|
Correspondence related to this matter
January 30, 2006
-
-
- Mr. Donald Crawford, Sr.
President Crawford Broadcasting
725 Skippack Pike
Suite 210
Bluebell, PA 19422
-
- Dear Brother Crawford:
- Grace and peace to you in Christ Jesus.
- Please allow me a few minutes of your time to inform you
of a serious concern I and many other believers have regarding
a particular program airing on KBRT and other Crawford stations.
This is about the airing of Ronald L. Dart’s program Born
to Win.
- Dart was Vice President of the Church of God International
(CGI) for many years. Garner Ted Armstrong, son of Herbert W.
Armstrong (founder of the Worldwide Church of God) founded the
CGI. This should sound an alarm to those familiar with the Arrnstrongite
doctrines.
- In September of 2005, the Inspiration Network removed the
CGI’s “Armor of God” program from its schedule
after it conducted an extensive review of the program and its
doctrinal position in response to the concern of many evangelical
Christians. (I have enclosed a letter from John Roos, Senior
Vice President of Marketing for Inspiration Network.)
- After Garner Ted Armstrong was involved in a sex scandal,
Dart left the CGI and formed Christian Educational Ministries
(CEM). Nevertheless, Dart still believes and teaches many of
the doctrines that Herbert W. Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong
taught. Dart stilt thinks that Garner Ted Armstrong. “knew
the Bible as well as any man he has ever known
and was gifted of God.” (Tape 0338, 9/20/03, “The Indispensable
Man”)
- I ask you, Brother Crawford, how could Dart make such a statement
when Garner Ted Armstrong (besides his personal life) denied
many of the orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith, calling
them pagan, false, and Satan’s greatest deception?
- Because Garner Ted Armstrong’s work is not a Christian
work, it does not merit the statement by Dart, “Ted Armstrong
knew the Bible as well as any man I have ever known-”
- You see, Brother Crawford, many young believers and those
who have been in the faith a ong time may g~t the impression
that OEM is an evanqelical, orthodox ministry declaring historic
biblical doctrines. It is not until one looks into the doctrinal
teaching of CEM that the real story is told. Often OEM presents
their teachings so skillfully that the person is sold On these
beliefs before he or she realizes it.
- Dart is a former Baptist who attended Hardin Simmons University,
a Baptist affiliated college to prepare for the ministry as a
pastor, even preaching in some of the local Baptist churches.
During this time Dart would have discussions about the teachings
of Herbert W. Armstrong with his wife’s brother who himself
was a former Baptist, but then a member of the Radio Church of
God (the original name of the Worldwide Church of God). While
reading material and listening to Herbert W. Armstrong’s
The World Tomorrow radio program, Dart became convinced that,
“Things we were being told by Herbert W. Armstrong had the
ring of truth, and God was working through Armstrong, and our
heart followed.” Dart state3, “We’ve jhe and his
wifel finally came to the place where we had had it with the
Baptist church, we knew it was not right. I wanted to be in God’s
college.” In 1958, Dart left Hardin Simmons to attend Ambassador
College in Pasadena, California, and joined Herbert W. Armstrong’s
Church (tapes 7804, 7800, 00 APT, “Faith Without Compromise,”
“Called of God,” a Personal Testimony). Dart became
very influential in the Worldwide Church of God, and reported
directly to Armstrong. Dart left the church with Garner Ted Armstrong
in 1978 and became Vice President of the Church of God International
with Garner Ted Armstrong as President. Dart left CGI in 1995
to form CEM.
- Many groups have splintered from the Worldwide Church of
God. Dart’s niche in this Armstrongite scene is one of “tolerance.”
That is, he differs from Herbert Armstrong in this way: Armstrong
used a very strong, adversarial approach to pry people away from
the Christian churches (for example, by calling the Protestant
churches the daughters of the Great Whore and the churches of
Satan). Armstrong also claimed that his church was the only true
church and the only place where salvation could be found. Dart,
on the other hand, says he is tolerant of others’ beliefs.
But he reveals his hand when he says that he is willing to let
others make their own mistakes. He does not consider that others
might be right. He simply takes a smoother approach. It is difficult
to know when listening to Dart’s Born to Win radio program
that his beliefs are very different from orthodox Christianity.
He woos his listeners rather than beats them over the head. A
publicity statement for Dart that is intended to be positive
(but to me sounds scary), says, “People around the world
have become addicted to Ron’s intimate Bible studies.”
- Although there are some details in Ron Dart’s teachings
that differ from the old Herbert Armstrong teachings of the Worldwide
Church of God, just as there are differences between all of the
Armstrongite groups, Dart is still without question an Armstrongite.
Here is a list of some of Dart’s teachings that differ from
Christianity but are in line with Armstrongism:
- 1) Dart does not believe in the Trinity. “Everything
about the doctrine of the Trinity seems designed to turn God
into a mystery, an enigma that man cannot understand. And what
a man cannot understand, he cannot relate to. Yet God intends
that man not only know and understand Him, He ihtends that man
relate to Him. What is wrong with all this is that it attempts
to reconcile an irreconcilable contradiction. One is not three,
and three are not one. As long as we attempt to maintain that
‘one’ means one person, one being, we will wander through
a mystifying maze of contradictions” (Knowing God: The Mystery
of the Gods, Ron Dart, Bible Correspondence course, Lesson Three,
p. 1, www.abcog.org/lesson3.htm). Notice that Dart not only berates
the doctrine of the Trinity, but, in a classic tactic of cultists,
sets up a straw man by leading the reader to think that Christian
theologians equate the world “person” in the Irinitarian
formula with the word “being.” This is false. From
the same correspondence course Dart states, “The word ‘Trinity’
3 not in the pages of your Bible, so what lies behind the widely
held belief of a mysterious incomprehensible, triune God? Listen
as Ronald L. Dart explains why the true nature of God is much
easier to understand than the mystery of a Trinity” (Lesson
4, p. 9).
- 2) Dart does not believe the Holy Spirit is a person in the
Godhead. When referring to the Holy Spirit, Dart continually
uses the pronoun “it.” Dart asks, “If the Holy
Spirit is a person, why is it not the father of Jesus? (Luke
1:35)” (Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, Ron Dart, Bible
Correspondence Course, Lesson Four, pp. 5-7). He goes on to explain,
The Holy Spirit is called ‘the Power of the Highest.’
It is not introduced as a distinct person as are the Father and
the Son. It is rather like the power of God emanating from the
Father and the Son, and is God’s active agent in the world.
To say that the Holy Spirit is not a person is not to say that
it is impersonal. It is the agency of God Himself. Agency is
defined as a means of exerting power or influence--an instrumentality”
(Ibid.). Further in the same lesson, Dart says, “We believe
that the Holy Spirit is personal, because it is an extension
of God Himself. It is the way in which God can be omnipresent--that
is, He can be on His throne and be in us at the same time. He
dwells in us by His Spirit. This is not to say that the Holy
Spirit is a third person, a third mind. The Holy Spirit is the
spiritual presence, activity, power, and influence of God in
the natural world.”
- But, being personal is not the same as being a Person. As
you and I know, neither the Bible nor the Christian church teach
that the Holy Spirit is merely “the power of God” or
“an instrumentality” or the “influence of God
in the natural world.” The Bible clearly shows that the
Holy Spirit has the attributes of a Person and is the Third Person
of the Trinity.
- 3) Dart rejects the Trinity for the same reason that Herbert
Armstrong rejected the Trinity. Dart, as did Armstrong, teaches
that man can become God. A closed Trinity would mean that man
couldn’t become God, so the Trinity must be rejected: “The
three sides of the Trinity present a closed Godhead--One that
could be adored, but never joined. At a festival, the three would
dine as one—alone. God’s family could never increase.
- “But when we read the Bible, we find a Godwho, far from
being alone for eternity, seems determined not to be alone at
all. He is a Father, He has a Son who is like Him. He intends
to have more Sons who will be like Him. At festival time, He
will be surrounded by family. Scientists tell us the universe
has been here for 12 billion years. What has God been doing?
Is this the first time He has done this? Will it be the last?
God has placed in all His creatures a ‘reproductive imperative.’
Each of His creatures, great and small, must reproduce ‘after
his kind.’ It is odd how man, who has the same imperative,
and is made in the image of God, misses the point when it comes
to what God is doing. God, also, is reproducing after His kind”
(Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, Ron Dart, Bible Correspondence
Course, Lesson Four, p. 8).
- Now notice how Dart reveals more about his disbelief of the
Trinity in the November 18, 1998 letter he wrote to me: “As
for the Trinity, the docthne cannot be found in the Bib~e. It
seems to me to be a response on the part of Christians nv~r the
generations feeding up tO the Council of Nicea to the problem
posed by strict Jewish monotheism and the indisputable fact in
John’s gospel that Jesus is God. Man reasoned his way to
the Trinity, and I find myself unable to embrace that on the
basis of what I understand in the Scriptures: As ~ou can see
Ronald L. Dart wants nothing to do with one of the fundamentals
of the Christian faith, the Blessed Trinity.
- 4) Ron Dart does not believe in the immortality of the soul,
and he believes that Christians do not go to be with Christ in
heaven after death. In the same letter quoted above, he stated,
“Regarding consciousness after death, a surprising number
of theologians, including Oscar Cullrnan of Switzerland, are
observing that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is
not taught in the Scriptures. Like the Trinity, they see it as
a later Christian invention. What they see as the teaching of
the scriptures is the resurrection from the dead which is rather
a different doctrine.”
- Dart also states, “At death sorry, you’re not going
to heaven, not going to hell, not going to purgatory, you’re
going to the grave. The Bible puts the lie to the doctrine of
the immortality of the soul. How did we get into this mess, this
convoluted idea of hell and heaven and going there immediately
at death? Somewhere along the line Christian theologians decided
that man has an immortal soul. ... It came from Greek philosophy.”
(Tape 8109, Immortality of the Soul).
- 5) Dart believes in annihilationism and does not believe
in the biblical doctrine of hell. Again, in the same letter,
Dart says, “No, I wouldn’t say that the Bible teaches
‘automatic annihilation.’ I do not believe in an ever-burning
hellfire, but annihilation only comes after being judged by God.”
Dart also states, “I think evangelists hang on to the doctrine
of hell because they like to scare the hell out of people. God’s
plan will not be forfeited by Satan, or by stupid, senseless
preachers who neglect God’s work, and won’t go out
and do’ it. There are going to be some people who will be
automatically destroyed in the lake of fire
not dancing around from one hot brick to another with someone
jabbing them with pitchforks, upside down, with their feet sticking
out of a hole in the ground with steam coming up around them
as illustrated in Dante’s Inferno. It is profoundly sad
to me that the preachers, of this world think so little of God.”
- Dart continues, “Is this idea that man will sizzle and
burn and pop forever in hell really what God had in mind or is
it just something preachers and teachers came up with to try
to get dirty rotten sinners to repent more quickly? The very
concept of hell is an absolute logical absurdity” (Tapes
011MM 1/2, 79F8, 82F8, Immortality, Shadows and the Great Last
Day, The Doctrine of Hell).
- 6) Dart believes that people will have a chance for salvation
after death: “It is obvious that it is God who is responsible
for blinding those people; the truth is that they have not yet
been allowed to understand the truth of God. It should become
immediately apparent that if we accept the traditional Christian
beliefs of heaven and hell--that a man goes to his reward immediately
at death--then it would appear that Jesus and the Father, by
design, consigned a group of people to hell who had never had
a chance to be saved, It doesn’t make sense, does it’?
But what about those who have died in a state of unbelief?
Is it possible to be resurrected and then be given a chance at
salvation? ... These people are going to come to know God and
receive His Spirit; they will be converted. Those who lived out
their lives in a blinded state, those who never came to know
God, will at last. receive mercy... Jesus knew that all those
who heard Him were not ready to believe. He knew that there was
still a great deal of rebellion, stubbornness and self-will in
their hearts. Had He spoken to them plainly, they would have
had no excuse for their sins. So He withheld the truth from them--
for a time--by speaking to them in parables, but their day of
salvation will come” (Ron Dart, Bible Correspondence Course,
Lesson Ten. Read also Dart’s article, “A Second Chance?”
(www.borntowjn net).
- 7) Dart follows the Herbert W. Armstrong teaching that we
cannot be born again in this life, but teaches the Bible’s
references to being, born again/new birth are synonymous with
the resurrection. In his December 9, 1998, letter to me Dart
wrote, “Yes, I do believe that the moment when we are born
again is the moment of the resurrection of the dead when we are
changed from flesh to spirit.”
- Concerning Jesus’ words in John 3:1-8, Dart states,
“Here Jesus is talking about the resurrection when you are
changed from flesh to spirit.” He says, “At the resurrection
people who are born of the spirit are like ghosts ... you can’t
see therri, that’s the way Jesus described someone who is
born of the spirit.” Dart’s cross reference for this
teaching is 1 Corinthians 15:50 “Flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God.” Evangelicals realize that Paul
is not talking about being changed from flesh to spirit or that
Jesus was raised with a spirit body.
- 8) Dart believes as did Armstrong that the resurrection is
not a resurrection of the physical, fleshly body, but a change
to spirit. Dart states the following. “A resurrection you
and I hope for is not sinews, and bones and flesh, it is spirit.”
Dart also believes at this time we are also changed from human
to divine. Again he states, ‘We’re put in the grave
a human being, we’re raised a god ... we all will become
spirit beings.” According to Dart and other Armstrong splinter
groups’ teaching, Jesus is the only one who has been born
again. This is the true “new birth”! It is said that
when John Wesley was asked why he preached so often on the subject
“Ye must be born again” that he answered, “Because
you must be born again.” Wesley’s definition of he
new birth however, would never satisfy Dart, or any of the many
Armstrong Splinter Groups, because their teachings are that you
cannot be “born again.”
- Again, Dart states, “The final step into the kingdom
of God is the change from flesh and blood to spirit.” (Tapes
8109, 9121, 79F8, Immortality of the Soul, Can Man Become God?,
Shadows and the Great Last Day, Rev. 1-2, www.abcog.org/family.htm
pg. 3)
- 9) Ron Dart, remaining true to one of Herbert Armstrong’s
most notorious errors, teaches that man can become God. In his
October 1, 1999 newsletter, Dart shows that he continues to.
be an admirer of Herbert W. Armstrong and that he misunderstands
the teachings of the Bible and the Christian church. So that
it can be understood in the context of all I have said, I will
quote the entire letter with the exception of the last two paragraphs
in which he merely pitches a sermon tape: “Many years ago,
I read a small booklet published by a radio ministry that shocked
me into Bible study as very few things could have. He said, in
the simplest terms, that it was the destiny of man to become
God. I thought it was blasphemy and considered ducking lest God
strike the booklet with lightning. Nothing happened, though,
and I was left to think, study, pray and to consider the implications
of what the author had said.
- The evangelist who wrote the book [without question, the
man he is referring to is Herbert W. Armstrong, now dead, thought
he had discovered new truth, I think, but it turned out to ae
one of the oldest doctrines of the Christian church. In a slightly
different form, I found it espoused by the Eastern Orthodox churches
and developed by CS. Lewis in his Landmark book ‘Mere Christianity.’
I also found that the basics of it explain so very much about
what
- God is doing in the world, why He is doing it, and why He
allows so much pain and tragedy to beset His children.
- “A further development of this idea was the claim that
man is to become God, as God is God. I presume the idea was to
offset some of the attempts to diminish the impact of the teaching
by claiming that man might become a god or a demi-god, but not
God. Comforting as that may initially sound, it turns the Christian
faith into polytheism and that is totally unacceptable.
- “Nevertheless, there is a theme that recurs throughout
scripture that, properly understood, not only clears up the mystery,
but reveals one of the most profound truths about God ever known
to man. That God is the head of a family, and that He has invited
you and me to join that family.
- “You may not realize that down through the centuries
a theological battle has raged between those who believe that
Jesus is God and those who believe He is the Messiah, but less
than God. Then there are those who believe that Jesus is a god,
not God. If you are a denizen of the Internet, you can find incredibly
fierce, sometimes even hateful, debates on this very topic. Just
search for ‘Trinity’ and you can plan on spending the
day.
- “I have studied the topic for years, and I have come
to the conclusion that Jesus is indeed God, but I also believe
that in saying that we say far too little. Jesus is not merely
God, He is a member of the family. I. expect that it would fall
strangely on your ears to speak of being ‘merely God,’
and I don’t mean that to minimize God in any way. What I
mean to say is that Jesus, and all of His brethren whom He speaks
of in the Bible (including you and me) can be members of God’s
family for eternity. We will be the same kind of being; with
the same powers, the same love, the same creativity.
- “It was only when I understood this that I understood
human suffering. By all rights, if you accept traditional salvation
doctrine, when a man is saved by God, his troubles should be
over. Why aren’t they? Why does a good man, a man of God,
have to remain in this world and suffer cruel torture and loss?
It makes absolutely no sense if all we are going to do is go
to heaven, sing songs, dine on milk and honey and sit at the
Master’s feet like a loyal puppy. We are not going to be
God’s pet. We are going to be heirs of God, joint heirs
with Jesus Christ, we are going to be members of the family.”
- Notice that Dart has once again set up a straw man by misrepresenting
the Christian teaching concerning our life in heaven. What church
do you know of that teaches we will be like loyal puppies or
pets? Dart would also have us think that Christian churches have
no answer for why there is suffering in this life.
- Dart's tape "Can Man Become God?" favorably quotes
Herbert W. Armstrong five times makes a clear connection between
his the theology and that of Herbert W. Armstrong. He even credits
him as the source. Hell is also made a joke in this tape, as
well as Dart characterizing the orthodox view of the believers’
position as being a “spihtual !apdog.’ More observations
could be made concerning this tape.
- 10) In the November 18 and December 9, 1998, letterS Dart
wrote me concerning Jesus’ Resurrection, notice, Dart is
being equivocal in his answers concerning the physical, fleshly,
bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus. What he means by body
is not what orthodox Christianity means by body. Dart’s
asking for an “explanation of the significance of whether
Jesus was raised in spirit form or raised bodily” seems
to show his ignorance of the Bible and Christian theology. Dart
states, “It is obviously very important to evangelical Christianity.”
ABSOLUTELY, Would you not agree, Brother Crawford? The Resurrection
of Christ is of fundamental importance to the historic Christian
faith and the Gospel. (1 Cor.
15:1-8).
- Dart states, “Jesus is the first one to have the new
life form, to be a spirit-being and to enter into God’s
Kingdom from the dead.” In one tape from Dart’s ministry,
the speaker has this to say, “Jesus was someone who came
to earth as man, and then returned to His ‘pre-human’
form to become very God.” Notice this statement very carefully!
“Pre-human form” become “very God.” (Rev.
1-2, Tapes 99LTS, I Love to Tell the Story).
- During a discussion with Dart’s associate, Larry Watkins,
he informed me that “Jesus is now spirit, not physical,
fleshly, nor human.” Watkins said, “Jesus returned
to his former state” (telephone conversation, Friday, November
11, 2005, 1:35 p.m.).
- The change at the Resurrection is not a change from flesh
to spirit, as Dart says, but a change of the flesh from corruption
to incorruptiofl, dishonor to glory, weakness to power, natural
to spiritual/supernatural, but not spirit. The Bible mentions
spiritual meat, spiritual drink, spiritual gifts, etc., but no
one suggests these things are spirit.
- Unlike Dart’s teaching, the Christian church does not
believe that Jesus rose as spirit/spirit body or returned to
his pre-human form. The Christian church affirms that Christ
glorified His flesh. The view that Christ’s raised body
at and after his Resurrection and presently now in heaven, is
a body of flesh and bone has been the stated position of orthodoxy
for these twenty-one centuries of Christian history.
- R.A. Torrey wrote ‘While the literal bodily resurrection
of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of Christian doctrine, it
is also the Gibraltar of Christian Evidence, and the Waterloo
of infidelity and rationalism.” (The Fundamentals, Vol.
2, p. 299)
- To respond in detail to all of Dart’s teachings would
be too lengthy. I hope that what I have said will be helpful
to you.
- Regarding Ron Dart being on Christian radio, I believe in
free speech and freedom of the press. Ron Dart has a right to
be on the air--on secular radio stations, just as was Herbert
Armstrong. We would then have to counter his teachings with the
truth. But I believe that there is a relationship of trust between
a Christian radio station and its listeners. Listeners expect
Christian radio to be Christian. Christian stations should hold
those who broadcast on them to a standard of the basic tenets
of Christianity. I believe we would agree that a station that
called itself Christian, but was broadcasting programs that espoused
the tenets of Hinduism was violating the trust its listeners
place in it. The same would be true of a Christian station airing
Jehovah’s Witnesses programs. I think we would agree that
a line must be drawn somewhere. But where? Certainly, it must
at least be drawn at the basic tenets of Christianity. The problem
is that Ron Dart is not on our side of that tine, yet he is airing
his program, Born to Win on a great many Christian stations.
In order to get onto Christian radio stations, Ron Dart has learned
to be less sensational and more subdued than Herbert Armstrong.
He also chooses to discuss less theologically controversial subjects
on the air. These he only introduces later in his literature
and tapes. Therefore, when the listening audience hears a program
such as Born to Win on KBRT and other Christian stations, they
are even more vulnerable to being hooked into the organization
behind it because they have their guard down.
- Brother Crawford, something must be done guickly. PLEASE,
for Jesus’ sake, do something about stopping this unorthodox
teaching from making further inroads where young, weak and/or
immature Christians are influenced by it. PLEASE do not allow
financial considerations to be a determining factor.
- I believe that as Christ’s followers we ought to take
a stand on issues such as this one, even at the risk of unpopularity.
I realize the pressures of the world are strong, and few are
strong enough to withstand compromise. Only with Christ’s
strength is this possible (Philippians 4:13).
- I ask you brother Crawford to please take a strong stand
on this issue, and do all you can to have Born to Win taken off
Christian stations such as KBRT and other Crawford stations before
even more are mislead.
-
- Sincerely in Christ,
- James Kieferdorf
- 3231 Rosedale Apt. 3
Dallas, TX 75205
- End:
|