a few verses to give the whole context; what I cited was the last two verses.

    (John 7:14 RSV) About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught.
    (John 7:15 RSV) The Jews marveled at it, saying, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?”
    (John 7:16 RSV) So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me;
    (John 7:17 RSV) if any man’s will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.
    (John 7:18 RSV) He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.

    The Pharisees (the “Jews” or Judaic authorities of John’s account), like their rabbinic heirs, were past masters of speaking on their own authority in fact even as they constantly justified that by quoting other authorities in theory. Jesus, of course, being who and what He was, saw right through that little game and pointed it out for what it was.

    Those who remake Mr. Armstrong in their own image are simply seeking their own glory and not the Lord’s (or Mr. Armstrong’s for that matter).

  7. John Wheeler (Johanan Rakkav)

    OK. Read this article, loved it, 😀 will use it for a pretext to point out something else.

    First, Mr. Smith, apparently you forgot to insert the URL/link for this booklet:

    > One I won’t quote from because it would be too much, but here is a link to it: “Just what do you mean… SALVATION?”

    Second, here is a classic verse as to what the New Testament Church, itself, considered the Gospel in its earliest preaching. We sometimes cite this verse but we could bring out its full meaning better than we do (really it’s not our fault but that of most translations we use). No question, but they including the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ as the two major parts of the one true Gospel (compare the different but complementary accounts of the Great Commission in Matthew, Mark, Luke and even John, in their last chapters):

    (Acts 8:12 RSV) But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
    (Acts 8:12 GNT-TR) οτε δε επιστευσαν τω φιλιππω ευαγγελιζομενω τα περι της βασιλειας του θεου και του ονοματος του ιησου χριστου εβαπτιζοντο ανδρες τε και γυναικες

    ευαγγελιζομενω G2097 [Strong’s number] V-PMP-DSM [this is Robertson’s code – this verb is a masculine present participle]

    Thayer Definition:
    1) to bring good news, to announce glad tidings
    1a) used in the OT [Old Testament – Septuagint version] of any kind of good news [translating the Hebrew *basar, as in Psalms 96:2 and many other verses]
    1a1) of the joyful tidings of God’s kindness, in particular, of the Messianic blessings
    1b) in the NT [New Testament] used especially of the glad tidings of the coming kingdom of God, and of the salvation to be obtained in it through Christ, and of what relates to this salvation
    1c) glad tidings are brought to one, one has glad tidings proclaimed to him
    1d) to proclaim glad tidings
    1d1) instruct (men) concerning the things that pertain to Christian salvation
    Part of Speech: verb
    A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G2095 and G32
    Citing in TDNT: 2:707,*

    Thank you for getting “riled up”. This was worth it. 😀

  8. Thanks, Mr. Wheeler. I have since added the link to “Just what do you mean… SALVATION?” to the post, as well as cleaned up a bit in the first paragraph where it is mentioned, in which my “parenthesizing” had gotten a bit sloppy. Thanks, again!

  9. I appreciate the depth of emotion and compassion you have for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is unfortunate that people become deceived by their own ego’s and wishful thinking. But it is fortunate we have people like you who can so fluidly shoot holes in that thinking. I have watched, listened to many of your sermons and always felt your passion and know you believe and live what you preach. But this was a whole another level of verbal and emotional might. Thank you for this post. I know it needed to be said.

  10. Steve

    What critics seem to be concerned about is whether the gospel is to be defined as Christ’s Sacrifice + the Kingdom of God or simply as the Kindgom of God (which _includes_ knowledge of the King and savior, laws, nation, territory etc – as you say “everything”). Plus then putting the emphasis on Christ’s Sacrifice. It’s at least a cause for pause.

  11. If only that were so, Steve, as it would be straightforward since both your formulations ultimately include the same information and make for a complete Gospel. But at least for those self-appointed teachers who’ve tried (thankfully, not too successfully) to make hay out of this issue, the claim is that salvation and forgiveness through Christ is not a part of the Gospel at all.

    If it were a matter of emphasis, that could be discussed and rectified easily (watching our telecast and reading our magazine, I would think our emphasis on the coming Kingdom of God is rather clear). It really is a matter of what is or isn’t a part of the gospel.

    Pausing is good if it allows one to collect his wits and to see things clearly. This post is meant to help some do exactly that.

  12. Michael O'Byrne

    Well done, Mr. Smith. I was hoping that somebody would set the record straight and you have done so comprehensively. Thank you!

  13. Norbert

    It seems the writings and record left behind by Herbert Armstrong are being spinned and reinterpreted, which should not be much of a surprise. Seeing that there are numerous other authors who have left writings which compose a body of work called the Holy Bible that also receive a similiar treatment.

    In my view I prefer not to treat his works in like manner as some who view the writings of Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith or Martin Luther as the faith once and for all redelivered. I prefer to treat teachings by those who have come after the foundation was initially made (Jn 17:20) and compare them to the Bible. Albeit such a process does leave a great space for reinterpretation, nevertheless its’ what Herbert asked of his audience. Don’t believe me – believe your Bible – Believe God!

  14. Thank you, Norbert, and you are correct: That is exactly what Mr. Armstrong taught us to do. That’s what makes the efforts of those so caught up in the image of Mr. Armstrong they have crafted for themselves so contradictory–in their manner and practice, they deny this most fundamental teaching of the man. They use their own spin of his writings to contradict in their practice the most fundamental truth he strove to teach them.

    I’m sympathetic towards simple and honest confusion. It’s those who should know better and who claim to be teachers or ministers of Jesus Christ who truly need to take heed.

  15. Michael O'Byrne

    (EDIT: I hope you don’t mind, Mr. O’Byrne, but I’ve edited out the name of the organization you refer to. The self-appointed one leading that group needs no more publicity than the little he is already getting through his immoral efforts. 🙂 )

    I first became aware of these attacks on Dr. Meredith and the Living Church of God as a result of an advertisment appearing on a FB website set up for members of the Living Church of God by V G Larde, a French Church member. The advertisment, because of its layout, appeared to be one from the Living Church of God because at the very top it had the words “Living Church of God,” but as far I recall the initial words of the offending advertisment referred to a false Gospel being preached by the leader of the Living Church of God. I wasn’t aware I could delete this advertisment until last week so I deleted by pressing an X to do so. But it was only temporary as it reappeared shortly afterwards. However when I was going to delete again I realized there were two X’s to faciliate deletion – one was for that advertisment itself, but the other was for all advertisments from that organization which I then duly pressed resulting in the advertisments not reappearing. I then posted a status on the website with the above information and at least one of the brethren have followed my action by deleting all advertising from that organization.

  16. Thanks, Mr. O’Byrne, and, again, I hope you don’t mind my edit. Some individuals, in particular the one behind the ad you’ve mentioned and that I have heard about (haven’t seen it and didn’t know about it when I made my post), are hungry for attention and validation as someone important, and I don’t intend to give them any free publicity.

    However, what you have noticed is true. That same individual and the small organization he directs flagrantly break the 9th commandment with all sorts of deceptive ads. For instance, they will make a link look like it is ours by making it simply “Living Church of God” but then when you go to it is just his usual slander and subtle-but-substantial lies (cf. Gen. 3:1 KJV). Or if you misspell one of our website addresses, you find that they have actually paid money to park their slander at a website designed to capture those misspellings. On one hand, it’s partially (and pathetically) hilarious, since he likes to boast about his web presence and yet part of his hits are actually people trying to get to our websites. But more than hilarious, the desperation combined with the willingness to lie and claim to be serving God through your sin is sad and makes you weep for his character. I would think that someone claiming to be a minister of Jesus Christ would feel ashamed to use such underhanded techniques that spit in the eye of the One who calls Himself the “God of Truth” (Isa. 65:16), but some people simply seem to have no shame. Still, God can restore a sense of shame, and I hope that folks can still pray for him.

    Thanks for helping others on Facebook learn to avoid such ungodly techniques. Hopefully folks paid attention.

  17. Michael O'Byrne

    I don’t mind at all, but I’m afraid I shared this with FB friends. I had had a brief look
    at what was posted by the said individual and it annoyed me greatly thinking those of us on the website set up for members by V G Larde would have to tolerate the advertisments constant presence. But the thought occured to me – or perhaps the thought was planted in my mind – to check whther I could remove it. And as you know it worked. I will probably put another post on my status on the website, but just suggest in general terms that if there is advertising to which any members object what they can do about it. Thank you for your acknowledgement, but I was only pleased to make others aware of what action they could take.

  18. Oh, by all means, Mr. O’Byrne, I hope you do share that info! I only edited what you wrote for the sake of my own blog, but Facebook is a bit different, and I feel you should be as specific as you need to be to properly help others in removing that godless ad. But since this blog post has been read by so many–actually, several hundred within just a few hours as opposed to, say, only my friends or group members on a Facebook page–feel compelled to get pickier than I would in other circumstances. So I’m glad you were specific enough to identify garbage for garbage and to help others put it where garbage belongs. 🙂

    Thanks, again!

  19. John from Australia

    HWA’s teaching on the Kingdom of God is known in traditional Christianity as “premillennialism” – known earlier as”chialiasm”.

    In the article on “Pemillennialism” in the “Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy” it states:

    “The ten distinctive teachings summarize the primary tenets of premillennialism:

    1. God has promised a literal kingdom to restored Israel (Isaiah 11:9-16; 60:18-21).
    2. God will give Abraham’s descendants the land He promised to them forever (Genesis 17:7-8; Psalm 105:8-11).
    3. God’s covenant with Israel has never been forfeited or cancelled (Leviticus 26:40-44).
    4. The nation of Israel will come back to inherit the land forever (Ezekiel 37:1-14; Jeremiah 31:35-37).
    5. The second coming of Christ will result in the establishment of a literal kingdom on earth (Revelation 11:15).
    6. The kingdom of Christ will last 1000 years (Revelation 20:1-6).
    7. The Temple of Ezekiel’s vision will literally exist during the millennial reign of Christ (Ezekiel 40-48).
    8. Restored Israel and the raptured church will reign with Christ on earth (Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:4-5).
    9. God’s promises concerning Jerusalem will be fulfilled literally (Psalm 132:13-14); Isaiah 62:1-2; 65:17-25).
    10. The throne of David will be set up in Jerusalem with Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, the Son of David, literally ruling upon it in His millennial kingdom (2 Sam 7:12-16; Luke 1:32-33).

    (Ed Hindson & David Hocking, “Premillennialism,” The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, Tim LaHaye and Edward E. Hindson, General Editors, (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2004), p.280).

    In regard to the so-called ‘rapture’ Tim Lahaye is a pretribulation premillennialist and HWA was a postribulation premillennialist.

    According to Richard Nickels, in “The Ministry of Herbert W. Armstrong,” John Kiesz disagreed “with Armstrong’s statement that Armstrong was the first one to preach the true gospel for 1800 to 1900 years, and that his teachings came directly from Jesus Christ. “The fact is” Kiesz states, “that what truths he does preach he learned from the Church of God (7th Day).” ” (unverified source).

    Andrew Fausset, in the Jamison, Fausset and Brown Commentary, that came out just after the American Civil War noted that:

    “The mistake of the Chiliasts was, they restricted the kingdom to the terrestrial part…” (1 Corinthians, JFB, Vol.3, p.298).

    History shows that the basic gospel that HWA taught was being preached in the nineteenth century before HWA was born.

    Bob Thiel quoted and referenced on his blog the article “Poll: What Evangelical Leaders Believe about the End Times” by Audrey Barrick, christianpost.com, March 2011.

    In it, it stated that:

    “A majority of evangelical leaders believe that Jesus Christ will return to earth and then reign with his followers for 1,000 years, a new survey shows…

    “While most of the evangelical leaders hold to a premilliennial belief – in which the 1,000-year period is one of worldwide peace and righteousness and precedes the end of the world – even within this belief system there are variations.

    “Premillennialists disagree on the timing of the rapture, whether Christians will rise and join Jesus during or after the tribulation period – which comes before the return of Christ.”

    Bob Thiel noted at the end of the blog:

    “… it is nice that most evangelicals understand that the doctrine of the millennium is correct.”

    A statement like that should send alarm-bells ringing that something is not quite right.

    When Andrew Fausset noted the mistake of the chialists [premillennialist] he understood that the saints will not be literally on the earth reigning (Revelation 5:10) anymore than Satan was literally living, and reigning?, in Pegamos (Revelation 2:13), when John wrote the Book of Revelation.

    When someone argues that the saints will reign on the earth a good question to ask is: “Where in Australia does the reigning Queen of Australia ‘dwell’?”

    This is of course is a loaded question, as she does not reside in Australia. Queen Elizabeth II was the first reigning monarch of Australia to visit the country.

    Before constitutional changes in 1927 her grandfather George V was King “in” Australia, even though he never visited Australia. After the changes he was King “of” Australia.

    While the reigning monarch of Australia does not “dwell” in Australia, the monarch’s representative, the Governor-General, does, as do the state governors.

    In this analogy the “prince” of Ezekiel 40-48 is Christ’s representative during the Millennium, which begins after the end of second half of Christ’s prophetic “week”. People will be able to say to him with words of another Queen to another King:

    “Praise be to the LORD your God, who has delighted in you and placed you on his throne as king to rule for the LORD your God” (2 Chronicles 9:8, NIV).

    Christ, the antitypical David (Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24-25), will rule on the throne of David/throne of the Lord through the human Davidic dynasty.

  20. Hello, again, John from Australia.

    As usual, you come with many quotes! But, of course, the Bible really is what matters most. Without going into all the details we could, let me just address some points quickly.

    1. The point about Mr. Armstrong is off. Yes, individuals believed that Jesus would reign before he mentioned it and, yes, some believe it today. (BTW, “Evangelicals” only represent about 1/4 to 1/3 of the world’s “nominal” Christianity, and inconsistent in belief, as the article you provided stated.) It isn’t a matter of whether some believe that there will be, in some vague manner, a kingdom or not. Mr. Armstrong restored the Kingdom of God (and a more accurate teaching of it) to its central place as the very beating heart of the Gospel, itself. So many who claim the belief in a future kingdom think of the matter as more of a side issue—Mr. Armstrong saw through that and restored it to the position of prominence that Jesus Christ gave it, making it the trunk and central point of the Gospel, itself. (Something, I note, that he was and is criticized for by the same “evangelical” movement and leaders you mention, so it would be counter to the facts to say that he simply preached something others already believed.) A look at the preaching of the “gospel” by most of these evangelical leaders makes the difference obvious to even the most casual observer. And don’t get me started on those elements of the Kingdom of God that he taught of which Christianity truly IS ignorant, and which are not at all captured in your “ten distinctive teachings” list. To label a teaching with a pre-defined “-ism” and then say, “Since the teachings represent this ‘-ism’, here are the teachings,” is to do it completely backwards. If you think our “distinctive teachings” about the Kingdom of God are captured in that list, you really aren’t familiar with our “distinctive teachings” and if you think that the Gospel Mr. Armstrong preached (“basic” modifier notwithstanding) to the entire world was preached to the world of the nineteenth century, then, again, you aren’t familiar with that Gospel.

    2. The idea that Christ and the saints will not actually be present on the earth is something for which you give no biblical support, only a wisp of an idea, which is, of course, no support at all. (And as much as I appreciate your commenting on occasion, John from Australia, please do not come back with “support” in the form of more and more commentary or encyclopedia quotes. If you differ, support it with the Bible. I’ve indulged you a bit in this, but my patience for that is worn thin, as the result is only words multiplied with no profit—and as in the implications of your chialism list, sometimes not just no profit but, in fact, loss.)
    Taking the Bible for at its word and using the principle that “if the plain sense of the Bible makes common sense seek no other sense,” it is clear that Christ and His resurrected saints will, indeed, be present on the earth they are reigning over. Too many verses to list here (e.g., Ezekiel 43:7, which cannot be referring to the human prince you mention without doing violence to the simple meaning of the passage) demonstrate this. Will Christ and the resurrected glorified saints have access to heaven? There is indication that they will, yes (e.g., Rev. 15, Rev. 19). But will they be on the earth they are reigning—actually dwelling there? Yes, indeed – regardless of where the Queen of Australia might be. 🙂

    3. Finally, your comment that “A statement like that should send alarm-bells ringing that something is not quite right” is virtually meaningless. What if it were said after someone noted that “it is nice that most evangelicals understand that the doctrine of Christ serving as our Passover Lamb is correct”? Should we have alarm bells going off and question our belief in Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf? Of course not.

    The reason I say only virtually meaningless is because I would disagree with what the quote might imply taken in isolation. I have not read Bob Thiel’s blog on that, though I suspect I would understand his context. Again, he is not an ordained teacher of the Church, and does not officially represent any of our teachings. Still, the context he would have had behind such a statement would have made the nature of it very limiting. For instance, what is meant by the “doctrine of the millennium”? If it is only the idea that Jesus will rule with His saints for 1000 years and no more or less, then, yes, most evangelicals would be right. But the fullness of what could be called the doctrine (teaching) of the millennium includes so much that most evangelicals do not understand. Just as in the example I used above—evangelicals might “understand” that Christ died to bring about forgiveness of sins as our Passover lamb, but the fullness of what that means is generally lost on the whole them. I know Bob Thiel as a church member understands these things, so there is no need for alarm bells. It is nice that most evangelicals think that there really will be a future kingdom. If only they understood the central place this had in the Gospel teachings of Jesus Christ and the fullness of the implications of what that truth actually means.

    So, perhaps the only “alarm bells” it should set off are those that would warn you that what we mean by the “doctrine of the millennium” and the shallow popular understanding of the “doctrine of the millennium” may not be as similar as assumed.

    Thanks, again.

  21. John Wheeler (Johanan Rakkav)

    Hi Mr. Smith! I was writing out a reply of my own to John from Australia, with scriptural references showing where Jesus Christ, David, the apostles, the saints generally, and indeed a human “prince” with his sons (surely descended from David, one and all, but not as “kings”), but something happened on this end which made it impossible for me to see my own viewscreen! I don’t know what happened but the information wasn’t saved and I don’t have time to repeat all that now. I should say that I couldn’t disagree more with John’s position where it really counts, as it’s biblically untenable and easily shown to be so.

    But you may find this interesting, from the beginning of my missive. As far as I know, not even Edward Gibbons says, anywhere in his history of the Roman Empire, why what became the Roman Catholic Church rejected the biblical doctrine of the Millennium. (I stumbled across it in Wikipedia of all places, although it might be hard to track down given its perpetual reformatting now.) It was because so many of the leading teachers of Gnosticism, the school founded by Simon Magus, were saying that the Millennium would be a time of licentious pleasure. The Ante-Nicene Fathers and others overreacted to this, step by step, and came up with an error in the opposite direction.

    Interestingly, Justin Martyr (2nd c.), though himself a Samaritan, a liberal on the law and the Sabbath and mixed up entirely on hell, said to Trypho (a Jew) that if someone claimed to be Christian but denied the resurrection of the dead by teaching that people go to heaven immediately upon death (that’s how he worded it), he was not to be counted as a true Christian. What Justin then said is the real and original teaching was essentially the same thing we teach, and for essentially the same scriptural reasons. It’s fascinating reading. (I’m on my backup laptop so I can’t quote chapter and verse from his DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO A JEW quickly for you, but on my main laptop I have it.)

  22. Howdy, Mr. Wheeler, and I’m sorry about your sudden computer issue! I hope it doesn’t happen again. If so, should Mr. Sena be called for an anointing? (And would he be willing to anoint a PC instead of a Mac or would he see that as a lack of repentance that would inhibit healing?)

  23. John Wheeler (Johanan Rakkav)

    When a PC becomes converted, does it become a Mac? If so, not only should it be anointed, it should be baptized – at gunpoint, if necessary! 😀

    But really I think the (temporary) fault was human error – sometimes I make some crazy keystroke combos unintentionally and the Law of Unintended Consequences sets in. It’s the other laptop that actually has more problems – it’s Windows XP and it’s more sensitive to the old wiring and its power surges around here. This Windows 7 machine is pretty decent.

    Stand by (later) when I get back to my XP machine and look up the quote from Justin Martyr.

  24. John Wheeler (Johanan Rakkav)

    Justin Martyr on the Resurrection
    Dialogue with Trypho a Jew

    Chap. LXXX. — The Opinion of Justin with Regard to the Reign of a Thousand Years. Several Catholics Reject It.

    And Trypho to this replied, “I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?”

    Then I answered, “I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly,192 that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware;193 but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you.194 For I choose to follow not men or men’s doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth],195 and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistae, Meristae,196 Gelilaeans, Hellenists,197 Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years198 in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

    Chap. LXXXI. — He Endeavours to Prove This Opinion from Isaiah and the Apocalypse.

    “For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: ‘For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My I people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying. And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days.199 For the young man shall be an hundred years old;200 but the sinner who dies an hundred years old,200 he shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine. They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat. For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound.201 Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it? Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent [shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, saith the Lord.’ (Isa_65:17 to end) Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, ‘According to the days of the tree [of life202] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound’ obscurely predicts a thousand years.

    For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ (Psa_90:4; 2Pe_3:8) is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell203 a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’ (Luk_20:35)

  25. John Wheeler (Johanan Rakkav)

    Of course Justin Martyr didn’t seek either to define or defend the entire “doctrine of the millennium” even as he understood it, let alone as the Bible teaches it. He had many things on his mind, even in Dialogue with Trypho a Jew. But it’s remarkable that he points to several of the very same verses, and for basically the same reasons – even in the Book of Revelation – pointing to the reign of Jesus Christ and the saints for a millennium in Jerusalem. (Here he focuses on the role of the saints, not of Christ Himself, or so it seems.)

  26. John from Australia

    Just a couple of comments:

    You say:

    “Ezekiel 43:7, which cannot be referring to the human prince you mention without doing violence to the simple meaning of the passage”.

    Eze 43:7a And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever

    I would never equate Jesus Christ, speaking from the holy of holies in Ezekiel 43:7, with the human Davidic “prince”.

    For me the good news of the Kingdom of God, that was the concern of Jesus Christ at his first advent, was that Christ and the Saints are going to replace Satan and the Demons in the ‘heavenlies’ – this concerns mostly the ‘kingly” aspect of the saints’ reward; and the scriptures, from the prospective part of the retro-prospective inset prophecy of Revelation7:

    Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
    Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
    Rev 7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
    Rev 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

    picture the ‘priestly’ part of that reward.

    I will leave it at that – thanks for the patience.

    Regards John

  27. Thanks, John from Australia, and I appreciate your clarifications. I don’t think that Revelation 7 establishes an idea that the saints’ reward is in heaven and that they will reign from there, though surely after the resurrection there will be celebrations in heaven and there will be access for all members of the God Family. After all, even in the final eschatological passages (Rev. 21), it is a matter of the tabernacle coming down that God will dwell with men, corresponding to Paul’s summary that what Christ has been ruling and shepherding for some time will be given to the Father (1 Cor. 15). Even in replacing Satan as the ruler of this world, the parallel continues, for though he appears at times in heaven the impression of Scripture is that his time is spent here where he reigns (Job 1:6-8). Of course, when our existence is that of God’s as members of His Family, the limitations of time and space may be more of a moot point! 🙂 I appreciate your perspective and manner, and thanks for your comment.

  28. Truth seeker

    Hello Mr. Smith
    I heard Mr. Armstrong (sometime ago) say that the “Gospel” was the conditions or terms of the New Covenant. I think he said that in his Bible Study titled “2 cor 4-5”. I would think if anyone changes or teaches something different from the true “Gospel” would be teaching a different Gospel (Gal 1:6-7). If someone changes the conditions of the contract(which it is)wouldn’t it be a different contract altogether? Wouldn’t they have changed the Covenant which God wrote, to something different, something which God didn’t want? Mr. Armstrong also states that the Gospel is to prepare the Bride for the New Covenant(which I believe we haven’t made yet). He said that Christ taught the New Covenant to the First Century Apostles and they carried it out and taught it to the Church. And that he(Mr. Armstrong) was also carrying that covenant also! (Mal 2:4-6)(also read the rest of the book to see what happens to those who corrupt(change )that Covenant). His Writing’s, sermons, Bible Studies. etc,etc, is part of the Gospel. If this is so, (which I believe it is) and as you state in your title then why does…..

    1-Mr. Armstrong teach that the King of the South “push” was fulfilled in Late 1800’s right before the turn of the century. (Middle East in Prophesy Booklet)
    And The LCG teaches that the push hasn’t been fulfilled but is yet future. Could you explain?

    2-Mr. Armstrong taught that the “Laodicean era” would FORM and that era of the Church would Come out of the Great Tribulation.(Bible Study “Gal 5-6”, Sermon “Mark of the Beast”, and many more)
    The LCG teaches that we are already in the Laodicean Era? Could you explain this please?

    I see differences between the two. If I am wrong could you please show me? It’s probably just a misunderstanding on my part.Thank you Mr. Smith for your time.

  29. Howdy, TJTruthSeeker, and thanks for your questions! I’ll answer them the best I can. However, if you really want to ask the Church, I recommend that you write LCG directly and get answers. Here on my blog, only I am responsible for my answers and not the Church. If you want to ask what LCG believes, the best place to go is directly to them! 🙂

    I believe Mr. Armstrong taught the Gospel and that he, indeed, taught the “whole, pure Gospel”, but I do not believe that his very words are a “part of” the Gospel, as one thing you’ve said could be taken. I say this because (1) I’ve never heard him say that, (2) I’ve heard him say that his words should not be taken as the equivalent of Scripture, (3) it would mean that at times he preached a different Gospel (which he did not do) since over the decades of his life he changed teachings when he found them to be inaccurate.

    Mr. Armstrong preached the Gospel with his words, but that doesn’t make his words the Gospel, themselves. This is why he was able to change when he saw something more clearly.

    As for prophetic understanding, Mr. Armstrong said clearly that “We are the ONLY Church I know that has accepted NEW truth when discovered. That is one of the PROOFS that this IS God’s true Church, and when any of us imply just the opposite, we are serving Satan and injuring the Church of the living GOD!” More than once, he said that “one of the criteria of the one and only TRUE Church of God” and that, based on 2 Peter 3:18, “the true Church of God MUST be a Church which is constantly GROWING in truth and confessing and correcting ERROR.” I’ve heard from a couple of individuals who want to remove what Mr. Armstrong called one of the “proofs” of God’s True Church and say that we can no longer grow in any understanding at all, and, ironically, they’ve done so claiming to defend Mr. Armstrong. Of course, they contradict themselves in this by saying that everything Mr. Armstrong said was exactly true except for that. Yet, if Mr. Armstrong said that growth in understanding was a hallmark and proof of the Church’s identity, I respect him too much to fail and take it seriously. In fact, he, himself, says that when we “imply just the opposite, we are serving Satan and injuring the Church of the living GOD!”

    Thankfully, God used Mr. Armstrong powerfully to set us on solid doctrinal ground. In his sermon where he explained the 18 truths God used him to restore solidly to the Church, we see doctrines that continue to endure—and which I believe always will! They have stood the test of time and God’s Word, and will continue to do so.

    Prophetic understanding, however, will grow with time as more comes to light, as Mr. Armstrong modeled countless times, himself. In his own words, on those rare occasions when the Church does find a mistake, “nearly always error results from an ASSUMED premise carelessly taken for granted because it seemed too self-evident to even question.” Prophecy is more susceptible to these sorts of assumptions because the details of the world’s circumstances are revealed to us more and more as we get closer to the time of the prophecy’s fulfillment.

    One of the examples you give is a good one, since it doesn’t reflect the change Mr. Armstrong had published later under his own approval and direction. For instance, you mention that “Mr. Armstrong [taught] that the King of the South ‘push’ was fulfilled in Late 1800’s right before the turn of the century,” as it mentions in his Middle East in Prophecy Booklet, first published in 1948 and last published, best I can tell, in 1972. In it, he did say that v.40 saw a fulfillment in the time between 1895 and 1935, though he says that v.41 involves events yet to come.

    Yet, after 1972, under Mr. Armstrong’s direction and approval, this was either clarified or adjusted, depending on your point of view. For instance, read the article “Watch the Middle East” in the August 1974 Good News, where it refers to the role of Mussolini in helping fulfill verse 40, but where it also says that “verses 40-45 are yet to be fulfilled. They reveal that startling events are yet to take place in the Middle East.” For verses 41-45 to remain to be fulfilled, the possibility that an antitype to Mussolini’s actions covered in verse 40 is very real, and matches what Mr. Armstrong published here—not contradicting, but adjusting and clarifying. This would be in keeping with how Mr. Armstrong taught of Antiochus Epiphanes fulfillment of the v.21 prophecy of the Abomination of Desolation would be repeated by a future despotic leader, type and antitype.

    More explicitly on this matter, another article titled “Watch the Mideast” was published under Mr. Armstrong’s direction and approval in the May 1975 Plain Truth quoted Daniel 11:40-43 and then said, “You are living in the ‘time of the end’ prophesied in your Bible. The ‘pushing’ described in this vitally important prophecy appears to mean something other than direct military attack – more likely a political or economic move.” And later: “Prophecy says some sort of a ‘shoving match,’ precipitated by the ‘King of the South’ will unleash whirlwind lightening-like MILITARY response by a ‘King of the North,’ which clearly indicates Europe.”

    And future possibilities for v.40 are made explicit, as well, in a December 1979 article—also published by Mr. Armstrong with his stamp of approval and under his direction—titled “The Arab World in Prophecy” in which the Church taught this about verse 40 (emphasis mine): “The verse [v.40] undoubtedly found partial fulfillment in the offensive in 1896 of Emporer Menelik II of Ethiopia (‘king of the south’) against the Italian armies of King Humbert I (‘king of the north’)—and in the air, land, and sea invasion of Ethiopia 40 years later by Mussolini’s forces.” Later: “And these two individuals [future kings of the north and south] will eventually find themselves in a head-to-head confrontation—possibly over oil—which will ultimately lead to devastating war in the Middle East!” So the idea that Mussolini’s actions in Ethiopia in 1935 were a “partial fulfillment” as opposed to a fulfillment in complete fullness originated under Herbert Armstrong.

    What we teach on the King of the South is perfectly consistent with all of this: The actions of Mussolini in Ethiopia are absolutely a fulfillment of Dan. 11:40, yet the context of the verse (“the time of the end”) and the fact that the verses immediately following are yet future indicate that there may be an antitype to that fulfillment that will lead into the remaining verses’ fulfillment, as well, just as Antiochus Epiphanes’ fulfillment was a type before the coming antitype. Mr. Armstrong fully endorsed this view years before he died, and it is perfectly consistent with what we teach. Those who see these things but continue to disagree with what Mr. Armstrong published as the controlling Editor-in-Chief of the Plain Truth and Good News magazines seem to want not only to freeze him in 1974 but also to limit what he taught to the sentences of their choosing (which hardly seems like a way of honoring him).

    [My apologies, by the way, for taking so long in this comment. I don’t always have this sort of time (and frankly, don’t today!), but your questions were good and sincerely asked, so I want to help as best I can.]

    As for the comment about Laodicea, Mr. Armstrong made many comments about the end times concerning the Church and the Work. One you refer to in your comment. He also said that the Work of the Philadelphian Church would not end until the Tribulation. [It is interesting that those few who teach that Mr. Armstrong finished the work so we should not continue it also claim that the Laodicean era has not yet begun—thus they claim to defend one of Mr. Armstrong’s comments by denying another.]

    Even while he was alive, Mr. Armstrong mentioned many times the Laodicean attitude that would begin to creep into the Church and which would need to be fought back. He frequently encouraged members to examine themselves—even as early as least the 60s—to ensure that they were not at risk of being a part of the Laodicean Church, warning that Jesus Christ would have to spew them out of His mouth, warning the Church that they not slip into the “Laodicean condition,” etc., etc.

    Is it any surprise that it is now the attitude that dominates the Church? Which description in Revelation 3 best fits the Church as a whole? To say that this time we are in is not dominated by the Laodicean spirit is to ignore all the rest of what he taught about that era and that attitude, and I, for one, refuse to do that. If one means by an “era” that the Church of that era is separated from the rest and made visibly and undeniably distinct, that will definitely happen when the Great Tribulation comes and the Philadelphian Church is taken to a place of safety. This seems to be what Mr. Armstrong meant and it is clearly true. If one uses “era” to mean the time when a particular Church’s attitude dominates, time has shown that to be happening right now—a fact that will lead to those who comprise the Laodicean Church not being protected during the Tribulation. Again, given the two descriptions in Revelation 3, which era’s attitude is dominant now: Philadelphia’s or Laodicea’s? Anyone claiming that Philadelphia’s attitude is dominant now would need to show me what characteristics of the larger Church of God they see around them that causes them to think this.

    When I say that we live in a Laodicean era, that’s what I mean: that we live in a time now when the Laodicean attitude dominates. Surely no one denies that this is true! But the clear lines between those of the Philadelphian Church and the Laodicean Church will not be truly drawn distinctly until the beginning of the Tribulation when the Philadelphian Church is taken to the Place of Safety. So, again, I really don’t see a conflict here. While Mr. Armstrong spoke very clearly about the two eras and the Churches that dominate them, the one thing that we never had many details nor many teachings about was the transition from one Church’s dominance to the other’s. We are living through those times right now and seeing it play out before our very eyes.

    Mr. Armstrong said the Church should continue to grow in grace and knowledge—even that it would be a hallmark of the True Church of God and that it was serving the Devil to say otherwise—and that would include seeing prophetic details more clearly as those times arise. To isolate a few things Mr. Armstrong said from the rest that he taught and to say, as well, that none of the fine details of prophecy we have understood could be refined would be both contrary to Mr. Armstrong’s practice as well as to his teaching.

    If agreeing with what was taught multiple times under Mr. Armstrong concerning the King of the South and seeing how the Laodicean Church he predicted is developing before our very eyes since his death 25 years ago is the strongest points a critic can make about our teaching of prophecy, then we seem to be in excellent standing. 🙂 And, it should be said, Mr. Armstrong has thus been proven to be remarkably insightful.

    (Of note, as well, is that no one who accuses us of error on, say, the Laodicean Era can point to a scripture to demonstrate the error. Not only is this contrary to what Mr. Armstrong taught about the primacy of God’s Word, but it is also contrary to how he always approached prophecy and contrary to how he taught others to approach it. And to take his every statement and put it on the same level of dependability as Scripture does Mr. Armstrong’s teachings the greatest disservice of all, as he preached directly that he wanted no one to turn him into a “Pope” or “Joseph W. Smith” or “Ellen G. White.”)

    Again, I know I’ve written a great deal, but I wanted to take your questions seriously and to make sure I gave you the most complete answers I could. To summarize: (1) Our teaching about Daniel 11:40 is completely consistent with and matches well with that approved by Mr. Armstrong to be taught in the Church and in the magazines he ran and edited; (2) teaching about the Laodicean “era” requires understanding what one means by an era, and our belief that the true distinction between the Philadelphian and Laodicean Churches will be made clear at the Great Tribulation and fleeing to the Place of Safety is also consistent with what Mr. Armstrong taught; (3) And, finally, believing Mr. Armstrong means also believing what he taught about true and continual growth (not just lip-service growth) in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ as being a key, identifying proof of the True Church of God, and believing him when he said that denying that means assisting the Devil in his accusations against the Church. We should expect prophetic details to continue to become more clear as the end approaches, just as they did for Mr. Armstrong over the entire course of his ministry.

    And, of course, in all this I have spoken of my own feelings. If you really do have questions about how the Church teaches, I recommend that you ask the Church directly. Not only will they answer well and with answers more dependably accurate than mine, but likely with fewer words, as well. 🙂

  30. Truth seeker

    Hello Mr. Smith
    I’ve done some studying on the subject of the King of the South, including the articles you refer to. You stated near the end of your last comment, in your summary, that Our(LCG) “teaching about Daniel 11:40 is completely consistent with and matches well with that approved by Mr. Armstrong to be taught in the Church and in the magazines he ran and edited” There are plenty of articles during and after that time(when Mr. Armstrong was cleaning up the church) up to his death, that says different, I’m not trying to argue, or to start one, but maybe our discussion will help each other out to find the Truth, and any others that might read our discussion.
    You stated in your comment that the Middle east in Prophesy booklet was “last published, best I can tell, in 1972.”
    That was true, to my knowledge, as a booklet. In the Plain Truth Sep 1983, it was reprinted, in it’s entirety. Saying the same thing when it was discontinued back under Garner Ted.
    In the Plain Truth Nov-Dec 1982 Article titled “Trouble In The Horn of Africa”” by Dan Taylor, it says ,
    ” Mussolini’s Italy nearly a half century ago avenged a military defeat handed to Italian forces by the “King of the South”( the Emperor Menelik of Ethiopia) in 1897. Fascist armies overran the Ethiopian Empire of Haile Selassie in 1935 as prophesied in Dan 11:40.
    Mussolini, however, never fulfilled all of verse 41. He never entered the “glorious land,” that is, Palestine, nor did he fulfill the rest of the verse that says, “and many countries shall be overthrown….”
    Rather, this prophesy, terminated alsmost 40 years ago at the middle of verse 41, awaits fulfillment in entirety in our lifetime, with the prophesied final restoration of the Roman Empire in Europe. This empire will see it’s vital interests threatened by instability and economic pressures from the Arab world and the region around the Horn of Africa (Dan 11:40-45). It will, at that time, storm into this region and neigboring parts of the northeast Africa to protect it’s concerns. Be sure to request our free reprint article “The Midle East in Prophecy” for more specific details.”
    In The Plain Truth Feb 1986 from the reprint article ” The Bible: Superstition or Authority?” By Herbert W Armstrong

    “Now we come to this century.
    verse 40–“And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him…” Who is today the “king of the south”?”
    “In 1895 King Menelik, of Ethiopia, sent an army of 9,000 to 10,000 men against General Baratieri’s Italian army.”
    “In 1896 General Baratieri with 13,000 men tried to defend Eritrea against the Ethiopians. They lost 4,600 whites and 3,000 native troops, and more than 3,500 were taken prisoner
    In a later engagement the Italians were cut to pieces because of their inexperience in fighting in mountainous country and because they were greatly outnumbered. This defeat was disastrous to Italian expansion in Africa.
    Italy demanded revenge! In 1927 Mussolini set the time, at just 40 years from that defeat, or 1935, when he would be ready “finally to make our voice heard, and see our rights recognized!”
    1935 came. The hour stuck! Mussolini attacked! Notice verse 40: “and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.”
    A whirlwind comes in the air, sweeping all before it. Mussolini did send a great air force into Africa! Also many mondern “Chariots”–trucks, tanks, etc.—and ships, loaded with soldiers. More than 100,000 sailed to Ethiopia.
    And notice it, Mussolini’s forces were to pass over—in the air! It is this PRECISE POINT in the astounding prophecy that Mussolini’s struggle in Ethiopia and in World War II ended. Mussolini did not finish the prophecy. There is yet another leader to arise in Europe! Notice WHAT WILL NEXT HAPPEN!
    Verse 41—“He shall enter also into the glorious land…”—the Holy Land. This is soon to be fulfilled.”
    In the Plain Truth Aug 1979 article titled ” Watch the Violatile Middle East” by Raymond F. McNair
    “Now let’s pick up that part of this prophecy that has been fulfilled in just the last 80 years: “And at the time of the end [this was in -1895-1896] shall ‘ the king of the south[Ethiopia] push at him [Italy in Eritrea]: and the king of the north [Italy under Mussolini] shall come against him like a whirlwind [from the air with fighter planes and bombers], with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over” (verse 40). Mussolini fulfilled verse 40-but not verse 41. Mussolini as “king of the north” did not enter into Palestine. He was stopped in Egypt.”

    God doesn’t teach contradictary doctrine. Where does the Church’s doctrine come from? Mr. Armstrong explained this in his Bible Study titled “Galations 3-4”
    “lets understand this. What doctrine have you learned? Where did you learn that doctrine? Answer: in and through the Worldwide Church of God! Well how did the Church receive it’s doctrine? It’s beliefs? it’s teaching’s? When the Church first started, in 31 A.D., the church from the start recieved it’s doctrines from the Apostles! Jesus Christ in person taught the Apostles! Jesus is the personal word of God! The Bible is the Written word of God! The same word, only one’s in writing and the other one is Christ himself in person. Both are the same. But in our day Jesus Christ taught His Chosen Apostle through the written word of God. The Worldwide Church of God, the same church as founded in 31 A.D. only it’s a later generation of us now, recieved it’s doctrine through God’s Chosen Apostle! That’s where all your doctrine came from! Now Some of our ministers have wanted to water down that doctrine, they wanted to CHANGE that Doctrine, they didn’t want to teach the doctrines of the bible! They didn’t want to teach the doctrine of Christ and of God! And ,so they were causing division, and that’s why they were put out! And so they come by speaking, trying to draw you after them, And I’m speaking now to you people who is going to hear this out in other churches. And so you say well I just want to hear what he’s got to say, and so you go! GOD SAY’S DON’T GO! God Says avoid them! Christ taught His Chosen Apostle through the written Word of God. The Worldwide Church of God, The same Church as founded in 31 A.D. recieved it’s doctrine, through God’s Chosen Apostle! Every doctrine you have came through God’s Chosen Apostle.”
    [End Quote]
    Doctrine COMES from God’s Chosen Apostle not ministers below him. The Council of Elders Can’t recieve New Doctrine. Only God’s Chosen Apostle. Yes there has to be Growth. But only Growth in What God restored through HIS Chosen Apostle. And He(God) restore ALL THING’S through Herbert W Armstrong! That is what we’re(if we’re Philadelphian) to “Hold Fast to”! Men below the OFFICE of Apostle can’t change Doctrine or decisions from the Apostle. The Apostle ONLY has that Authority! Men who do, God will remember them, when their time has come, Which is VERY soon! Unless they repent, Turn Away from that way of Life, an about turn from the way they were going and start going the way God says to.
    So, it doesn’t matter if a minister preaches something about the King of the South. It ONLY Matters if Mr. Armstrong backed it up. Mr. Armstrong only preached what the Bible Said, What God Said! If he changed that teaching (Back in 1972 as you imply)why Print the old teaching from before? Mr. Armstrong is the one we have to look to for Revealed truth, but most of all, God, then Jesus Christ, then Mr. Armstrong. I’m not saying look to a man. Paul said to “follow me as I follow Christ”. You only follow a minister (a man) only if he is following Christ. How do you know if he is following Christ? You have to check the Bible, and compare the two! I have heard what he said, looked it in the Bible and find that what he said was straight from the Bible! He was teaching what God Says in the Bible! Men underr him wrote articles watering down the Truth!

    [EDIT: In an effort to reduce this comment from the 13 printed pages that it originally took up, I have removed the massive “cut-and-paste” that TJTruthSeeker did here; however I do heartily recommend reading the article, as it is still true after all these years and supports the work of the Living Church of God wonderfully. It is “Should We Listen to Others” by Herbert W Armstrong, from the May 1960 Good News. Please do read it if you have a chance. My comment policy prevents me from linking to many websites that post the article (though you can search for them), but I may try to add a link to a PDF of the article in the near future if it’s needed and too many can’t find it. — WGS]

    I’m not saying anything contradictary to what Mr. Armstrong said in the Above Article and Quotes. I’m merely pointing back to God’s Teaching. To God’s Church. To God’s Chosen Apostle! When a Minister comes preaching another gospel(doctrine) I merely point them back to What the Church teaches. To What Mr. Armstrong Teaches. To What God Taught!
    This is merely a warning from God the Creator to those who it applies to. If it applies to you and the LCG, it applies. If it applies to me, it applies. If to any other organization or person out there, it applies.
    I’m Not saying to believe me. But Go back and Prove it, with what God taught, With what God Restored back to the Church through Herbert W Armstrong! God’s Chosen Apostle! If anyone speaks against God’s Apostle is SPEAKING AGAINST GOD! I take that very seriously!
    The Doctrines that Herbert W Armstrong taught (God’s Chosen Apostle). Will Stand!
    Other Doctrines which God didn’t reveal through His Apostle WON’T!
    I’m not accussing, like Mr. Armstrong stated very frequently, I’m just stating the Truth!
    Thank you for your time Mr. Smith.
    P.S. If you are a true minister, you are the representative of Christ. Your represent what The Church teaches. But you say this blog is your own personal opinion. Does that mean that what you say, doesn’t always fall in line with what The Church teaches , What God teaches, if it is God’s Church? As a representative of Christ, you are speaking for Christ. If you speak something contrary to what Christ teaches, you no longer represent him, you misrepresent him. The Bible condemn those who misrepresent him, saying they are the representatives of Christ, but deceiving the many. “They are deceived and deceiving. I am not accusing. I’m stating the truth!” I say this so you can see the problems clearer.
    Thanks again for your time. I hope this conversation helps everybody that reads it. Return unto what we were taught in the Philadelphian era (Rev 3:11) Not what the Laodiceans teach, if this is the Laodicean era, I believe it is not, Because God’s Chosen Apostle, Not Evangelist, says so, And I believe God’s Man!

  31. Howdy, again, TJTruthSeeker! Hopefully you saw my post last night, and my apologies for the delay in getting to your comment. If it’s any comfort to you, my children enjoyed getting to see what their daddy looked like over the last couple of days. 🙂

    You’ve said quite a bit! Well, sort of, since most of your comment is simply a “cut and paste” from an article. It took about 13 pages for me to print your comment, and I must say that I normally do not allow my blog to become someone else’s podium, but your comments do so much to validate exactly what I am saying and to verify that we are on the right track that I wanted to allow as much as I could. So I left the post and your comments and quotes intact, but replaced the giant “copy and paste” part with the reference information (title, date, etc.) for the article so that others know what article you refer to and can look it up themselves. And I hope they do! As I said, it is marvelous confirmation that we’re on the right track.

    Not just that one, but the “King of the South” references do so, too. Did you notice? For instance, your own chosen quote, written under Mr. Armstrong’s approval and direction, said, “This empire will see it’s (sic) vital interests threatened by instability and economic pressures from the Arab world and the region around the Horn of Africa (Dan 11:40-45).” Indeed, it both described v.40 as having a say on future activities and included v.40 directly in its biblical reference about future activities, just like we do. In fact, one of the articles I quoted also offered the Middle East booklet. Why? Because, as in the quote you provided, there is nothing inconsistent in saying that there may be an antitype fulfillment of verse 40 as prophecy picks up to move into the never-before fulfilled portions beginning in verse 41. Thanks for the example, and it confirms exactly what I’m saying.

    The rest of this comment I will try to organize on a point-by-point basis, but I do need to say some things, first. As I once told someone else you may know [By the way: TJ = Tim Jr., perhaps? I’ll assume not, since I think that would be deceptive–and I want to assume the best of you! 🙂 ], I won’t waste time answering questions for people who won’t listen. I don’t mind answering questions of those who are sincerely asking, but many are not sincerely asking because when you give them answers, documents, etc. that prove them wrong—factually, biblically, or both—they just keep on going.

    I bring this up because it is entirely possible that it is relevant here. If someone proves that they are so self-deceived that they are truly not listening to anything I say, then why should I waste God’s time and the time of God’s people on answering his questions? Frankly, it’s virtually sinful to do so.

    Secondly, I won’t allow my blog to become someone else’s preaching platform. There are too many out there looking for a way to preach their own version of the “Truth” or of “Mr. Armstrong” or the “Gospel” that I feel no obligation to give them a platform. Frankly, I would have to answer to Mr. Armstrong one day for doing so, and I want to be able to give a good account of myself (let alone to God and Jesus Christ!). Too many out there strive to take their own Frankenstein’s monster version of Mr. Armstrong, pieced together with their favorite quotes, and change the work and activity of the Church into something he would never approve of, and I won’t allow it here.

    Lastly, my comment about my blog being my own was not about dodging a responsibility; rather my comment that my blog represents my own opinion means that any mistakes I make should not be quickly assumed to be what the Church would say, regardless of the fact that I do try my best to represent Christ and His Church. It is a matter of (1) recognizing my place, a notion that’s become quaint in the broader COGiverse, (2) recognizing I am prone to make mistakes as is anyone, and (3) not pridefully presuming that I can speak perfectly on behalf of the Church’s leadership when they may be able to explain a matter much better than I do. In fact, reflecting on that last point might help you to see a mistake of your own. (To use your own words, I’m not accusing, just stating the truth.) There are many pridefully presuming to speak on Mr. Armstrong’s behalf, and it is terribly telling that they can’t seem to agree with each other, no matter how many Good News and Plain Truth magazines they throw at each other.

    So I plan to respond below, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are being sincere, which I am happy to do. I will be as thorough as my bleary eyes will allow me. (I didn’t do any rock climbing, myself, today, but watching my kids I feel like I did! And the clock is getting awfully late…) If those answers don’t suffice, then it may be that you would need to go elsewhere, because I will explain as best I can and I simply don’t have the time to explain multiple times something that you are free to write our headquarters about and ask (and they have folks who are devoted to doing just this sort of thing; time that I do not have).

    Here we go…

    • Concerning Daniel 11:40… Actually, I covered that above: What we teach about the possibility of an antitype fulfillment of v.40 following Mussolini’s previous fulfillment is perfectly consistent with even the quotes you provided. Thanks for the additional evidence! That one was new to me and leaves me even more convinced than I was before.
    • Concerning Mr. Armstrong’s role as an Apostle… How thankful I am that he was one, and how great it would be if God provided another in the future, though I see no promise that He will. However, those who use his words about doctrine to support their idolizing of (a false version of) Mr. Armstrong always seem to cut out his teachings that imply the Church would never stop growing in grace and knowledge (I know that you comment on this; will get to that in a moment); nor do they account for the fact that those men he taught and commissioned under Christ must continue to do just as he taught them to do. Concerning those who try to use some of his words one way while ignoring others, there are a few things to be said…
    • Why do they treat Mr. Armstrong’s writings and sermons & Bible study recordings as if they were just as perfect as Scripture? Mr. Armstrong would condemn this (in fact he did condemn this while he was alive), yet they do so, contrary to his teachings. [I note that they often deny that they do this in words, but their practice speaks louder than their words.]
    • Rather than leave it parenthetical, let me expand on that last comment. Some will claim that his teaching is not the same as Scripture, it is simply perfectly accurate teaching on the Scripture. Well, if it is perfectly accurate teaching that doesn’t even have the possibility of being wrong, what is the difference between that and Scripture? If both can be read and trusted to be perfect forever, never to be reexamined and reproven (which Mr. Armstrong said should be done, by the way) what is the difference? A rose by any other name is still a rose. (Sorry, Shakespeare.)
    • Or, to continue the point, perhaps they are saying that though his teachings aren’t Scripture, they are like perfect, flawless commentaries that should never be reexamined and which are sufficient witnesses to themselves—just like the Seventh Day Adventists treat Ellen G. White’s writings, or just like Mormons treat Joseph W. Smith’s writings. This still constitutes adding to Scripture, something Mr. Armstrong condemned as does God’s Word. It is a permutation of the Catholic doctrine of speaking ex cathedra, and it denies one of Mr. Armstrong’s clear teachings on one of the proofs of the True Church of God. I will not ignore Mr. Armstrong and, frankly, God’s Word by ignoring this proof of the Church of God! He said that to do so would be serving Satan and injuring the Church.
    • As for your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:18, it contradicts the context of Mr. Armstrong’s comment, which was about being willing to reexamine doctrine and to change it if it was in conflict with the Bible. To limit the meaning of that the way you do is to disagree with Mr. Armstrong’s own content and context. Context, context, context—the context disagrees with your interpretation, and I am going to stick to Mr. Armstrong’s own comments about what he meant.
    • Finally, on the “treating Mr. Armstrong’s (cherry-picked) writings as if they are Scripture” point and treating his teachings as if we will never understand any additional truth, having addressed the inconsistency of those who say these things, let me add one more point: To a man, everyone I’ve seen who says such things always adds something to what Mr. Armstrong said, though they condemn others for doing so. For instance, some who may be in your acquaintance, TJ, have added a lot of nonsense about government conspiracy teachings and anti-501(c)(3) garbage to Mr. Armstrong’s teachings. Even when I presented them an image of a document signed by Mr. Armstrong personally making the WCG a 501(c)(3) until the day of his death, it made no difference. Perhaps they’ve repented since then and not mentioned it to me, which would be wonderful; I don’t want to assume the worst. The only thing more I could have done was to personally pay an attorney or perhaps an accountant to read the incorporation documents to them and explain the 501(c)(3) clause in them, but they seemed in such denial that they might be wrong that it appeared an entire army of legal experts affirming what was right in front of their eyes would have made no difference. And that’s only one example. Many also add new prophetic interpretations so that prophecies Mr. Armstrong never said were about today’s COG minsters suddenly are about today’s COG ministers. So: they are able to add new understanding but no one else is? Not even those whom Mr. Armstrong routinely consulted when he was examining a new understanding because he highly valued their opinions and had personally trained them for years? It would be sad if it weren’t so Satanic, and I hope you aren’t caught up in any of that.
    • OK, just one more thing on treating Mr. Armstrong’s writings as Scripture: If they are not treating Mr. Armstrong’s writings as Scripture (that is, if they don’t treat is as inerrant), then what would be necessary for them to recognize that something he said about doctrine was inaccurate? What would be the test? For those who believe Mr. Armstrong, the answer is easy. For those who worship their own version of Mr. Armstrong, the answer is often convoluted—sometimes obviously, sometimes subtly—or contradicted by their actual practice. And, too: If they ever did come to see in God’s Word that something Mr. Armstrong said about doctrine or prophecy was wrong, what would they do then? Again, Mr. Armstrong was loud and clear on that answer and tied it to a fundamental characteristic of the Church of God.
    • Concerning Mr. Armstrong “restoring all things”… Why don’t many who claim to believe this actually listen to what Mr. Armstrong thought he had restored? He made those 18 truths clear. (WCG did not print a completely accurate list, in my opinion, and it’s better to get the list directly from his sermon, which includes some additional things.) I believe and teach every truth he said he restored to the Church, and, just as importantly, I believe that he knew what God had used him to restore. Those who believe that this must include such details as the manner in which Mr. Armstrong crossed T’s and dotted I’s go beyond what he, himself, claimed in this, to their own confusion. As for me, I take him at his word.
    • On the last point: For those who claim to believe that Mr. Armstrong restored all things AND claim that this means everything he wrote and said about the Bible (as of the date they choose, of course) is inerrant, how can they prove to me from the Bible that this is so? The article you referenced said: “Therefore you will look into the Bible for your answer.” So, what is their biblical proof of the inerrancy of Mr. Armstrong’s writings (at the time they claim his words became inerrant; this time differs for different groups and individuals caught up in this heresy).
    • You are correct: God does not contradict Himself in His Word (John 10:35), but this does not guarantee perfection in our doctrine, teachings, sermons about that Word. Mr. Armstrong taught us this, himself. That is why our later doctrines/teachings (and, thus, his later doctrines/teachings) sometimes DID purposefully contradict our earlier doctrines (e.g., D&R, Pentecost times, certain interpretations of prophecy, church government, etc.): because we were growing in grace and knowledge (in the way Mr. Armstrong understood this and taught it, not as you formulated it). To say that this is now impossible because the Church’s teachings became inerrant (like the Catholic Church claims of its own, which Mr. Armstrong condemned), then this must be proved directly from the Bible.
    • I’m glad that you looked at what Mr. Armstrong taught and found him to be true to God’s word. Me too! That’s why I came to the Worldwide Church of God. And that’s why I am now with the Living Church of God. I compare what it teaches to the Bible and I find it to be true. When it comes to the proper test, you nailed it on the head–you just don’t give an example of your applying it (e.g., your entire post lists not a single example in which you compare a teaching of the Church to the Bible and find it to be wrong). If you know the measure, don’t just talk about it–use it. Again, the article’s quote: “Therefore you will look into the Bible for your answer.” Then why don’t you? You show me no evidence at all that my answers disagree with the Bible. Do as Herbert Armstrong actually, fully taught, not as you imagine he taught or as he taught in only those articles that (you believe) support your position: Prove it from the Bible.
    • As I said before, if whether or not Dan. 11:40 has an additional antitype fulfillment coming and whether or not the incredible abundance of Laodicean attitudes means that the Laodicean era may be already upon us are the two “flagship” questions of those who worry that we are somehow “drifting” from Mr. Armstrong, then we are in great shape! I know of no other organized group or even loosely associated individuals who are as wonderfully “in line” with Mr. Armstrong’s teachings and his vision and purpose for the Church—which is also God’s vision and purpose for the Church—as the Living Church of God is. Your comments and references simply don’t make a dent in that conclusion, though you are certainly free to disagree.

    I know this has been a long response, TJTruthSeeker, but I wanted to be as thorough as my time would allow. Actually, given the ugly hour I see on the clock in front of me, I’ve given it more time than my time would allow. 🙂 My brain is going fuzzy at this point and I must get some sleep.

    I want no more marathon comments and will approve none (that includes from me, too)—Proverbs 20:3 applies to both of us. You’ve made your case, and I’ve made mine. If these responses aren’t sufficient to answer your questions, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I trust that you are daily praying that God will correct you in whatever way you need, as are we, and He who has the power to do so also has the will to do so (Heb. 12:6). I will actively pray that God will help me to see that you are right if you, indeed, are. If you will do the same, then I don’t think we can ask for much more than that of each other.

  32. John Wheeler (Johanan Rakkav)

    At the risk of shedding more heat than light on this whole series of conversations: it’s good to remember that we don’t even treat the received texts of the Bible as infallible and inerrant. That’s something we say is true only for the original, inspired manuscripts.

    Thanks to the Church’s needs and my own interests (and a happy wedding between the two), one of the many things I study is the “reading tradition” of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and as much as I can cram in, that of the Greek New Testament (admittedly I know biblical Hebrew far better than either biblical Aramaic or NT Greek). I am deeply impressed by two things about the Masoretic Text as “fixed” in the best printed editions: 1) how accurate it is objectively speaking; 2) how accurate it is from another angle: considering the variant readings that show how the Hebrew Bible was preserves despite the Jews and others, if necessary (cf. Romans 3:1ff).

    In like manner I’ve gained deep respect for the writings and other media produced by Mr. Armstrong, and indeed by those that he taught, living and dead, who remained faithful. But are those productions infallible and inerrant? No indeed! One of the most important things I do for some of the Living Church of God’s senior ministers – by their good grace and God’s favor, seeing I’m not a minister at all – is to help clear up places where Mr. Armstrong and others did make mistakes, both by commission and omission, both concerning the Bible and other kinds of human knowledge. Such mistakes do exist! But consistently, clearing them up has always brought the essential truth that Mr. Armstrong found in the Bible greater self-consistently and completeness, not less. What more could one ask of a mortal, fallible human being like Mr. Armstrong in God’s service who wasn’t used to write inspired Scripture, but rather good to outstanding and even to unique explanations overall of inspired Scripture? 😀

  33. John from Australia

    Hi from ‘down-under’

    It appears from “The Middle East in Prophecy” booklet, © 1948, 1954, 1972, that Menelik fulfilled 11:40a, Mussolini 11:40b and “another leader to arise in Europe” will fulfill 11:41ff.

    The problem appears to me as a misunderstanding of type-antitype telescopic prophecy.

    Probably the best known example of this genre is the Olivet prophecy where the type is the destruction of the Temple in the first-century and the antitype is the future destruction of the Temple in the twenty-first century, of this era.

    The prophecy is not concerned with what happens between the times of these two events; it could even be argued that the prophecy is not concerned with the type and that it describes the far-future fulfillment and the type is to be understood from it.

    In type-antitype telescopic prophecy it may address the near-future fulfillment and then ‘jump” to the far-future fulfillment, as in Daniel 11.

    In Daniel 11 the account arrives at the ‘type’ – Antiochus Epiphanes at 11:21 and then jumps to the ‘antitype’ at 11:36, and it and the following verses describe the far-future fulfillment.

    To have other material between Antiochus and the Beast takes away from the close prophetic connection between the type and antitype that Daniel is making.

    An objection would be 11:40 where it could be argued that “at the time of the end” begins the far-future fulfillment.

    But it is suggested that this is typical Hebraic restatement.

    A good of example of this is from Daniel’s contemporary Ezekiel where Eze 39:1-8 is essential a restatement of 38:1-23 with some expansion; cp also Revelation 20:11-15.

    I would not say that “The actions of Mussolini in Ethiopia are absolutely a fulfillment of Dan. 11:40”. I am not forgetting the context from which it is taken.

    I would say that Dan 11:40 is the antitype and that Mussolini provided an example of an intermediate type.

    The ‘intermediate’ types between the near and far future fulfillments helps to provide possible scenario’s on how the latter may play out.

    Seeing that you prefer not to have quotes from commentaries and encyclopaedias, I have taken the liberty to assume you mean ‘religious’ ones, and have provided a couple of ‘secular’ quotes to provide an illustration of the point in the above sentence, from one of my favourite intermediate types :

    From the time of Frederick I:

    “The Western world was waiting, with bated breath, till an Emperor of the West should make his entry into Jerusalem. Ever new prophecies hinged on the great event: he who rides into Jerusalem as King will bring the long-awaited Reign of Peace before the Antichrist shall come” (Ernest Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second 1194-1250, p.167).

    Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor 1220-1250, was “a man described by his contemporaries as ‘the terror of the earth’, the wonder-working transformer” (Friedrich Heer, The Medieval World: Europe 1100-1350, p.267). “The emperor was branded as the precursor of the anti-Christ” (EBritannica, Frederick II) by the papacy after his excommunication in 1245.

    Frederick led a small force to the Holy Land. “He negotiated with the Muslims to obtain a kingdom comprising Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth and the adjoining littoral” (Heer, page 82). “It was certainly the impact of Frederick’s personality on the Arab world, and not armed might, that made this treaty possible” (EBritannica, Frederick the Great). He “amazed his Arab friends by declaring Jerusalem a city of three religions, Jewish, Muslim and Christian. Under the peace he concluded…with the Sultan al-Malik-al-Kamil in 1229, the Holy Place of the city was divided between the two faiths: the Christians had the Holy Sepulchre, the Muslims the mosque of Omar, and both sections were kept open to pilgrims” (Friedrich Heer, The Medieval World: Europe 1100-1350, p.112). The peace treaty involved a ten year truce (cp. Daniel 9:27a). He also “crowned himself king of Jerusalem with the Davidic crown” (Heer, Holy Roman Empire, p.82).

    “Eschatological prophecies concerning his rule were now made, and the Emperor considered himself to be a new messiah, a new David. His entry into Jerusalem was compared with that of Christ on Palm Sunday, and indeed, in a manifesto the emperor, too, compared himself to Christ” (EBritannica, Frederick II).

    Also you say that “Antiochus Epiphanes’ fulfillment was a type before the coming antitype”; based on that argument I would say that 11:44 is more applicable to the beginning of the tribulation than two-thirds into it.

    Regards John

  34. Donald Raymond Wheatley

    Having sensed the power vacuum in the Worldwide Church of God and what I could see was the inevitable collapse of all church government and having God directly answer my prayer concerning the presence of heresy in their teachings, I left right after the Feast in 1992.

    I prayed to God to not slay me for no longer attending services because I feared for my life since Mr. Armstrong had warned us not to turn away from the Church and try to make it on our own. But I had no other option. These doctrines were wrong. God was not with these men. I left.

    I began reading all of Mr. Armstrong’s literature and have kept reading it every day since. God preserved all of Mr. Armstrong’s writings and sermons so we could all hold fast to what he taught.

    He preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and I still support his preaching and all his literature even after being ridiculed by my former ministers and former fellow members. My life will end soon unless Christ comes back. But my unyieldedness will hopefully be remembered forever by God and Christ….

    A stauch supporter of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and member of the WCG from 1981 to 1992…. I have never been a member of another group since and do not intend to…

  35. Thank you, Mr. Wheatley, for your comments, and I’m glad that you believe you’ve remained faithful. Of course, Mr. Armstrong believed that a coordinated, global Work to go to the entire world would not cease until a few days before the tribulation. If you value what he said as much as you say you do, perhaps you should consider looking for it and being a part of it. (I’ll reserve other comments for your other response on a different post. Feel free to read them there.)

  36. Saturday, September 15, 2012

    Mr. Alexander Simon: Issue Recepienton PM 40034253 Trade of Postal #281/1/5 Delivery xx309 (M)!

    On Friday here at the Sir William Place Apartment Block C where I reside; ‘Tomorrow’s World Magazine carefully place a high glossy edition of the September – October pressing on a topic “How Would Jesus Vote for President?’

    The President of this conversably inspiration is Mr. Roderck C. Meridith; and feel does not allow any communist like to read his Authority! As, a Holy Baptized and Holy Confirmed man proven by the Father John Hamor Registered in The Vatican by the Official Seal of The Pope; I was Holy Baptized on September 4, 1961! For more reputable truth; I met the man a Father Matthias Lugowski; and still as I know resides there by calling [phone number redacted for privacy — WGS]. Earlier as a virgin Catholic; I with my loving mother I miss and love died last June 10th, 2012; was Holy Confirmed by the appointed again in Milan, Italy and Registered by The Pope; The Archbishop Jordan on June 6th, 1971! Both are Military #1 Articles proving my Excellence. I have a photography of exemplary and Roman Proud suit with a crimson blue serious look; for confirmation; kindly contact Father Frank Stemple [phone number redacted for privacy — WGS] guarding Saint Patrick’s !! In same; Reputation; I am a Catholic celibate father; and met my only Catholic wife Janet Ellen; and we Wed in Holy Matrimony! If, found; a also caring Father Michail C, Toner; signed Our Certificate of Marriage at Saint James; and the No. 4014; is Registered with The Pontiff!

    I am a Full Roman Catholic man with Honored Education!! My Blood line is 90% German, Berlin + 10% English, London!!

    Throughout my Life; (always) People wanted me to ‘assemble;’!!

    I always refused!

    Here, is My Catholic Interpretation: Firstly, and olde American Adage set by The Congress of former Mr. President Abraham Lincoln and firstly same in Congress President George Washington; vetoed by Appellate Politics and religion will NEVER MIX!!

    The President-At-Arms!!
    In, every Card Union Holding President is the Union of State-to-State to wage War and protect the Democracy of American land!! With days moving the one President un bigoted too; Lincoln successfully led his country through its greatest constitutional, military and moral crisis – the American Civil War – preserving the Union; of America!! (Sited; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Presidency). Mr. Lincoln never attended any ministry and absolved all religion! In your Article Mr. Meredith; your argument is this mix of religion entering and leading Democratic freedom!! Example; if any value as a real American and not a communist ‘draft dodger;’ praying for a Jesuit the Christopher who competed with communist druid lead to Pentecostals is a Gallup and Americans only believe and not know in their founding Fathers; as stated; why announce the current President of US; Mr. Obama Barrack; as a Card caring Muslim of Lebanon? This, President and do call for my Catholic name I defended locally, here!!
    The Race for Socialism then to Individualism?
    Mr. Meridith; why is a crucified competitor to the druids in Jerusalem of interest to real clean Americans? According to your well blazing Magazine; Jesus who never was Birth Certified and I Holy Baptized and Holy Confirmed Roman Catholic Registered with Italy or Rome; as is the King One Augustus Caesar; (and on page 5); “The Christ will return to the earth in majestic glory as the literal King of kings over the entire earth!” This demonism!! If, In England a Jesus was the King? Where in any Bigoted Bible is is written? Let’s look real deep into the King of England first!!

    The Holy and Baptised Book of King James The First!!
    In, 1201 Anum Domini; a Ray of Roman Catholic light burned for London, England and won British Cathedral!! (No Jesus arrived)! Scot of Land; were at War; again (No Jesus arrived)! In, a training; and to be Holy Confirmed at the age of 11; swords were drawn!! (And no Christ arrived)! From the Blood of Purple; and King One of England; two men King and Prince; dueled with not ending; and later entered … any demon and kill for Briton!! The Right was the Royal Order of Purple and Gold holding and raising the very first Flag for Roman London!!

    The Myth and Mure!!
    The term God is reversed as Dog!! If you celebrate a dog; what is a horse that fought Calvary for America; as lemon? Or, a real German Sheppard that fought war too; a little worm!?? Christ the devil associated was properly dealt with for treason and some of you writing this yellow journalism may be parting too!! How can a evil coward return in any term to save your draft dodging? The Heroes never not waged War!! To be meek is venereal disease!! To be a German Man as the Supreme Herr Adolph Hitler is Nationalism!!

    The New National Order!!
    Germany is not a social disease of religion – Germany is distinction of fools who carry the cross and die with V.D.! Proof; is why when in early of the NAZI Regime; and in early 1921; in Berlin; 90% of fools in religion all homosexual; and found out pedophile; all from organized communist and in religion for oating Jesus; a early Hebrew; found with disease and was properly convicted of pedophile; brushed for support by some pocket of People who can adide?

    My Roman Catholic words are pure and be ashamed of losing care for Democracy!!
    Politics is in the hands of Greeks too who stated with one of the greatest Mathematicians in the World Plato!!
    “The Province is in War; and the Athens is movement; if Greece as Nation lowers to a religue; and all fools parry for lower stain; Greece will open the Demo of Cracy ( Day of Care); and hold all tarry to pay (we, not the demon devil)!

    Plato’s son Aristotle wrote too: To fight for freedom; and die as a hero; is better than to die as coward!!


  37. Mr. Alexander: Howdy! My apologies, but much of your post simply doesn’t make sense. I gather that English may not be your first language, though I can’t tell. Regardless, I apologize that I can’t fully understand what it is that you are trying to say.

    It seems that you don’t agree with our stand on some things, to which all I can say in response is that our stand is biblical, and if you disagree you would need to show me in Scripture where we disagree with God. Citing the credentials of various priests (while they may be good men, I don’t know) is irrelevant and says nothing of the standing of those men or you (or me, for that matter) to me with God. Being “registered by the pope” doesn’t exactly impress, either. If you’d like to understand why, you might check out our free booklet Who or What is the Antichrist.

    Also, you will notice that I edited out those individuals’ phone numbers for their privacy. I hope you don’t mind; the numbers seemed unnecessary for your point.

  38. Mr. Armstrong preached the truth from the day God called him till 1974 those are the truth any who wants to inherit eternal life should believe,Many people claim to follow his teaching but they are wrong like keeping Sun-day Pentecost,divorce and remarriage,make ups,and others,i dont know what he will say to all these pastors who are misleading the flock to believe lie.
    May God open their eyes to see and they may go back to the former truth..

  39. Thanks for your comment, Isaya Owak, but those who recognized, like Mr. Armstrong did, in the 70s that the Bible taught differently on those matters fit the description of “following his teachings” far better than do those who arbitrarily decided that they would canonize their current beliefs instead of continuing to follow where the Bible leads.

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.