JESUS' TEACHING ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT

From  the “February 1939 Herbert W Armstrong Good News Magazine”


JESUS’ TEACHING ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT

There is not one single HINT in the New Testament of any Church BOARD with authority to rule, to govern, to decide doctrine, or to handle tithes and church finances (the whole church). In the later number we shall devote an article to explaining Acts 15, which certainly sets no such example. Jesus never organized, or re-organized His church! There is NO SCRIPTURE for it! All authority and power to rule is limited solely to each LOCAL congregation. But there is NO BIBLE AUTHORITY for any super-government, or organization with authority over the local congregations! The plain teaching of Jesus is JUST THE CONTRARY! Listen!”Jesus called them unto Him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to RULE over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise AUTHORITY
upon them, But so shall it NOT be among you.” (Mark 10:42). The AUTHORITY—the GOVERNMENT—the RULERSHIP—was turned over to the Gentiles for 2520 years—until Christ RESTORES the kingdom at His Second Coming!

WHERE CHURCH GOVERNMENT ORIGINATED

How then, did ORGANIZATION, and the idea of CHURCH GOVERNMENT get into the Church? It came out of BABYLON! Spiritual BABYLON—that is, ROME!
The same as nearly all other false doctrines of Satan. In the early 4th Century, Constantine, the Emperor, who officially started SUNDAY observance in the Western World, saw his Empire in danger of disintegrating. At the time a great controversy was raging among the leaders of Christianity, over Dr. Arius’ doctrine concerning the origin of Christ, as opposed to the Trinity doctrine. We quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, (article ARIUS):”This controversy over Arius’ doctrine reached even the ears of Constantine. Now sole Emperor, he saw in the one catholic church the best means of counteracting the movement in his vast empire toward disintegration, and he at once realized how dangerous dogmatic strife might be to its unity. Constantine had no understanding of the questions at issue . . . He summoned a
general council (the Nicene Council). …It was finally decided against Arius. …Constantine accepted the decision of the council, and resolved to uphold it.”
Thus it was CONSTANTINE—the “BEAST”—who injected and introduced into the church the idea of a BOARD to decide doctrine, and to rule.
Thus it was that CONSTANTINE made doctrine, as decided by a higher-up BOARD, the basis of fellowship and unity in the Church! Jesus never said “By this shall all men KNOW that ye are my disciples—if ye all speak the same thing the BOARD OF THE TWELVE vote on.” That is the policy of some today—but it is NOT BIBLE POLICY! Jesus said we should be known to be in the true Church IF WE HAVE LOVE one to another! And doctrine has only brought STRIFE! In the next century, came the PAPACY in full bloom, starting the idea that the CHURCH is an ORGANIZATION having CHURCH GOVERNMENT!
Listen to authentic history! In the Encyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 7, page 629, we read:”The first pope, in the real sense of the word, was Leo I. (440-461 A.D.)” To him the plan of government of the Roman Empire was an obsession. He applied and adapted that form of government to the church, forming the PAPACY. Myers Ancient History, says: The Church (under Leo I,) set up “within the Roman Empire, an ecclesiastical STATE (government) which, in its constitution and its administrative system, was shaping itself upon the IMPERIAL MODEL.”

Truly, a

n IMAGE OF THE BEAST!

Thus was CHURCH GOVERNMENT introduced into the Western world a century after Constantine (the “BEAST”) injected the idea of church BOARDS to decide what doctrines the rest of the church must believe. And thus the very PRINCIPLE of CHURCH GOVERNMENT becomes THE IMAGE TO THE BEAST! The whole thing is FALSE! It is NOT ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE! It is part of BABYLON! Those who are IN, and MEMBERS of such an organized church government, submitting to doctrines declared by unscriptural boards as a fellowship test, are IN BABYLON, and actually worshippers of THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST! And God is calling us, HIS people OUT of BABYLON today, before it is too late—before the PLAGUES fall! Brethren, let us have the courage to accept the TRUTH, and to COME OUT!


The above is a far cry to what the old hypocrite did after he organized the Radio Church of God, and then Worldwide. If Flurry, Meredith, Pack or any other cog clown is to follow Herbie, it seems they themselves are worshippers of THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST!


11 Replies to “JESUS' TEACHING ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT”

  1. Considering the perspective of that era in time, HWA probably was writing it against COG-7, since his leaving that organization was very recent history. In fact, that was probably his idea of a subtle defense against imaginary attacks which he probably thought were being made against him in their congregations.

    He always invoked Babylon and paganism in making his constructs, but aside from that, I think he wrote a fairly spiritually sound article there. It was much more sound than his later concepts of government (which, of course, he attributed to God)

    BB

  2. Bob,

    Your a bible believer, and you know that the biblical Satan can use others for his purpose. Playing the devil’s advocate, is this not what Herbie was really influenced by? Satan? And he said God was behind him, even when he flipped flopped his position that could further his position of power over the hard labor of others. This mind of Satan was the same mind of Herbert Armstrong, the false prophet of doom!

  3. James,

    This is what I believe about HWA in my heart of hearts. I think he had the personality type of a budding captain of industry as the depression hit. Being a natural salesman, and having no tangible resources, I believe he took what Mrs. Runcorn had shared with Loma, and began to apply his resources to selling that after making a six month superficial investigation at his local library. He was effective, but not able to work under the authority of others, so privatized and expanded the territory he had been given. The time during which he claims to have had “God’s” truth (unpreached for the previous 2,000 years) revealed to him coincides with the time during which the incest with his daughter appears to have occurred. I do not believe that God sets someone apart as being special who is regularly practicing such flagrantly diabolical sin.
    It was not God who revealed such a toxic, self-serving and exploitative gospel to HWA, and inspired him to make the many false prophecies which co-opted and devastated so many lives. Only Satan would inspire such a person to indulge in producing horrible, bogus, and bad fruit.

    Loma kept ol’Herbie in line, and fostered within him a sense of credibility. Once he allowed his own doctrines to prematurely kill her, he totally lost his compass and his conscience. People saw this unfold, and wondered about it, but disciplined themselves to believe that it was their own attitudes which came from the enemy. This is the way in which they continued to believe HWA was God’s apostle, in spite of what their God-given logical minds screamed out in protest and response.

    BB

    1. BB,

      How can you say that Loma was anything other than complicit in a complete fraud? She was living in a rent-to-own mansion that was being paid for by innocent and naive people who thought they were contributing to a ‘cultural college’ that didn’t even exist. They claim to have never missed a payment on their Pasadena mansions… no such luck for the early employees.

      Ever notice how in Deuteronomy the priests just happen to get homes and free meals (with the finest ‘unblemished’ ingredients) as a convenient side-effect of their rules? That was an idea from the ‘creator of the universe’ right?… not something that a con-artist from the ancient near east made up… of course not.

      If you believe in the bible then you believe in King David. A disgusting bloodthirsty piece of shit that only the most cognitively distorted could admire.

      Did it ever occur to you that you could be perpetuating harmful ideas from harmful people?

  4. Herbiue told everyone in his autobiography that he had these weaknesses. Most everything we see about him today, with the eception of sex with his daughter, he admitted to. It was easy enough for him to gradually be swayed to a doctrin e of power and wealth as “God’s apostle”, especially when other men began to profit from his influence.

    Howe ver, eve n in this strange way, he was doing God’s will, because he made us focus on “God’s law” and its keeping, but that very act would only create greater division and splintering, as Jesus poi nted out in Matthew 10:34-38, and as Paul stated in Romans 8:7. “Fringe” religions spring up in God’s name because truth is elusive. The various COGs will accelerate the process. The article above is truth. Whatever the reason for writing it, it is true.

  5. Ralph,

    I see where your coming from. Your articles showed if there is a god (and you believe so) Jesus would have wanted man to follow as a lone ranger using the conscious of the individual as the deciding factor instead of a man appointed/anointed leader. No ropes to bind the humans into a sect or cult that separates them from their God with useless rules and regulations.

  6. Hwerb’s article above also takes me to concepts of law in England when the US became a government. English common law rejected catholic “civil” law and did not recognize its authority. Blackstone’s language in many ways parallel Herb’s statements regarding the “beast”. In earlier times, the religious idea of freedom not o nly rejected the catholic influence, but the entire influence of civil Roman law. In fact, the constitution itself is recognized as a “civil’ constitution, meaning that it cannot override common law decisions by jury(see 7th amendment). “Due process” was equivalent to commo n law as originally understod, and belionged within the jurisdiction of state authority, as recognized by Chief Justice Marshall of SCOTUS.

  7. I should point out that Marshall’s decision in the above was “Barron v Baltimore”. Until the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government. If we assume that it was intended for a national constitution to trump a federal co nstitution of states, it would have to be concluded that:
    1.the states could ignore the Bill of Rights(due process, common law) if it suited them, but were bound to remain within the overall national government
    2.The states could ignore the Bill of Rights(due process, common law), but citizens coud move to states that recognized the Bill of Rights.

    Sin ce, in “Barron” it was understood that the Bill of Rights was a restrictio n only on the federal government, we can easily realize that every reference to due process u ntil the 14th amendment meant that common law could NOT be exercised by SCOTUS,as the 7th amendment points out.

    I point this out because Herb’s i nterpretation of the catholic, Ro man, civil “beast” was also the general understandi ng of those who came here in rebellion to the English King/religion as well as the catholic civil religion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
14 + 10 =


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