Church of God News

COGwriter

Back in the old Radio Church of God (which became the old Worldwide Church of God) was an article by David Jon Hill that had the following:

Will YOU be Deceived by ANTICHRIST?

Events are plunging toward the eventful climax of Christ’s return. Will you recognize the REAL CHRIST when he returns?
by David Jon Hill

Is THE pope ignorant of the plain Bible statements that label him “the Antichrist”? What deception will Satan use to keep the world from realizing the pope’s true identity?…

God Permits Evil

God COMMANDS obedience and righteousness, but He PERMITS EVIL! Jesus’ reference to Judas is applicable in principle to today’s fast-moving prophetic events. “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; BUT WOE TO THAT MAN BY WHOM THE OFFENCE COMETH !” (Matt. 18:7).

The human instruments Satan the Devil is preparing to serve him are aware of what God’s Word says regarding the returning Christ and the Antichrist who is to oppose Him! They know enough prophecy to perform their abominable deeds with knowledge and vigor. They know, and have known historically, enough prophecy to prepare a perverted prophecy to deny the true prophetic warning broadcast by The WORLD TOMORROW!

Catholic Interest in Prophecy

God declares that the endtime pope will be a false prophet, yet the pope has never declared himself to be a prophet. When will he deceive the world into thinking that he foresees future events? What events will he foretell? How will these prophecies affect you? How can you keep from being deceived?

A recently published book reveals a startling Catholic interest in endtime prophecy. This book, together with tradition and the writings of some of the “early church Fathers,” brings to light an eye-opening preview of the false prophecies that are about to be preached!

Satan knows God’s general Plan. He has been at work in the minds of evil and deluded men throughout the ages to lay the groundwork of the GREAT DELUSION ! Though the vials of the wrath of God are poured out on sinful men, their impenitence remains–“AND THEY REPENTED NOT” (Rev. 16:9). They will flee from Christ–even calling for rocks to fall on them, hiding out in caves–RUNNING AWAY FROM GOD!

WHY?

Because …THAT MAN WILL TELL THE WORLD THE BIGGEST LIE EVER TOLD! Into the ears of those who do not have a love of the truth he will pour the LIE that our returning King, Jesus Christ, is the ANTICHRIST! And they will believe him because God will have sent them a “strong delusion, that they should believe a LIE!” (II Thes. 2:3-11).

But upon what will the pope base this claim?

By its own admission, the Catholic Church bases its definition of the articles of faith on its own interpretation of the Scriptures AND TRADITIONS as explained in the writings of the early church “Fathers”! “And then it was approved by all, that the traditions should be received as of equal authority with the Scriptures” (History of the Council of Trent, page 145).

Any attempt to dispute their interpretation by use of plain Scripture is greeted, as it was at the time of this declaration, with the cry of “HERETIC” and branded as “Anathema”! “. . . the holy Scripture cannot be expounded against the sense held by the holy Mother the Church, nor against the common consent of the Fathers” (History of the Council of Trent, page 152).

Catholic Definition of Antichrist

Here now, for the professed prophecies in the Catholic Church’s recently published book, Prophecy for Today:

“Towards the end of the world Antichrist will overthrow the Pope and usurp his See”! (“Prophecy” of Abbott “Merlin” Joachim, died 1202; see also Catholic Encyclopedia, article “Antichrist.”) Because they will not admit the truth, the Church believes the Antichrist will be the one to unseat the pope, while every Bible prophecy commissions the true Christ with that job.

“Antichrist will fight a successful battle at Mageddo [Armageddon) in Palestine after which. . . he will hereafter become lord of the world’ (Ibid; Anna Catarina Emmerick, d. 1824). It is almost impossible to see how they could believe this! But there it is! And here is more! “The Kings will send armies to the Holy Land, but the Antichrist will slay them all”! (Ibid.; “Venerable Maria of Agreda.” d. 1665.) Compare this with Revelation 19:19.

But to continue. “Antichrist and his army will conquer Rome, kill the Pope and take the throne. . . The Jews will come from everywhere, and accept Antichrist as the Messiah.” (Ibid.; from a “prophecy” by Venerable Bartholomew Holthauser, d. 1658.)

Just one more quote to illustrate their satanic definition: “After the destruction of Rome, Antichrist will appear and exalt himself above pagan deities and the Trinity. . . Coming to Jerusalem, he will succeed through false preaching, miracles, gifts, terror, aided throughout by the devil. An evil spirit will come out of the air and descend upon his followers. He shall feign a resurrection from the dead, cause rain to fall. . . and perform other wonders, all through the power of the devil. . . . The Jews will welcome him.” (Ibid.; Richard Rolle of Hampole, d. 1349.)

Compare With Your Bible

Hippolytus is one of the “early church Fathers” upon which the Catholic Church depends for inspiration and dogma. Get your Bible, and compare the plain statements of Scripture, the Word and authority of Almighty God, with the blasphemous prophecies made by Hippolytus about the year 170 A. D. Satan very cleverly inspired this early writer to pen these prophecies just a hundred years after the True Church of God had to flee to Pella. Since that time there have been scattered prophecies by many important men and women in the Catholic Church on this subject of greatest importance-even up to as recently as 100 years ago.

Hippolytus begins by saying, “Believe not the enemy who is to come and be seen; for he is an adversary and corrupter and son of perdition, and deceives you; and for this reason he will kill you, and smite them with the sword” (Ante-Nicene Fathers; Hippolytus, section XXIX).

GOD’S Word says, “Behold, he {Jesus Christ) cometh with clouds; and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM . . , and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him” (Rev. 1:7).

“And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God” (Rev. 19:15).

Hippolytus goes on to say: “. . . at that time the whole earth will bewail the life of anguish, and the sea and air in like manner will bewail it; and the sun, too, will wail; and the wild beasts, together with the fowls, will wail; mountains and hills, and the trees of the plain, will wail on account of the race of man, because all have turned aside from the Holy God, and obeyed the deceiver, and received the mark of that abominable one, the enemy of God, INSTEAD OF THE QUICKENING CROSS OF THE SAVIOR” (Ibid.; section XXXIII).

God’s clear revelation shows that the time when the families of all the earth are going to bewail for anguish is the time of Christ’s return. “And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise anymore: the merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones. . . fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and SLAVES, and SOULS OF MEN. . . . The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, WEEPING AND WAILING!” (Rev. 18:11-15).

Hippolytus: “And in the presence of all he exhibits himself as taken up into heaven with TRUMPETS and SOUNDS, and the MIGHTY SHOUTING of those who hail him with INDESCRIBABLE HYMNS; the heir of darkness himself shining like light, and at one time soaring to the heavens, and at another descending to the earth with great glory, and again charging the demons, like angels, to execute his behests with much fear and trembling. For he will show forth his demons brilliant like angels, and he will bring in hosts of the incorporeal without number” (Section XXXIII).

The Holy Spirit through the revelation of YOUR BIBLE says: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a SHOUT, with the VOICE OF THE ARCHANGEL, and with the TRUMP OF GOD: and the DEAD IN CHRIST SHALL RISE first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to MEET the Lord in the air”! (I Thes. 4 : 16-17.)

As for Hippolytus’ “demons brilliant like angels,” Daniel tells us that the resurrected and changed saints “shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars (angels) for ever and ever!” (Dan. 12:3). See also 1 Corinthians 15:50-53).

And the “indescribable hymns”– “And they sung as it were a new song before the throne.. .and NO MAN COULD LEARN THAT SONG but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were REDEEMED from the earth . . . the FIRSTFRUITS unto God and to the Lamb!” (Rev. 14:3-4).

More From Hippolytus

“Then that abominable one [if this is not blasphemy against the very God of Heaven, what is?] will send his commands throughout every government by the hand at once of demons and of visible men, who shall say, ‘A mighty king has arisen upon the earth; come ye all to WORSHIP him; come ye all to see the strength of his kingdom: for, behold, he will give you corn; and he will bestow upon you wine, and great riches, and lofty honours. For the COMMAND. Come ye all to him”’ (Ibid., section XXXVII).

Revelation 14:6-7: “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and WORSHIP him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters [and therefore the whole EARTH AND SEA OBEYS HIS COMMAND].”

When these false “prophecies” are read from pulpits into the ears of gullible people and they begin to see God’s intervention come to pass, THEY WHOLE EARTH AND SEA OBEYS HIS WILL BELIEVE THE ONLY MEANING THEY HAVE EVER LEARNED ABOUT THESE SIGNS AND WONDERS, AND BE CONVINCED THAT THE GLORIOUS CHRIST RETURNING IN TRIUMPH IS IN TRUTH THE ANTICHRIST!

A more modern prophetess of the Catholic Church has this to say about this time of preaching: “Whole nations will join the Church shortly before the reign of the Antichrist. These conversions will be amazing. Those who shall survive shall have to conduct themselves well. There shall be innumerable conversions of heretics, who will return to the bosom of the Church” (Prophecy For Today; from Anna Maria Taigi, d. 1837).

These false doctrines and false prophecies are going to be preached with ALL DECEIVABLENESS, and are truly going to deceive ALL THE WORLD. You and I, when we enter God’s Kingdom at His return, are going to have to coiiviiice these people of the TRUTH.

Being Gods Born Sons Not an Easy Job!

The whole world will be up in arms AGAINST Christ. The chaos from years of pestilence and plague, the devastation of hydrogen and nuclear wars of cosmoscide will have to be CLEANED UP. Complete anarchy will take over in all the countries of the world as the earthly governments collapse; order will have to be restored. This cannot be done overnight.

It will take painstaking effort, even after the complete co-operation or the population of the earth is gained! Human nature will resist the Government of God to the bitter end!

It’s not going to be easy to convince these hysterically frightened, demoniacally deceived, pitifully desperate human beings! This last generation, sinful as it is, will need the full compassion and mercy you will be able to give as God’s Sons. You will need every ounce of spiritual power and wisdom God will give you to perform the JOB of rehabilitating millions of crazed, completely deceived men left on this earth.

They will be gaunt, wild-eyed! They will have seen more horrible things happen in their lifetime than all the pages of history have yet recorded.

Driven in stark, raving FEAR AND OPEN TERROR from their homes, they will seek to hide from the newest and most overawing manifestation of world-shaking POWER that they have yet seen–the only thought in their tortured minds will be that HERE IS YET ANOTHER ENEMY IN THIS SICK…TORN EARTH . . . HIDE, HIDE, HIDE ! ! !

HIPPOLYTUS agrees with what will happen, but he calls the one who causes it to happen the ANTICHRIST and not the TRUE CHRIST! “Then will he send the cohorts of the demons among MOUNTAINS AND CAVES AND DENS OF THE EARTH, to track out those who have been concealed from his eyes, and to bring them forward to worship him” (Ibid., section XXIX).

The Bible tells us from whom men will hide in the rocks, “And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev. 6:15-16).

You, as a born son of God, may have to be one of those who is sent out to track down these frightened people. You may have to counsel with them and assure them that the true living God has returned to the earth and that there will be peace from that time forward.

Remarkable Prophecy

Here is another false prophecy from Hippolytus.

“And by reason of the SCARCITY OF FOOD, all will go to him and worship him; and he will put his mark on their right hand and on their forehead, h a t no one may put the sign of the honorable cross upon his forehead with his right hand; but his hand is bound” (Ibid., section XXVIII).

Now turn to the book of Zechariah in your Bible, and read what the Lrue, triumphant, returning Christ will do to the nations of this earth in order to get them to worship Him. “And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles” (Zech. 14:16-19).

The Eternal God, at His return, is going to cause the nations of this earth to recognize Him as Ruler and to worship Him through the means of controlling the weather, causing drought and famine-SCARCITY OF FOOD-until ALL NATIONS COME UP TO KEEP THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES!

Yesterday was the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles.  Those who do not keep it are more likely to be deceived than those who do keep it.

While the illustration above is not how the final Antichrist will look (Satan’s ministers try to appear as angels of light per 2 Corinthians 11:13-15), the reality is that he will (at least initially) likely profess some type of triune deity (so, for that reason, I thought showing someone demonic appearing with a trident was of interest).  And this seems to be consistent with both biblical and Catholic prophecy.

Christians are not to be ignorant of Satan’s devices (2 Corinthians 2:11) and dealing with false prophecies has long been something that God’s faithful leaders have had to do (cf. 1 Kings 18).

I would add that while certain Catholic prophecies suggest that the Antichrist will be a pope, that others misidentify that Antichrist and several of those are in this article by David Jon Hill.

COGwriter

In his booklet, The Seven Laws of Success, the late Herbert W. Armstrong wrote the following related to the fifth law of success:

Law Number 5—for Emergencies

One might suppose that if he had a goal—and with it the ambition to achieve his purpose—if he then became trained, educated, and experienced in pursuing it, kept in good health, and constantly drove himself relentlessly toward his objective, that he would be bound to accomplish it.

Important as these four laws are, they are not enough.

Life constantly encounters hazards, obstacles, unexpected problems or setbacks. You may be proceeding along right on schedule, when BANG!—out of nowhere comes an unexpected complication. Some sudden circumstance arises which seems to stop you completely, or at least set you back.

So, to meet these constantly arising problems, you must have:

RESOURCEFULNESS!

When complications, obstacles, unexpected circumstances appear to block your path, you must be equipped with RESOURCEFULNESS to solve the problem, overcome the obstacle, and continue on your course.

The old Slow Train Through Arkansas (I read the book years ago) encountered a cow lying across the tracks ahead. The train could not proceed toward its destination until that obstacle was removed.

When we drove the old Model “T” from Iowa to Oregon in 18 days back in 1924, we met repeated emergencies of motor troubles, flat tires or blowouts. We had to solve the difficulties by patching tires, putting “boots” in the casings, or doing our own repair work by the roadside when the motor stalled.

I learned a lesson in determination and resourcefulness on my first visit to Niagara Falls. It was on December 25th, probably 1913, with a silver thaw. I strolled out on Goat Island, which divides the river just above the falls. At one point there was a huge rock. It appeared as an impassible barrier to that rapid-flowing river, racing to its destination, down over the falls, into the rapids below and on to Lake Ontario.

I watched, intrigued. Did the rushing waters stop, quit, give up? Not on your life! I was thrilled as I watched the water swirl around the huge boulder—splash on over it, even find a hole through it, dashing, crashing, roaring on toward its goal!

The IBM people used to put out a famous card found in many offices, which says “THINK!“—and sometimes they deliberately spell it “THIMK?”

When sudden emergencies arise, then of all times you need a clear mind, calm nerves, rapid thinking, sound reasoning! You need RESOURCEFULNESS!  You need a cool head, to quickly get all the facts and make a wise decision.

Do you keep calm in emergencies, or lose your head and go to pieces? Do you think rapidly, yet clearly and logically, or do you freeze up and go dead?

To succeed, you need to cultivate the ability, and the habit, of remaining unexcited, yet leaping to action on high tension, reaching the right decision, then acting on it!

And now one would most certainly think that these five laws should be all that is required to guarantee ultimate success.

Things do not always go as planned.  Instead of giving up, Christians should pray and try to be resourceful when needed.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

What is the Meaning of Life? Who does God say is happy? What is your ultimate destiny? Do you really know? Does God actually have a plan for YOU personally?
The Seven Laws of Success Booklet by Herbert W. Armstrong that can help people become successful.

COGwriter

Reginald Killingley sent me the following:

I did not know Dr. Wainwright.  Reginald Killingley added the following related to his experience with Dr. Wainwright:

Dr. Wainwright was a good friend and a good man. A man of true character, depth, and insight, and a class act in every way. I feel privileged to have known him and will miss him greatly. I look forward to seeing him in the resurrection.

Two items of possibly related interest may include:

What Did Early Christians Understand About the Resurrection? Is there more than one future resurrection? Did early Christians teach a physical resurrection? Did early Christians teach three resurrections?
Did Early Christians Believe that Humans Possessed Immortality? What does John 3:16, and other writings, tell us? Did a doctrine kept adopted from paganism?

COGwriter

Organic foods have been in the news lately.  Here are a couple of reports:

September 10, 2012

Recently, a study conducted by Stanford University analyzed over 230 field studies and 17 human studies that had previously been conducted in the United States and Europe…

The study determined that  “consumers can markedly reduce their intake of pesticide residues and their exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria by choosing organic produce and meat.”

On the other hand, the researchers of the study did not find a significant difference in nutritional makeup between organic and conventional foods. The study lacked “strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.”

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) noted that the Stanford study “did not directly address the important environmental and public health benefits that result from reduced pesticide and antibiotic use. Synthetic pesticides can kill insect pollinators, harm wildlife and farmworkers and often end up in the air and water.”  http://madison-ct.patch.com/articles/is-eating-organic-better-9677795c

September 9, 2012

“Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce” (news article, Sept. 4) says organic meat contained considerably lower levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria than conventionally raised animals, “but bacteria, antibiotic-resistant or otherwise, would be killed during cooking.”

But if this were true, we would not have had 136 illnesses and one death from antibiotic-resistant salmonella in ground turkey last year, or an estimated tens of millions of food-borne illnesses every year.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinion/fewer-pesticides-make-organic-the-safer-choice.html

I intentionally did not report the Stanford study when it came out a few days ago for many reasons, including parts of its conclusions, as I felt addressing some of the specifics might make more sense, as some others have tried to do.  Before going further, let me state that it has been alleged that because of money Stanford gets from Monsanto, parts of the study were biased against organic foods (see a Youtube titled Stanford’s Monsanto Ties Cast Doubt on Organic Food Study).  Monsanto is a big producer of GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) in the “food” supply, as well as a variety of farm chemicals.  Essentially, via GMOs, Monsanto is big behind producing “food items” that God did not directly create.  I consider that the U.S.A. (and others) are risking famine by relying more and more on genetically-engineered “foods.”

The Organic Consumers Association lists the following ten reasons (which I have truncated here, with more information at http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_23801.cfm) why it feels that organic foods are better:

1. Organic foods are produced without the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)…

2. Organic foods are safe and pure. Organic farming prohibits the use of toxic pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones, nano-particles, and climate-destabilizing chemical fertilizers…

3. Organic foods and farming are climate-friendly…

4. Organic food certification prohibits nuclear irradiation. Consumers are justifiably alarmed about irradiating food with nuclear waste or electron beams, which destroy vitamins and nutrients and produce cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene and formaldehyde…

5. Consumers worry about rampant e-coli, salmonella, campylobacter, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and fecal contamination in animal products coming out of the nation’s inhumane and filthy slaughterhouses…

6. Consumers are concerned about billions of pounds of toxic municipal sewage sludge dumped as “fertilizer” on 140,000 of America’s chemical farms…

7. Consumers worry about the routine practice of grinding up slaughterhouse waste and feeding this offal and blood back to other animals, a practice that has given rise to a form of human mad-cow disease called CJD, often misdiagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease…

8. Consumers care about the humane treatment of animals…

9. Consumers are concerned about purchasing foods with high nutritional value…

10. Consumers care about preserving America’s family farms, world hunger, and the plight of the world’s two billion small farmers.

In the last century, prior to the introduction of GMO “foods”, the late Herbert W. Armstrong wrote:

And so man IS just what he eats. Some of the most famous physicians and surgeons have said that 90% to 95% of all sickness and disease comes from faulty diet!

Most people are in utter ignorance of the fact that it does make a difference what we eat! Most people, and the customs of society, have followed a regimen of eating whatever tastes good to the palate.

Adults are babies grown up. Observe a nine-month-old baby. Everything that comes into his hands goes to his mouth!

My youngest brother may not like to read this in print, but I remember when he was about nine months old, and had managed to creep into the basement coal bin. We found him trying to eat little chunks of coal—his mouth and face well blackened!

You may laugh at babies trying to eat silver cups and chunks of coal. Or at people who dip small mice into a sauce, and, holding them by their tails, drop them as a delicious delicacy into their mouths.

If you do, they will laugh back at you. They will tell you that mice eat clean grain and clean foods, while you dip slimy, slithery oysters and other scavenger seafoods into cocktail sauces, and consider them a delicacy!

You think adults have actually LEARNED any better than nine-month-olds babies? Go to your fancy grocer’s and you’ll find on his shelves canned eel and canned rattlesnake.

WHY? As I said, humans know nothing at birth! We have to learn! But most of us do not know that! And, again, what we don’t know, we don’t know that we don’t know! And somehow, ever since babyhood, most humans seem to have grown up putting everything into the mouth. Most have grown up eating just whatever seemed to taste good—and whatever they saw others eating. There has been little education or even study about WHAT we ought—or ought NOT—to eat.

Most degenerative diseases are modern diseases—penalties for eating foods that have been demineralized in food factories—usually an excess of starch, sugar (the carbohydrates) and fats. Others are caused by a type of malnutrition—lack of needed minerals and vitamins in foods. Then people try to put the “vitamins” back into their systems by buying pills at the drugstore!  (More on this can be found in the article HWA: Third Law of Success: Good Health.)

Here are a few scriptures about food, including animals, from the Hebrew scriptures (often called the Old Testament):

4 He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the service of man, That he may bring forth food from the earth, 15 And wine that makes glad the heart of man, Oil to make his face shine, And bread which strengthens man’s heart. (Psalms 104:14-15)

10 A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.  (Proverbs 12:10)

27 You shall have enough goats’ milk for your food, For the food of your household, And the nourishment of your maidservants. (Proverbs 27:27)

2 “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth: 3 Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud — that you may eat. 4 Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; 5 the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; 6 the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; 7 and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. 8 Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you. 9 ‘These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers — that you may eat. 10 But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. 11 They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. 12 Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales — that shall be an abomination to you. 13 ‘And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, 14 the kite, and the falcon after its kind; 15 every raven after its kind, 16 the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; 17 the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; 18 the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; 19 the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. 20 ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. 21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. 22 These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. 23 But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you. (Leviticus 11:2-23)

Basically the Bible advocates eating real food (it does not consider unclean meats to be food) and not too much of it.

While overeating and obesity are major problems in the Anglo-lands and many other nations, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of Westerners do not consume the recommended minimum of two servings of fruit and three servings of vegetables per day.   And much of the “food” is actually eaten is highly processed with a variety of chemicals that humans never used to eat. Something to think about.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

The Seven Laws of Success Booklet by Herbert W. Armstrong that can help people become successful.  And the third “law” has to do with health.
The New Testament Church and Unclean Meats Are foods considered to have been unclean in the Old Testament considered to be food in the New Testament? This article discusses this from the perspective of the New Testament. It also has a list of clean and unclean animals. It also answers the question, is pork healthy or is pork dangerous?
Spiritual Benefits of Fasting Jesus said, “But by Prayer and Fasting” and this article by Dr. Meredith focuses on fasting and provides his physical and spiritual fasting tips. Does fasting help prevent heart disease?
Obesity and Prophecy Does the Bible warn about the consequences of being obese? Is overeating dangerous?
What is the Meaning of Life? Who does God say is happy? What is your ultimate destiny? Do you really know? Does God actually have a plan for YOU personally?
The Bible: Fact or Fiction? This is a booklet written by Douglas Winnail that answers if the Bible is just a collection of myths and legends or the inspired word of God.
Read the Bible Christians should read and study the Bible. This article gives some rationale for regular bible reading.

COGwriter

In its latest newsletter, Grace Communion International (GCI, the group that took over the old WCG) had the following related to a message from J. Tkach:

Central Truth

The central biblical truth that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit actually shapes our faith and our lives as Christians.

This is essentially also the position of the Roman Catholic Church.  Notice what The Catholic Encyclopedia claims:

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion (The Blessed Trinity, 1912).

Thus, GCI seems to be even more directly pushing the RCC message.  A message that is not biblical in this case.

The drawing shown at the beginning of today’s post is used by Trinitarians to explain the Trinity, even though it clearly violates laws of logic. The Trinity does not have a biblical basis, nor was it taught by the early church.

So was the trinity a central doctrine of the New Testament?  Here is what one modern historian has written about it:

Like other doctrines that became central to the faith, however, belief in the Trinity was a historical development, not a “given” from the early years of the faith. A. The basic notion of the Trinity is that there are three persons in the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are all equally God and of the same substance, but despite the fact there are three persons, together, they compromise only one God, indivisible in nature. B. This doctrine does not appear to be a doctrine pronounced by the historical Jesus, Paul, or any other Christian writer during the first hundred years or so of Christianity. C. It cannot be found explicitly stated in the earliest Christian writings. The only passage of the New Testament that declares the doctrine (1 John 5:7-8) was not originally part of the text but was added by doctrinally astute scribes at a later date (it is not found in any Greek manuscripts until the 11th century) (Ehrman B. From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, Part 2. The Teaching Company, Chantilly (VA), 2004, p. 43).

Regarding the New Testament, even a trinitarian scholar has admitted that the Bible promotes a binitarian view, and does not teach what is now considered to be the trinity:

The binitarian formulas are found in Rom. 8:11, 2 Cor. 4:14, Gal. 1:1, Eph. 1:20, 1 Tim 1:2, 1 Pet. 1:21, and 2 John 1:13…No doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament…There is no doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense in the Apostolic Fathers…(Rusch W.G. The Trinitarian Controversy. Fortress Press, Phil., 1980, pp. 2-3).

The terms trinity, threeness, or trinitarian are not found in the Bible. The Protestant reformer Martin Luther himself taught:

It is indeed true that the name “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man. (Luther Martin. The Sermons of Martin Luther, Church Postil, 1522; III:406-421, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church admits the Church (not the Bible) had to come up with terms of “philosophical” (pagan/Greek) origin to explain it::

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance,” “person,” or “hypostasis,” “relation” and so on (Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995, p. 74).

Earliest Trinitarian History

Pagan religions sometimes had a form of a trinity of deities. This dates at least from the time of ancient Babylon:

The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god—as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity (Beck TD. The mystical woman and the cities of the nations: or, Papal Rome and her secular satellites. 1867. Original from Oxford University, Digitized Aug 15, 2006, pp. 22-23).

The Assyrians did as well:

On one cylinder of translucent green felspar, called amazon stone, winch I believe to have been the signet, or amulet, of Sennacherib himself, is engraved the king standing in an arched frame as on the rock tablets at Bavian, and at the Nahr-el-Kelb in Syria. He holds in one hand the sacrificial mace, and raises the other in the act of adoration before the winged figure in a circle, here represented as a triad with three heads…the triune god, the supreme deity of the Assyrians, and of the Persians, their successors, in the empire of the East. Of the information as to the religious system of the Assyrians… It is difficult to understand such a system of polytheism, unless we suppose that whilst there was but one supreme god, represented sometimes under a triune form (Layard AH. Discoveries in the ruins of Nineveh and Babylon: with travels in Armenia, Kurdistan and the desert : being the result of a second expedition undertaken for the trustees of the British Museum. Murray, 1853. Original from the Bavarian State Library, Digitized Oct 20, 2009, pp. 160, 637).

Sennacherib is mentioned in the Bible (2 Kings 18:13) and reigned from about 720 BC to about 683 BC. Furthermore, notice:

Mithra, who was originally subordinate to Ormuzd, and even reduced to the third place in the triad, subsequently rose practically to the first place, supplanting Ormuzd himself. Such a process, by which the mediating member of the trinity, as the special friend and savior of men, should become first and nearest in the thoughts, and affections, and hopes of men, and hence in time first in the divine order of the gods, is most natural, and we have already found it a marked feature of the historical evolution of most of the Ethnic trinities. Thus in the Babylonian triad Marduk, the mediating sun-god, usurps the place of Ea, his father. The same was true of Vishnu-Krishna in the Hindoo trinity, who, in his capacity of god- man and mediator, reduced Brahma to almost a shadow. So Mithraism pushed Ormuzd back into a place of inferiority, or rather he was quietly displaced and forgotten. The triad was practically reduced to unity in the Mithraic faith (Paine LL. The Ethnic Trinities and Their Relations to the Christian Trinity: A Chapter in the Comparative History of Religions. Kessinger Publishing, 1901 Original from the University of California, Digitized Nov 20, 2007, p. 84).

Mithraism entered the Roman Empire about a century before the crucifixion of Jesus and became influential among the emperors, including with Emperor Constantine (see also Do You Practice Mithraism?). According to Roman Catholic sources, the term trinity, in relation to the Godhead, did not come until the late second/early third century. Yet, the idea of the trinity was apparently voiced by the heretic Montanus and developed by a famous Gnostic heretic named Valentinus in the mid-2nd Century. One of the so-called Montanist Oracles, spoken by Montanus was:

“I am the Father and the Son and the Paraclete.” (Didymus, De trinitate iii. 41. 1.) (Assembled in P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste (1913), 34-105, by Bates College, Lewston (Maine) http://abacus.bates.edu/Faculty/Philosophy%20and%20Religion/rel_241/texts/montanism.html 01/31/06).

This is one of the first references to a trinitarian view of the Godhead (the other earliest one was from the heretic Valentinus–it is unclear which was first). The paraclete is a term used to signify the Holy Spirit (it is from the Greek term parakletos). Eusebius records (Eusebius. Church History, Book V, Chapters 18-19) that church leaders in Asia Minor and Antioch, such as Apollonius of Ephesus, that Serapion of Antioch, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Thraseas of Eumenia opposed the Montantist heresies (Apollinaris of Hierapolis and Thraseas of Eumenia were Quartodecimans, and Apollonius likely was as well). However, Roman Bishops would not renounce the Montantist heresy until sometime in the third century, and that after Rome accepted certain Montanus beliefs (see Montanists in The Catholic Encyclopedia)! Here is what it is recorded that a one-time Catholic bishop named Marcellus of Ancyra wrote, around the middle of the fourth century, where certain aspects of trinitarianism came from–paganism:

Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God…These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him ‘On the Three Natures’. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato (Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), ‘On the Holy Church’: Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).

Valentinus also wrote this in the heretical ‘Gospel of Truth’,

The Father uncovers his bosom, which is the Holy Spirit, revealing his secret. His secret is his Son! (Valentinus. Gospel of Truth. Verse 17. English translation by Patterson Brown).

Hence Valentinus is the earliest known professing Christian writer to make clear trinitarian claims (though he, himself, did not come up with the term trinity). It also should be noted that Valentinus was denounced by Polycarp of Asia Minor, when Polycarp visited Rome as a heretic (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 4) and is considered to have been a heretic by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, most Protestants, and those in the genuine Church of God.

Additional Trinitarian History

The position of the Roman Catholic Church is that the term ‘trinity’ (from the Latin trinitas) was developed 85 years after the last book of the Bible was written:

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together…The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180…Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (“De pud.” c. xxi) (The Blessed Trinity. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight).

But the claim regarding Theophilus, who wrote in Greek, is not accurate as “trinity” (as trinitas) is a Latin, not a Greek word. So, the first time it was used was by Tertullian (roughly 100 years after John finished penning the last book of the Bible).  And all should realize that Tertullian had left the Church of Rome near that time to follow Montanus, whose followers the Church of Rome condemned in the early third century. In the fourth century, debates on the Godhead got quite heated. So much so, that the Roman Emperor Constantine decided to appoint himself a lay bishop (even though he had not been baptized at that stage) and convene what has been called the first “ecumenical council” in Nicea in the year 325. According to historical accounts, the attendees at this council were split into three factions:

1) Arians – Supporters of the position of Dr. Arius, about 10% of the attendees. 2) In-Between – Those who held a position between the Arians and Proto-Trinitarians, about 75% of the attendees. Eusebius was the main spokesperson for them. 3) The Proto-Trinitarians – Those who supported the views of Athanasius, about 15% of the attendees.

Notice that even within the Catholic/Orthodox Council, the majority of attending bishops did not hold to the trinitarian view before the Council. No matter what one may feel about the truthfulness of the trinity, how can any say that the acceptance of this doctrine is necessary for Christians as it was not the apparent belief of the majority of church leaders in the early fourth century? Although Eusebius led the biggest group at this Council, after an impassioned speech by Athanasius, Emperor Constantine arose. And since he was the Emperor (plus he was dressed as a golden “angel”), his standing was noticed by the bulk of the attendees who correctly interpreted the Emperor as now supporting Athanasius (Emperor Constantine has familiar with a trinitarian viewpoint as he had practiced Mithraism, which had a type of triad leading it, see Do You Practice Mithraism?). And because of Athanasius’ speech and the Emperor’s approval, the bulk of the attendees decided to come up with a statement that the Arians could not support. This solved the Emperor’s concern about unity of his version of Christianity, and pretty much drove the Arians out. But even some of the strongest supporters of Athanasius’ position, such as Marcion of Ancyra, actually did not believe in the trinity as now taught (that is why this paper used the term “Proto-Trinitarians” above). Also notice that the Emperor Constantine was heavily involved:

Although Constantine is usually remembered for the steps he took toward making Christianity the established religion of the Roman Empire, it would not be wrong to consider him the one who inaugurated the centuries of trinitarian orthodoxy. It was he who proposed and perhaps even imposed the expression homoousis at the Council of Nicea in 325, and it was he who provided government aid to the orthodox and exerted government pressure against nonconformists. (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 332-333).

Thus a pagan emperor, proposed and militarily imposed, a doctrine on his own. And this did not come from the Bible into the world’s largest churches, but from a pagan (Constantine still honored the pagan sun deities after his supposed conversion to Christianity and was not even baptized into the world’s church until his death bed–and even then he insisted upon being buried in a grave dedicated to a pagan deity). However, the trinity as now taught was not completely adopted until many decades after this 325 A.D. the Council of Nicea. It was not even the necessary position of the bishops of Rome or Constantinople in the middle of the fourth century. And at least one now claimed to be Pope (Liberius) was believed to have been Semi-Arian. Notice some of what The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches:

The second Formula of Sirmium (357) stated the doctrine of the Anomoeans, or extreme Arians. Against this the Semi-Arian bishops, assembled at Ancyra, the episcopal city of their leader Basilius, issued a counter formula, asserting that the Son is in all things like the Father, afterwards approved by the Third Synod of Sirmium (358). This formula, though silent on the term “homousios“, consecrated by the Council of Nicaea, was signed by a few orthodox bishops, and probably by Pope Liberius (Benigni, Umberto. “Council of Rimini.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 11 Jul. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13057b.htm>). Pneumatomachi…The majority of this sect were clearly orthodox on the Consubstantiality of the Son; they had sent a deputation from the Semi-Arian council of Lampsacus (364 A.D.) to Pope Liberius, who after some hesitation acknowledged the soundness of their faith (Arendzen, John. Pneumatomachi. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 11 Jul. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12174a.htm>) Semiarians and Semiarianism A name frequently given to the conservative majority in the East in the fourth century…showing that the very name of father implies a son of like substance…rejected the Divinity of the Holy Ghost…(Semiarians and Semiarianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 26 May 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15058a.htm>)

So the scholars of the Church of Rome admit that the “conservative majority in the East” were not Trinitarians in the middle of the fourth century. There were also many “Semi-Arians” in the West at this time as well of course.

Notice that the Orthodox bishop of Constantinople, Macedonius, in the fourth century held to some form of Semi-Arian view:

Towards the middle of the fourth century, Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, and, after him a number of Semi-Arians, while apparently admitting the Divinity of the Word, denied that of the Holy Ghost (Forget J. Transcribed by W.S. French, Jr. Holy Ghost. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Thus, into the middle of the fourth century, the two major leaders of the Greco-Roman churches endorsed Semi-Arian, non-trinitarian positions. There were also many leaders in other major Greco-Roman churches in the century who did not accept the trinity. Here

Here is another important semi-Arian bishop according to The Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem Bishop of Jerusalem and Doctor of the Church, born about 315; died probably 18 March, 386… He appeared at the Council of Seleucia in 359, in which the Semi-Arian party was triumphant… He belonged to the Semi-Arian, or Homoean party, and is content to declare that the Son is “in all things like the Father”. (Chapman, John. St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 3 Feb. 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04595b.htm>)

The trinity was finally formally adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381–though many in the Roman and Orthodox Church believed in versions of it prior to this.

To insure that people would be forced into accepting the trinity, shortly after the 381 council, Emperor Theodosius’declared:

…let us believe in the one diety of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in out judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation an the second the punishment of out authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict…(Theodosian Code XVI.1.2. Cited in Bettenson H, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, London: Oxford University Press, 1943, p. 31).

So the trinity need the force of Roman punishment against non-trinitarians.

Though adopted, even in 381 it was not exactly the same trinity teaching as now understood. Notice the confirmation from a Protestant theologian:

The doctrine of the Trinity is fundamental for the Christian faith, even though the doctrine was not clearly formulated and generally accepted by an ecumenical council until the fourth century..The Council of Chalcedon, the decisions of which were reaffirmed at the Trullanum of 680-681, gave us the formulation of Christological doctrine we now call orthodox. (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 127,192-193,194).

A bishop of the Orthodox Church confirmed its late acceptance:

…the councils defined once and for all the Church’s teaching upon the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith — the Trinity and the Incarnation. All Christians agree in regarding these things as ‘mysteries’ which lie beyond human understanding and language…the first two, held in the fourth century…formulated the doctrine of the Trinity…The work of Nicea was taken up by the second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381…While Athanasius emphasized the unity of God — Father and Son are one in essence (ousia) – the Cappadocians stressed God’s threeness: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (hypostasis) (Ware T. The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books, London, 1997, pp. 20-23).

Trinity Today and the “New” WCG/GCI

Despite the fact that up until late in the fourth century, most who professed Christ did not clearly hold to a Trinitarian view of the Christian Godhead, over time (and partially due to Imperial pressure), the Trinity became accepted by the majority of those who professed Christ.

In modern times, this has happened to groups such as the old Worldwide Church of God, which is now called Grace Communion International, and is based in Southern California (although any pressure would have come from the desire to confirm to majority Protestant positions as opposed to any governmental influence).

The old Worldwide Church of God held to a Semi-Arian (sometimes referred to as a binitarian) view of the Godhead. After the death of Herbert W. Armstrong in 1986, the leadership that took over abandoned that church’s historical aversion to the Trinity. Those that disagreed with such changes to the historical Christian teachings left and many of the older leaders are now part of the Living Church of God.

Grace Communion International recently published the following:

Have you ever wondered why the doctrine of the Trinity is so important to Christian faith?

The fact that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three in one and one in three means that Jesus Christ and the Father are not separate Gods. And that means you don’t ever have to worry about what God thinks about you, how God feels about you, or what is going to happen to you when you die. (Tkach J. Trinity: More than a doctrine. GCI Together, April-May 2010)

Some may find that to be a suitable explanation, while others will realize that since the original Christian church did not teach the Trinity, it could not have been an important doctrine. But despite that, many will be observing Trinity Sunday.

Those interested in studying this doctrine in more detail, should consider looking at the following documented articles:

Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning Is binitarianism the correct position? What about unitarianism or trinitarianism?
Is The Father God? What is the view of the Bible? What was the view of the early church?
Jesus is God, But Was Made Man Was Jesus fully human and fully God or what?
Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity? Or did they have a different view?
Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity? Most act like this is so, but is it?
Was Unitarianism the Teaching of the Bible or Early Church? Many, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, claim it was, but was it?
Binitarianism: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning This is a shorter article than the Binitarian View article, but has a little more information on binitarianism.
Do You Practice Mithraism? Many practices and doctrines that mainstream so-called Christian groups have are the same or similar to those of the sun-god Mithras. December 25th was celebrated as his birthday. Do you follow Mithraism combined with the Bible or original Christianity?
Valentinus: The Gnostic Trinitarian Heretic He apparently was the first Christ-professing heretic to come up with the idea of three hypostases.
Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Genuine Church of God? Do you know that both groups shared a lot of the earliest teachings? Do you know which church changed? Do you know which group is most faithful to the teachings of the apostolic church? Which group best represents true Christianity? This documented article answers those questions. Português: Qual é fiel: A igreja católica romana ou a verdadeira igreja do deus? Tambien Español: ¿Que es fiel: La Iglesia Católica Romana o la Iglesia verdadera de Dios? Auch: Deutsch: Welches ist treu: Die römisch-katholische Kirche oder die Kirche Gottes Original?

Noynoy Aquino

COGwriter

Noynoy Aquino, the President of the Philippines, lost his Secretary of the Interior, in a recent plane crash there, which also involved former WCG/GCI Pastor Jessup Bahinting:

22 August 2012

After three days of a deep sea search in Masbate, President Aquino took home the remains of Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo, fulfilling a promise to his grief-stricken family.

Robredo’s flag-draped coffin was flown to Naga City yesterday with plans set in motion for a state funeral.

Retrieval operations continue for Cebu pilot Capt. Jessup Bajinting and his Nepalese co-pilot Kshitiz Chan.  http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/255352/president-escorts-body-of-robredo-to-naga-search-for-plane-and-pilots-ends-in-sunken-plane-at-depth-of-180-feet?ModPagespeed=noscript

22 August 2012

The family of Captain Jessup Bahinting grieved upon learning that the wreckage of the aircraft that Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo took has been found in the seawaters off Masbate.

But Bahinting’s wife, Margarita, has accepted her husband’s fate. Bahinting was the pilot of the ill-fated plane.

Express your condolences to DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo’s family…

Margarita, a member of the Grace Communion International (GCI), said her faith gave her strength and eased the pain of her loss.

GCI is a Christian group where Jessup was a pastor and supervisor for the Visayas.  http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/local-news/2012/08/22/pilot-s-wife-says-she-has-accepted-husband-s-fate-238720

Being good friends, Capt. Jessup Bahinting couldn’t refuse a request by Interior and Local Governments Secretary Jesse Robredo for a special afternoon flight to Naga City last Saturday…Before starting their aviation business, the Bahintings lived in Cagayan de Oro from the early 1980s to 1991 where he worked full-time as a church pastor of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/253672/robredo-asked-for-naga-flight-to-attend-childs-awarding-rites?ModPagespeed=noscript

The old Worldwide Church of God (WCG) made a series of doctrinal compromises in the late 1980s and 1990s under the leadership of Joseph Tkach.  The group that did that, later (after his death) renamed their church Grace Communion International (GCI).  Those that did not accept the doctrinal heresies of the Tkach-WCG left and formed many Church of  God (COG) groups.

GCI itself is now a Protestant group, yet the genuine Church of God is not Protestant as it preceded the formation of not only the Protestant movement, but that of the Roman Catholic Church of Rome.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

Islands and Bible Prophecy What’s ahead for islands? What does the Bible prophesy about them?
Asia in Prophecy What is Ahead for Asia? Who are the “Kings of the East”? What will happen to nearly all the Asian? Who has the 200,000,000 man army related to Armageddon?
Did Early Christians Believe that Humans Possessed Immortality? What does John 3:16, and other writings, tell us? Did a doctrine kept adopted from paganism?
Born-Again originally meant being born at the resurrection, not at the time of conversion.
What Did Early Christians Understand About the Resurrection? Is there more than one future resurrection? Did early Christians teach a physical resurrection? Did early Christians teach three resurrections?
6. The Philadelphia Church Era was predominant circa 1933 A.D. to 1986 A.D. The old Radio Church of God and old Worldwide Church of God, now basically the most faithful in the Church of God.
7. The Laodicean Church Era has been predominant circa 1986 A.D. to present. These are non-Philadelphians who mainly descended from the old WCG.
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?
News Articles Related to Church History This link is to articles on Church history that were once published on the COG News Page.
The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 Do they matter? Most say they must, but act like they do not. This article contains some history about the Church of God (sometimes referred to as the continuation of Primitive Christianity) over the past 2000 years. It also discusses the concept of church eras.
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. Is telling the truth about the early church citing Catholic accepted sources anti-Catholic? This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes? Should Christians be Nazarenes today? What were the practices of the Nazarenes.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
Apostolic Succession What really happened? Did structure and beliefs change? Are many of the widely-held current understandings of this even possible? Did you know that Catholic scholars really do not believe that several of the claimed “apostolic sees” of the Orthodox have apostolic succession–despite the fact that the current pontiff himself seems to wish to ignore this view?  Is there actually a true church that has ties to any of the apostles that is not part of the Catholic or Orthodox churches?  Read this article if you truly are interested in the truth on this matter!
Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries? Did you know that many in the second and third centuries felt that there were two major, and separate, professing Christian groups in the second century, but that those in the majority churches tend to now blend the groups together and claim “saints” from both? “Saints” that condemn some of their current beliefs. Who are the two groups?
Hope of Salvation: How the Genuine Church of God differ from most Protestants How the real Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants, is perhaps the question I am asked most by those without a Church of God background.

COGwriter

In his booklet, The Seven Laws of Success, the late Herbert W. Armstrong wrote the following related to the fourth law of success:

The All-important Fourth Law

A person may have chosen his goal. Having it may have aroused tremendous ambition to achieve it. He may have started out educating and training himself for its accomplishment, and he may even have good health and still make little or no progress toward its realization.

After all, success is accomplishment. It is DOING. They say any old dead fish can float downstream, but it takes a live one to swim up. An inactive person will not accomplish. Accomplishment is DOING.

Now comes an all-important law.

The fourth success-law, then, is DRIVE!

Half-hearted effort might carry one a little way toward his goal, but it will never get him far enough to reach it.

You will always find that the executive head of any growing, successful organization employs drive! He puts a constant prod on himself. He not only drives himself, he drives those under him, else they might lag, let down and stagnate.

He may feel drowsy, and hate to awaken and get up[ in the morning. But he refuses to give in to this impulse.

I remember the struggles I once had with this situation. It was during one of my “Idea-Man” tours as a magazine editorial representative at age 22. I was having quite a struggle with drowsiness. Yet I acquired the habit of sleepily answering the morning telephone call and promptly going back to bed and to sleep. Then I bought a “Baby Ben” alarm clock, which I carried with me. But I found myself arising to turn it off, then plunging back into bed. I was too drowsy to realize what I was doing. I was not sufficiently awake to employ willpower and force myself to stay up, get under the shower and become fully awake and alert. It had become habit.

I had to break the habit. I had to put a prod on myself. I needed an alarm clock that couldn’t be turned off until I was sufficiently awake to get going for the day.

So one night at the Hotel Patton in Chattanooga, Tennessee, I called a bellboy to my room. In those days the customary tip was a dime. A half dollar then had about the same effect that a $20 bill would have today. I laid a silver half-dollar on the dresser.

“Do you see that half-dollar, son?” I asked.

“Yes, Sir!” he answered, eyes sparkling in anticipation.

After ascertaining that he would be still on duty at 6:30 next morning, I said, “If you will pound on that door in the morning at 6:30, until I let you in, and then stay in this room and prevent me from getting back into bed until I am dressed, then you may have that half-dollar.”

I found those bell-boys would, for a half-dollar tip, even wrestle or fight with me to prevent my crawling back into bed. Thus I put a prod on myself that broke the morning snooze habit and got me up and going!

Often workmen never rise above whatever job they may have because they have no drive. They slow down, work slowly, poke around, sit down and rest as much as they can. In other words, they must have a boss over them to drive them, or they would probably starve. They would never become successful farmers—for a farmer, to succeed, must get up early and work late, and drive himself. That is one reason so many must work for others. They cannot rely on themselves—they must be driven by one of more energy and purpose.

Without energy, drive ,constant propulsion, a person need never expect to become truly successful.

Despite various ones in the COGs not particularly interested in the goals of gospel proclamation or changing and building the type of character that God wants, the gospel proclamation need remains, as does the need for personal repentance.

Notice something that the Apostle Peter wrote:

2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  (2 Peter 1:2-11)

In this Laodicean era, are you truly diligent?  Are you so satisfied with where you are at that you do not feel that you need to change or not change much?  Jesus warned against that type of complacency:

14 And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: 15 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’–and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked– 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.  19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. (Revelation 3:14-19).

Drive helps people live up to more of their potential and accomplish more, not just for personal gain or reward, but so they can give love more.  Do you truly have the Philadelphian-era drive?

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

What is the Meaning of Life? Who does God say is happy? What is your ultimate destiny? Do you really know? Does God actually have a plan for YOU personally?
What Do You Mean — Repentance? Do you know what repentance is? Have you truly repented? Repented of what? Herbert W. Armstrong wrote this as a booklet on this important subject.
The Philadelphia Church Era was predominant circa 1933 A.D. to 1986 A.D. The old Radio Church of God and old Worldwide Church of God, now basically the most faithful and diligent in the genuine Church of God.
The Laodicean Church Era has been predominant circa 1986 A.D. to present. These are non-Philadelphians who mainly descended from the old WCG.
Should the Church Still Try to Place its Top Priority on Proclaiming the Gospel or Did Herbert W. Armstrong Change that Priority for the Work? Some say the Church should mainly feed the flock now as that is what Herbert W. Armstrong reportedly said. Is that what he said? Is that what the Bible says? What did Paul and Herbert W. Armstrong expect from evangelists?
The Seven Laws of Success Booklet by Herbert W. Armstrong that can help people become successful.

“Satan’s Throne” (June 2009, by Joyce Thiel)

COGwriter

Believe it or not, in 1987 on a tour of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City, those of on that tour (all WCG members) were told by a Worldwide Church of God minister who was conducting the tour that Joseph Tkach, Sr. (who was then the Pastor General of WCG–he died in 1995) stated that he felt that this was “Satan’s throne.”  The WCG tour guide minister also said that that there was a tradition/legend (which possibly can be tied to one interpretation of the 12th century Malachy prophecy) that the final pope would sit on this throne.

This particular throne is black and the bottom of its legs are about 5 feet off of the ground.  Despite odd claims, no one allegedly has ever sat on this final version of it.  Here is a little bit of history about it:

As a young boy Gianlorenzo Bernini (1598–1680) visited St. Peter’s with the painter Annibale Carracci and stated his wish to build “a mighty throne for the apostle”. His wish came true. As a young man, in 1626, he received the patronage of Pope Urban VIII and worked on the embellishment of the Basilica for 50 years…Bernini then turned his attention to another precious relic, the so-called Cathedra Petri or “throne of St. Peter” a chair which was often claimed to have been used by the apostle, but appears to date from the 12th century. As the chair itself was fast deteriorating and was no longer serviceable, Pope Alexander VII determined to enshrine it in suitable splendour as the object upon which the line of successors to Peter was based. Bernini created a large bronze throne in which it was housed, raised high on four looping supports held effortlessly by massive bronze statues of four Doctors of the Church, Saints Ambrose and Augustine representing the Latin Church and Athanasius and John Chrysostom, the Greek Church. The four figures are dynamic with sweeping robes and expressions of adoration and ecstasy.  (St. Peter’s Basilica.  Wikipedia, viewed 07/21/12)

While there is no actual evidence that Peter has his chair turned into this (or presumably part of it), the reality is that some chair/throne/seat has existed for some time, and now is overlaid as the large black one is shown.  The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches about at least two:

From the earliest times the Church at Rome celebrated on 18 January the memory of the day when the Apostle held his first service with the faithful of the Eternal City…

This double celebration was also held in two places, in the Vatican Basilica and in a cemetery (coemeterium) on the Via Salaria. At both places a chair (cathedra) was venerated…In its present (ninth-century) form the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” gives a second feast of the Chair of St. Peter for 22 February, but all the manuscripts assign it to Antioch, not to Rome… by the ninth century one of the two feasts of the Roman cathedra had drifted away to Antioch, shows that the cathedra of the Via Salaria must have perished as early as the sixth or seventh century. We come now to the question, where stood originally the chair shown and venerated in the Vatican Basilica during the fourth century? On the strength of ancient tradition it has been customary to designate the church of Santa Pudenziana as the spot where, in the house of the supposed Senator Pudens, the two great Apostles not only received hospitable entertainment, but also held Christian services. But the legends connected with Santa Pudenziana do not offer sufficient guarantee for the theory that this church was the cathedral and residence of the popes before Constantine…

In 1776 there was excavated on the Aventine, near the present church of Santa Prisca, a chapel with frescoes of the fourth century; in these frescoes pictures of the two Apostles were still recognizable. Among the rubbish was also found a gilded glass with the figures of Peter and Paul. The feast of the dedication of this church (an important point) still falls on the same day as the above-described cathedra feast of 22 February; this church, therefore, continued to celebrate the traditional feast even after the destruction of the object from which it sprang.

In the crypt of Santa Prisca is shown a hollowed capital, bearing in thirteenth-century letters the inscription: BAPTISMUS SANCTI PETRI (Baptism of Saint Peter), undoubtedly the echo of an ancient tradition of the administration of baptism here by Peter. In this way we have linked together a series of considerations which make it probable that the spot “ubi secundo sedebat sanctus Petrus” (where Saint Peter sat for the second time), must be sought in the present church of Santa Prisca; in other words, that the chair referred to by St. Damasus was kept there in the period before Constantine. It was there, consequently, that was celebrated the “natale Petri de cathedrâ”, set for 22 February in the calendars beginning with the year 354…

How Pope Damasus might be led to transfer the cathedra Petri from Santa Prisca to the Vatican, can be readily understood from the circumstances of that time. From the reign of the first Constantine the Lateran had been the residence of the popes, and its magnificent basilica their cathedral, while the neighbouring baptistery of Constantine served for the solemn administration of baptism on the eve of Easter. In the half-century from 312 to 366 (date of the accession of Damasus), the importance of Santa Prisca, its baptistery, and its cathedra must naturally have declined. Damasus could therefore be certain of the approval of all Rome when he transferred the venerable Apostolic relic from the small chapel in Santa Prisca to his own new baptistery in the Vatican, where it certainly remained to the first quarter of the sixth century, after which it was kept in different chapels of the Vatican Basilica…We conclude, therefore, that there is no reason for doubting the genuineness of the relic preserved at the Vatican, and known as the Cathedra Petri.

(Waal, Anton de. “Chair of Peter.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 21 Jul. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03551e.htm>)

It should be stated that it is by tradition, as opposed to historical fact, that Peter was actually ever in Rome and there is no evidence that he conducted any church service in Rome on a chair.   The admission that at least one of the Roman chairs must have been destroyed and others may have come from elsewhere should help persuade those interested in the truth that the Cathedra Petri is not really Peter’s “throne,” or a place from whence he “ruled” all Christendom.   While a Pope (Damascus) apparently believed he was transferring a seat/chair of Peter to the Vatican, that does not make it so (and even if there actually was a seat the Peter once sat on that is now in St. Peter’s Basilica, proves nothing other than a seat Peter sat on still exists).  The throne that is now built over Cathedra Petri provides no actual proof that it was some place that Peter actually sat upon.  The “no reason to doubt” conclusion in The Catholic Encyclopedia should be understood to mean “no real proof,” despite claims otherwise. Other sources claim that part of the reason for the legend of  Cathedra Petri, as well as why there were multiple “seats/chairs/thrones,” was essentially that in the late second and third centuries that competing power blocks made the stories up to attempt to gain dominance (e.g. Sabatier A. Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit. Volume 16 of Theological translation library, 2nd edition.  Translated by Louise Seymour Houghton.  McClure, Phillips & Co., 1904.  Original from the New York Public Library, Digitized Feb 9, 2011, p. 112).  It has also been asserted that the seat underneath could never have been Peter’s as it came from the 8th century or simply the 17th century (Greatest Forgery in History: Chair of Saint Peter.  Copyright © One-Evil.org 2011. http://one-evil.org/acts_forgery/forgery_chair_of_st_peter.htm viewed 07/22/12).

Furthermore, one would think that if the very chair or “cathedra” of Peter was in St. Peter’s Basilica that it would be the primary basilica for the Church of Rome, but it is not.  The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

Saint John Lateran

The basilica

This is the oldest, and ranks first among the four great “patriarchal” basilicas of Rome…313. From that time onwards it was always the centre of Christian life within the city; the residence of the popes and the cathedral of Rome. The latter distinction it still holds, though it has long lost the former…The ancient apse, with mosaics of the fourth century, survived all the many changes and dangers of the Middle Ages, and was still to be seen very much in its original condition as late as 1878, when it was destroyed in order to provide a larger space for the ordinations and other pontifical functions which take place in this cathedral church of Rome.  (Barnes, Arthur. “Saint John Lateran.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 21 Jul. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09014b.htm>)

Notice the inscription, that is shown in numerous places, on the outside of it:

(June 2009 by Joyce Thiel)

The inscription from Latin above translated into English means, “Sacred Lateran Church Mother and Head of All Churches of the City and the World” (cf. Revelation 17:5).

Anyway, some believe that the final pope on the Catholic Bishop Malachy’s list, Peter the Roman, will sit on the Cathedra Petri (some consider that he will be an antipope, and thus a henchman for Satan) in St. Peter’s Basilica.

And for those unfamiliar with Malachy’s list, he in  the 12^th century, predicted, with what some believe is complete accuracy, every pope since 1143.  When Malachy’s list became public in the 16th century, it was considered to have been so accurate in predicting the 12^th – 16^th century pontiffs, that some thought it that it had not been written until the 16^th century.

Here is what The Catholic Encyclopedia reported about it:

In 1139…St. Malachy gave his manuscript to Innocent II to console him in the midst of his tribulations, and that the document remained unknown in the Roman Archives until its discovery in 1590…These short prophetical announcements, in number 112, indicate some noticeable trait of all future popes from Celestine II, who was elected in the year 1143, until the end of the world. They are enunciated under mystical titles. Those who have undertaken to interpret and explain these symbolical prophecies have succeeded in discovering some trait, allusion, point, or similitude in their application to the individual popes, either as to their country, their name, their coat of arms or insignia, their birth-place, their talent or learning, the title of their cardinalate, the dignities which they held etc.

It does need to be pointed out, especially for Catholic readers, that Malachy’s list is only “accurate” if several admitted “antipopes” are counted, and the final one on the list, is believed by some to be the final Antichrist:

Catholic Priest Connor: [W]hen Malachy visited Pope Innocent II in Rome in 1139, he was given a vision of all the Holy Fathers of the future…A study of the entire prophecy shows that fulfillment is made possible only by including anti-popes...(Connor, Edward. Prophecy for Today. Imprimatur + A.J. Willinger, Bishop of Monterey-Fresno; Reprint: Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford (IL), 1984, pp. 7-9)

D. Lindsey: After the 266th pope, according to St. Malachy, there will be no more popes. In addition to being the last pontiff, some visionaries hint that the 266th pontiff will be the Antichrist. (Lindsey DM.  The woman and the dragon: apparitions of Mary. Pelican Publishing, 2000, p. 65)

Here is what Malachy wrote in Latin about the last pope on his list:

In persecutione extrema SRE sedebit. Petrus Romanus, quipascet oves in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur, et Iudex tremendus iudicabit populum suum. Finis. (Gurugé A. The Next Pope. Anura Guruge, 2010, p. 221)

Here is some of what a Catholic writer commented about the last one on the Malachy list:

There are many, around the world, who, thanks to this prophecy, are totally convinced that the next pope will indeed call himself ‘Peter’–most not considering or caring what the implications of this could be.

In the considered opinion of the author, it is highly improbable that the next pope will be ‘Petrus Romanus‘ or even ‘Petrus II.’

For a start, given the Last Judgment implications, many respected Catholic sources have tried to point out, for quite a long time, that the pope talked about in motto 112 does not have to necessarily be the pope who follows the one described by motto 111; this 111th pope now being the current pope, Benedict XVI (#266). The justification for this “hedging’ is that the mottos were not numbered in de Wyon’s 1595 Lignum Vitae. The numbering, to facilitate manageability, came later. Consequently, it can be contented that the author of this prophecy, whoever it was, did not necessarily mean that the pope described in the last motto would come immediately after the one identified in the previous motto. Basically, the last, very long, atypical motto describes the last pope. This last pope may come to be at a much later time–with an indeterminate number of intervening popes between him and the one described by motto 111. Therefore, this last motto may not actually apply to the next pope, in which case, the expectation of ‘Petrus Romanus‘ becomes mute.

But what the proponents of the ‘Petrus Romanus‘ belief do not appear to appreciate is that the next pope, by the sheer necessity of the duties confronting him, is not going to be naive. Naiveté…is not a characteristic that one readily associates with today’s cardinals. They know the ways of the world and are world politic. There will be none amongst them who is not familiar with the Malachy prophecy. They all understand what the ramifications would be if the next pope surprised them all by stating that he will be called ‘Petrus Secundus.’

The protodeacon announcing ‘Petrus Secundus‘ from the balcony of St. Peter’s would be worse than shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. There would be mayhem in what is likely to be another jam-packed St. Peter’s Square. People would panic. There could be a stampede, people could get hurt. The authorities in Rome and the Italian government would be forced to take immediate action to quell the understandable alarm. It would be considered, quite rightly, a security threat! For the first time in over a century there could be troops, Italian, NATO or both, surrounding the Vatican. There would be no celebrations, The Urbi et Orbi blessing, if it was to take place, would be viewed with understandable askance.

It is difficult to imagine the next pope doing anything this reckless. It is difficult to envision the cardinal electors permitting him to do anything this reckless. Hence, it is extremely unlikely that the next pope will be ‘Petrus Secundus,’ let alone ‘Petrus Romanus.’ If he is, head for the hills, and hope for the best. (Gurugé, pp. 221-223)

Now, I agree that the next pope (who could be the last pope) may or may not chose the name Peter II or anything similar–but that does not mean that he could not fulfill that prophecy. It needs to be clear, whether the pope does or not pick that name, the final major pope will be a destructive antipope.  Malachy’s list did not actually name pontiffs, but basically gave short descriptions. And while some have concluded that Petrus Romanus is a name, it could be a description. The description could signify that he is a pebble (or “rocky” which is what the term petrus signifies) supporting the final Roman empire.

Notice also the following translation of Malachy’s predicted final pope:

Malachy (12^th century): During the persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit upon the throne, Peter the Roman who will feed his flock through many tribulations.  After which the City of Seven Hills (Rome) will be utterly destroyed and the awful Judge will then judge the people. (Culleton, R. Gerald. The Prophets and Our Times. Nihil Obstat: L. Arvin. Imprimatur: Philip G. Scher, Bishop of Monterey-Fresno, November 15, 1941. Reprint 1974, TAN Books, Rockford (IL), p. 138)

Notice that the Bible warns against the religious city that will rules from the seven hills:

9 This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits…18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth. (Revelation 17:9, 18, NIV)

So, perhaps the above photos do show at least one of Satan’s physical thrones on earth.

Why do I say at least one?  The Bible does specifically use the expression Satan’s throne once:

12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write,

‘These things says He who has the sharp two-edged sword:  13 “I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is.  And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.  (Revelation 2:12-13, NKJV)

Smith’s Bible Dictionary notes, “It is called “Satan’s seat” by John, which some suppose to refer to the worship of Æsculpius, from the serpent being his characteristic emblem. Others refer it to the persecution of Christians which was the work of Satan” (p.500).

And that particular throne/seat, presuming it involved a physical one, probably was not the same physical one as the one shown above.  The main period of the Pergamos Church era was from 450-1050.  Just as the initial local Church at Pergamos (time of the Apostle John) was situated in a city where Satan swayed human politics, much of this work of God’s church during 450-1010 A.D. occurred within the bounds of the government of Satan’s Eastern Roman Empire. Yet, whether it physically is or not, in a spiritual sense it seems to be the same throne.

Why?

Three basic reasons.

The first is that the old Roman Empire had two divisions, the West (based out of Rome) and the East (based out of Constantinople/Byzantium).  While in the West, the “fall of Rome” is taught in history, the fact that the eastern leg of the empire lasted nearly a thousand years longer is relatively unknown–and it existed before and after the entire time that the Pergamos era predominated.  Furthermore, prophetic writers, including Catholic ones, have tended to consider that the two legs of the image of the Beast in Daniel 2 have to do with the division of the old Roman Empire.  And while the old Roman Empire is no more, there still is a difference between the West (which tends to be Roman Catholic, with Protestant daughters) and the East (which tends to be more Eastern Orthodox).  But historically (the “great schism of 1054 not-with-standing) they have supported the same goals, the same body, the same throne.

And the second is because the Bible also teaches that the harlot woman, who would presumably have two legs or two lungs (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox leaders have stated that they are two “lungs” in the same body) and who sits on the seven hills (both Rome and Constantinople are cities of seven hills/mountains), has a history of persecuting the real saints, those in the genuine Church of God:

1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”

3 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication.  5 And on her forehead a name was written:

MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.  (Revelation 17:1-6)

So, from the above we see that the harlot woman reigns and has a history of persecuting the saints.  This is the same woman/city that sits on the seven hills and reigns (both Rome and Constantinople are known for having seven hills/mountains).  And the throne known as the Cathedra Petri is considered to be a throne of importance to at least Rome.

The third is simply that the foundation of the so-called Cathedra Petri is supposed to be four “Doctors of the Church.”  Two are Latin (Roman Catholic) and two are Greek (Eastern Orthodox).  So, it apparently has long been the intent that the the so-called Cathedra Petri is to portray Greco-Roman unity–they all are shown supporting the same throne.  From a Church of God perspective the four individuals are interesting (they are somewhat listed based upon chronological impact of their teachings):

1. Athanasius: He was at the Council of Nicea (325) and was able to persuade Emperor Constantine to support the idea of a trinity, which at the time was a very small minority position among the Greco-Roman bishops who attended.  Additionally, according to The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the “Holy Ghost,” his circa 360 paper was the first to “clearly and fully” explain the current Greco-Roman doctrine of the Holy Spirit (see also Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity?).  Catholic prophecy warns that in the end time it will have to deal with a group (like the Church of God, and likely it) that denies its (and Athanasius’ view) of the “unity of God.”
2. Ambrose:  He was a major factor in promoting and getting Athanasius’s view of the Holy Spirit adopted.   He and the other four also heavily pushed celibacy.  The trinitarian view that he helped get adopted by the Council of Constantinople in 381 that resulted in Church of God persecution at that time and since.  He is also known for his work on Catholic “sacraments” (see Duties of Elders/Pastors).
3. John Chrysostom:  He was a big advocate of Greco-Roman religious holidays and, in 387, a big condemner of God’s holy days as observed by the Church of God (see Did Early Christians Observe the Fall Holy Days? and What Does the Catholic Church Teach About Christmas and the Holy Days?).  His views have been cited throughout history and likely will be against the faithful in the Church of God in the end.
4. Augustine:  Mainly in the fifth century, he used the writings of Ambrose to expand upon sacraments.  While he was not the first to turn against teaching the biblical doctrine of the millennium, he has been one of its main “intellectual” discounters that the Greco-Roman churches have relied on.  Since the millennial teaching is the only doctrine listed in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995, p. 194), it is likely that Satan’s supporters will use his writings against those of us in the true Church of God that will continue to teach this (more on the millennium can be found in the article Did The Early Church Teach Millenarianism? ).

So the foundation, holding up the so-called Cathedra Petri is based upon Greco-Roman leaders who often took strong intellectual positions against the Church of God.  This is another reason that, spiritually at least, it seems to represent Satan’s throne.

Biblical, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox prophecy suggests that the Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholics will unify.  They will strongly support (for a time) leaders that Satan inspires (cf. Revelation 16:13-14).  False leaders likely to have complete access to Saint Peter’s Basilica and the so-called Cathedra Petri, and who for a while, will advocate the positions of the foundational doctors of the throne.

In the end times, it is possible that Satan or one of his demonically-inspired representatives (cf. Revelation 16:12-13) may literally sit upon the black throne shown above.  And while it may or may not literally be the throne of Satan, the basis the so-called Cathedra Petri and its anti-Church of God foundation suggests why it spiritually seems to at least partially represent Satan’s throne.

Articles of possibly related interest may include:

Europa, the Beast, and Revelation Where did Europe get its name? What might Europe have to do with the Book of Revelation? What about “the Beast”? Who is the king of the North?
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
Apostolic Succession What really happened? Did structure and beliefs change? Are many of the widely-held current understandings of this even possible?
Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Church of God? Do you know that both groups shared a lot of the earliest teachings? Do you know which church changed? Do you know which group is most faithful to the teachings of the apostolic church? Which group best represents true Christianity? This documented article answers those questions.
Joyce’s Photos of Pergamos Pergamos (also known as Pergamum, but currently known as Bergama, Bergamo, or Bergamum) was one of the seven churches of Revelation.
Joyce’s Photos of Rome, St. John’s Basilica, and the Vatican Rome has been a major world city for centuries. Since the late second century, it has made claims of prominence over Christianity.  There are also two views of the Cathedra Petri shown.
Persecutions by Church and State This article documents some that have occurred against those associated with the COGs and some prophesied to occur. Will those with the cross be the persecutors or the persecuted–this article has the shocking answer.
The Pergamos Church Era was predominant circa 450 A.D. to circa 1050 A.D. An especially persecuted Church.

COGwriter

The Bible does say to confess sins, but how has been historically understood?  What is the position of the Bible?  What did the old Worldwide Church of God teach?  When did the Church of Rome  develop its current practices?

First, let’s start by reading a passage from the Douay-Rheims Bible (a Catholic version, abbreviated herein as DRB):

16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. (James 5:16, DRB)

Notice that this was not a command to confess sins to the clergy.

For those who prefer a more modern version, the following is the same verse from the New Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic version, abbreviated herein as NJB):

16 So confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another to be cured; the heartfelt prayer of someone upright works very powerfully. (James 5:16, NJB)

Both versions teach confession of sins to lay members of the church as opposed to auricular (essentially audible) confession to a priest.

Here is the other time the Bible specifically talks about confessing sins:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he also is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:7-10, DRB)

The above says that Christians are to confess sins, and Jesus will forgive them. There is no discussion of penance here or in James 5:16.

According to other scriptures, God/Jesus again is the one we are to confess to:

11 For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 Therefore every one of us shall render account to God for himself. (Romans 14:11-12, DRB)

1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vocation, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus (Hebrews 3:1, DRB)

14 Having therefore a great high priest that hath passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God: let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin. 16 Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of grace: that we may obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid. (Hebrews 4:14-16, DRB)

Notice also the following:

18 And many of them that believed, came confessing and declaring their deeds. 19 And many of them who had followed curious arts, brought together their books, and burnt them before all; and counting the price of them, they found the money to be fifty thousand pieces of silver. (Acts 19:18-19, DRB)

The above people apparently repented of their sins and destroyed certain wicked books, but this was not penance in the sense that the Church of Rome now advocates.

Since the Bible has a different view, than Rome now has, has the Roman Catholic Church changed its position? Well, yes it has.

Although the Church of Rome sometimes cites earlier sources, it needs to be understood, that according the Catholic saint and Bishop Augustine, auricular confession to a priest was not the practice in the 4th/5th century—instead he advised people to pray to God for forgiveness:

15. Forgiveness of sins. You have [this article of] the Creed perfectly in you when you receive Baptism. Let none say, I have done this or that sin: perchance that is not forgiven me. What have you done? How great a sin have you done? Name any heinous thing you have committed, heavy, horrible, which you shudder even to think of: have done what you will: have you killed Christ? There is not than that deed any worse, because also than Christ there is nothing better. What a dreadful thing is it to kill Christ! Yet the Jews killed Him, and many afterwards believed on Him and drank His blood: they are forgiven the sin which they committed. When you have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that you may guard your Baptism even unto the end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin; but they are venial, without which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What has the Prayer? Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which you must needs be separated from Christ’s body: which be far from you! For those whom you have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice.

(Augustine.  Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed, Chapter 15.  In: Seventeen short treatises of S. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. Volume 22 of Library of fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. J. H. Parker, 1847.  Original from Harvard University, Digitized Sep 28, 2007, p. 575)

And real Christians do pray to God for forgiveness of sins.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the “sacrament of forgiveness” was changed in their church:

1447 Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this “order of penitents” (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime. During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the “private” practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1447. Imprimi Potest + Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Image Books by Doubleday, NY 2003)

So, it took until the 7th century for the modern practice to develop widely.

Of course, repentance was taught for becoming a Christian, and acknowledging our sins to God is taught for remaining one:

8 If we say, ‘We have no sin,’ we are deceiving ourselves, and truth has no place in us; 9 if we acknowledge our sins, he is trustworthy and upright, so that he will forgive our sins and will cleanse us from all evil. (1 John 1:9, NJB)

And while the Bible advocates repentance, penance is from outside of sacred scripture as well as the earliest traditions of the true Church of God.

While some Catholics believe that sins cannot be forgiven without the “sacrament of confession,” this is not the case. And, as the Catechism admits (#1447) the current “sacrament of confession” was not an original apostolic practice.

While some people erroneously believe that God could not forgive them and that they have possibly committed the “unpardonable sin,” those who feel that way pretty much can be assured that they have not committed it–recall that scripture teaches:

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. (1 John 1:9, DRB)

For more details about the “unpardonable sin,” please see the article What is the Unpardonable Sin?

The Catholic Encyclopedia points to John 20:23 as proof that auricular confession is to be made to priests (The Catholic Encyclopedia also pointed to Matthew 16:19, but for more details on that, please see the article Was Peter the Rock Who Alone Received the Keys of the Kingdom?).

Here are two Catholic translations of it and the two verses preceding it:

21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20:21-23, DRB)

21 and he said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. ‘As the Father sent me, so am I sending you.’ 22 After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained. (John 20:21-23, NJB)

What is the problem with the above?

Well, for one, no early leader in the Church of God or Greco-Roman Catholic Church believed that this meant that Christians were supposed to confess each of their sins to a priest who would then prescribe penance. This is clear from early church history as well as what the current Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches.

Historically, here is how the Church of God has explained John 20:23:

Some try to use John 20:23 to prove that persons in ecclesiastical offices have the power to forgive sins. This verse reads: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (New King James Version). However, it does not mean that mere men can actually forgive sins in a spiritual sense. God alone can forgive sins (Mark 2:7-10; Luke 5:21-24). Christ spoke these words to His future apostles in the context of the Church authority He was giving them (see John 20:21)–the power to disfellowship those who were dissenters or heretics (see I Corinthians 5:2 and I Timothy 1:20) and bring them back into the congregation upon repentance (II Cor. 2:6-10). (Letter 032-0189, Confession. Personal Correspondence Course. WCG)

Why is the old Worldwide Church of God position correct?  Well besides the scriptures cited, and the fact that the Church has the biblical right to “mark” dissenters (Romans 16:17, DRB, KJV), the reality is that is how early professors of Christ seemed to understand the Church of God’s authority. And forgiveness was related to allowing the marked or disfellowshipped to return.

Notice what Bishop Ignatius wrote (early 2nd century):

3…For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. (Ignatius. Letter to the Philadelphians, Chapters 0,3. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm>

This is consistent with what the presbyters of Rome wrote (late 1st century):

You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. (Letter to the Corinthians (Clement), Chapters 7,52,57.  Translated by John Keith. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm>)

That is the authority that they claimed regarding forgiving dissenters.

And that is consistent with the Church of God position that most groups claiming ties to the old WCG, like the Living Church of God, still teach.

Regarding priests, The Catholic Encyclopedia goes so far to teach:

Priest This word (etymologically “elder”, from presbyteros, presbyter) has taken the meaning of “sacerdos”, from which no substantive has been formed in various modern languages (English, French, German)…In this sense, every religion has its priests, exercising more or less exalted sacerdotal functions as intermediaries between man and the Divinity (Boudinhon A. Transcribed by Robert B. Olson. Priest. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Yet, notice that the Bible teaches:

5 For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: (1 Timothy 2:5, DRB)

The only mediator in the Christian religion is supposed to be Jesus the Christ. Thus, the opinion of certain Catholic scholars seems to be in conflict with scripture, since the Bible says the one Mediator is Jesus, not some priest or human leader.

It is partially because of this inaccurate “intermediary/mediator” position that Rome now has priests hear private confessions and claim to forgive sins.

The Bible says to confess sins to one another, but mainly to Jesus Christ. Scripture does not say to do so to a priest, nor does the Bible ever authorize what the Catholics generally mean be “penance” for sin.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

History of Auricular Confession and the ‘Sacrament of Confession’ Did early Christians confess their sins to priests?
What is the Unpardonable Sin? What is it? Can you repent of it? Do you know what it is and how to avoid it?
Were the Early Duties of Elders/Pastors Mainly Sacramental? What was there Dress? Were the duties of the clergy primarily pastoral or sacramental? Did the clergy dress with special liturgical vestments? Can “bishops” be disqualified as ministers of Christ based on their head coverings?
Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Genuine Church of God? Do you know that both groups shared a lot of the earliest teachings? Do you know which church changed? Do you know which group is most faithful to the teachings of the apostolic church? Which group best represents true Christianity? This documented article answers those questions. Português: Qual é fiel: A igreja católica romana ou a verdadeira igreja do deus? Tambien Español: ¿Que es fiel: La Iglesia Católica Romana o la Iglesia verdadera de Dios? Auch: Deutsch: Welches ist treu: Die römisch-katholische Kirche oder die Kirche Gottes Original?
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?

COGwriter

In his booklet, The Seven Laws of Success, the late Herbert W. Armstrong wrote the following related to the third law of success:

The Basic Third Law

The all-important law coming next in time order is GOOD HEALTH.

We are physical beings. The mind and the body form the most wonderful physical mechanism we know. But man is made of matter. He is basically 16 elements of organic, chemically functioning existence.

He lives by the breath of air—which is the breath of LIFE itself. If the bellows we call lungs do not keep inhaling and exhaling the oxygen-containing air, man won’t live to achieve any goal. You are only one heartbeat away from death! As the lungs pump air in and out, so the heart pumps blood through and intricate system of veins and arteries. These must be supported by food and water.

And so man IS just what he eats. Some of the most famous physicians and surgeons have said that 90% to 95% of all sickness and disease comes from faulty diet!

Most people are in utter ignorance of the fact that it does make a difference what we eat! Most people, and the customs of society, have followed a regimen of eating whatever tastes good to the palate.

Adults are babies grown up. Observe a nine-month-old baby. Everything that comes into his hands goes to his mouth!

My youngest brother may not like to read this in print, but I remember when he was about nine months old, and had managed to creep into the basement coal bin. We found him trying to eat little chunks of coal—his mouth and face well blackened!

You may laugh at babies trying to eat silver cups and chunks of coal. Or at people who dip small mice into a sauce, and, holding them by their tails, drop them as a delicious delicacy into their mouths.

If you do, they will laugh back at you. They will tell you that mice eat clean grain and clean foods, while you dip slimy, slithery oysters and other scavenger seafoods into cocktail sauces, and consider them a delicacy!

You think adults have actually LEARNED any better than nine-month-olds babies? Go to your fancy grocer’s and you’ll find on his shelves canned eel and canned rattlesnake.

WHY? As I said, humans know nothing at birth! We have to learn! But most of us do not know that! And, again, what we don’t know, we don’t know that we don’t know! And somehow, ever since babyhood, most humans seem to have grown up putting everything into the mouth. Most have grown up eating just whatever seemed to taste good—and whatever they saw others eating. There has been little education or even study about WHAT we ought—or ought NOT—to eat.

Most degenerative diseases are modern diseases—penalties for eating foods that have been demineralized in food factories—usually an excess of starch, sugar (the carbohydrates) and fats. Others are caused by a type of malnutrition—lack of needed minerals and vitamins in foods. Then people try to put the “vitamins” back into their systems by buying pills at the drugstore!

A famous director of a “Physical Fitness” program, lecturing at Ambassador College, reminded us that the medical profession has made great strides toward eliminating communicable diseases, yet is having little success coping with the increase of the non-communicable diseases,–such as cancer, heart diseases, diabetes, kidney diseases. These latter are affected by faulty diet.

Of course there are other laws of health—sufficient sleep, exercise, plenty of fresh air, cleanliness and proper elimination, right thinking, clean living.

Right now “jogging” has become the physical fitness fad. Even men in their late forties read a book by a self-professing “expert,” and suddenly are straining their hearts running two miles every day. “More and more exercise!” cry the faddists.

Why do humans tend to go to extremes? Exercise is good—it profits a little—but like most things, it can be carried past the law of diminishing returns. You can get an overdose that can cause harm. We are prone to forget the admonition of TEMPERANCE in all things.

What is the value of this excessive exertion in running two miles a day? It induces blood circulation. It gets circulation even to the extremities. And that is good. Stimulating blood circulation is good. Stimulating blood circulation is important. But we can also DESTROY HEALTH by going to unwise extremes. There is as much danger in overdoing exercise as in neglecting it.

Circulation can be induced without over-exertion or danger. I have never forgotten a lecture I heard as a young man in the days of the Chautauqua. The lecturer had been physical trainer to President Howard Taft. Immediately following the close of the Taft administration, this physical trainer managed to secure a list of all—or nearly all—of the centenarians in the United States. He personally visited every one. He asked to what they attributed their long life. One never used tobacco, and gave that as the reason. But another used tobacco all his life and still lived past a hundred years. One “tee-totaled”—but another drank beer and brandy all his life. And so it went. When he had interviewed them all, he analyzed his notes and was surprised to learn that ONLY ONE THING was common to them all. Yet not one gave it credit for his long life. Every one had taken a vigorous daily rub-down. Some with a bath towel, following a daily bath. Some with a brush But in one way or another, each had stimulated blood circulation even to the extremities of toes and fingers by daily rubbing or massaging.

Many ask how I (now in my nineties) keep up the energy, vigor and drive. I’m sure there is more than one reason—but I do not “jog” or go in for fads. I WALK—the best exercise for one of my age. But ever since I heard that lecture, perhaps 60 or more years ago, I have taken a daily RUB-DOWN. Method? A generous-size bath towel, following a daily shower. I try to get enough sleep. I watch elimination (very important). I try to be careful about my diet. And I have a tremendous INCENTIVE—a driving PURPOSE in life, because I have learned what is life’s PURPOSE. That spurs to action! I have a mission to accomplish that is more important than my life. There’s not much time left—and it MUST and WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED! Besides all this I draw on a greater and higher Power. I think that gives the answer.

The average person has never stopped to realize that it is not natural to be sick. Sickness and disease come only from violation of nature’s laws of body and mine—the physical LAWS of health. Most people have not learned that there are any such laws! They suppose that occasional illness or disease is natural in the course of life. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Sickness should not be taken for granted. Some authorities go so far as to say that we do not catch a cold—we eat our colds and fevers! They explain that a cold or fever is merely the unnatural and rapid elimination of toxins and poisons stored up in the glands, resulting from improper diet.

Now what about the great and the near-great of the world? They usually do not know all there is to know about the laws of good, vigorous health with clear, alert minds. But, compared to the average of the population, they know a great deal. They have, as a rule, enjoyed, shall we say, comparatively good health!

As an example, the President of the United States always has a White House physician who is constantly watchful over the President’s physical condition. A President is virtually required to get in certain exercise. President Eisenhower played golf frequently. President Kennedy took a daily swim. President Taft had a physical trainer who watched the overweight President daily.

Yet, there are many things that even these important people do not know about the causes of sickness, disease, debility.

One factor I think has worked universally in favor of such men. Mental attitude does have considerable influence on physical condition. Most “successful” men—as the world evaluates success—do think constructively, positively, in a mental attitude of confidence. They do not allow themselves to think negatively or assume an attitude of fear, worry, or discouragement. They do not allow themselves to get into uncontrolled moods of griping, complaining. They enforce on themselves emotional balance. And, mindful of the responsibilities on their shoulders, they probably put more restraint on dissipation than most people.

Without health one is direly handicapped, if not totally cut off from achievement. The fourth Law of Success is largely dependent on good health.

Many factors, including genetics and environment, affect health.  But so do choices.  (BTW, the fourth Law of Success in The Seven Laws of Success is “drive”).

Over a decade ago, I wrote a book related to natural health (which is still available) titled Combining Old and New : Naturopathy for the 21st Century.  In addition to going over various views of health, causes of illness, and naturopathic modalities, it includes basically two chapters written by the late Herbert W. Armstrong (which were public domain and hence usable in a commercial book) on aspects of health.

People can influence and improve their health by making better choices.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

Does God Heal Today? This is a booklet by Roderick C. Meredith on healing.
Spiritual Benefits of Fasting Jesus said, “But by Prayer and Fasting” and this article by Dr. Meredith focuses on fasting and provides his physical and spiritual fasting tips. Does fasting help prevent heart disease?
Health Benefits for Circumcision Various studies show health benefits for male circumcision. Have Christians observed circumcision throughout history?
Is Smoking a Sin? What does the Bible teach? What have COG leaders written? Can smokers change?
Obesity and Prophecy Does the Bible warn about the consequences of being obese? Is overeating dangerous?
The New Testament Church and Unclean Meats Are foods considered to have been unclean in the Old Testament considered to be food in the New Testament? This article discusses this from the perspective of the New Testament. It also has a list of clean and unclean animals. It also answers the question, is pork healthy or is pork dangerous?
Who Was Herbert W. Armstrong? How is He Viewed Today? Includes quotes from the 1973 edition of The Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong and explains who he was and how he should be viewed today.
The Seven Laws of Success Booklet by Herbert W. Armstrong that can help people become successful.
Combining Old and New : Naturopathy for the 21st Century.  A book written by Dr. Thiel on natural health principles and modalities.