Like most of the other splinter cult leaders in Armstrongims, they like to trot out that they are a little flock." It is not because people are not being called into them, but their numbers are small because of demonic doctrines that destroy families and members' lives with double blessed legalistic zealotry lives are driving people out. God does not call people into the PCg or any of the other splinter personally cults out there today (particularly into Thielism, Malmism Packism and Flurryism.
Get a load of this crap:
The Church is a “little flock” (Luke 12:32), personally and carefully called by God the Father (John 6:44) in order to fulfill specific work in preparation for the time when He will carry out His plan of salvation for all mankind. Its members did not individually choose to join the Church; rather they responded favorably to being invited and set there by God.No god out there has ever invited people to "join" Furry's cult.
The answer to the question, “Can I attend services with the Philadelphia Church of God?” depends on God’s purpose for you at this time.
Is God calling you into His Church? Many churches encourage people to visit and see if it “feels right” to them. They may even put on emotional pressure to make an altar call and “give your heart to Jesus.” A great many people have been drawn into commitments they didn’t truly understand based solely on feelings, which can be fickle, even deceptive.The "commitments" they are supposedly being "drawn into" that they do not realize the significance of, are heretical man-made doctrines of a sick-minded group of men who demand that members do not seek medical attention and that they separate themselves from family members, spouses, children, grandchildren, and grandparents, because those people may no longer believe the heretical fake Sabbatarian crap of Flurry.
God’s calling is based on truth—and obedience to the truth—not on a feeling or a swell of emotion.Obedience to the laws of a man and his cabal of abusive twisted ministers is NOT obedience to the truth.
Here is the requirement that potential PCg members MUST do before asking to attend services. The number one priority is to read Mystery of the Ages
Study the entirety of Mystery of the Ages along with your Bible, and you will gain a superb overview of the foundational doctrines of the Philadelphia Church of God. Ask yourself whether you believe God is working in your life. Is He opening your mind to understand the plain teachings of the Bible—even where those teachings may differ from what many churches preach?The mere fact that potential income streams are required to read the quagmire of MOA's as their first requirement before opening their bibles to prove their desire to attend services, proves jus how sick they are.
If you believe He is calling you, you ought to take action. To look into this more deeply, definitely read “The Mystery of the Church” from Mystery of the Ages, if not the whole book. If you have done this study and want to speak with a Philadelphia Church of God ministerNope! MOA has to be the most boring book Herbert ever wrote. It ranks right up there next to Tomorrow's World and The Incredible Human Potential. This triumvirate of butt-numbing and incredibly boring books that have absolutely NOTHING to do with one's salvation.
29 comments:
God does call people (Rev. 3:20). It's just that He doesn't call people to false churches with horribly unChristian track records like the ACOGs.
One of my ex-wives and I were planning a visit to my parents at one time, and I explained to her how they were, and how we'd probably be walking on eggshells the entire weekend we were visiting. We developed a little code to avoid offending them, or at least causing as little offense as possible. I asked my wife if she recalled the Jackson Browne song "Redneck Friend". She smiled and told me that it had been one of her favorite songs. So I asked, "Do you remember the line 'They've got a little list of all those things of which they don't approve'"? She began to chuckle, and said "Yes!". So I told her, "There you have it! We could accidentally bring up something that is totally normal to us or our friends but which will offend the parental units beyond words. So, if I suddenly say "Jackson Browne", please back away gracefully from that topic." I know for a fact that we did offend them a couple times, but at least it wasn't as bad as it might have been.
But, that's the type of life people bring upon themselves by becoming ACOG members. Easily offended, batted around by every little thing they see around them.
BB
"Mystery of the Ages" was/is a theological train wreck. The premise that God kept His plans secret for almost two thousand years - until Herbert Armstrong came along to present them to the world is RIDICULOUS! Add to that the fact that much of the book is unsupported by Scripture (this in spite of Herb's prodigious use of proof-texting) and defies logic and common sense, and one wonders why anyone would recommend the book to anyone else. Unfortunately, Grace Communion International decided that expediency was easier than doing the right thing and making sure that the book was permanently retired. Now, PCG is free to use the book to screw up more psyches and try to perpetuate Herb's errors.
Miller Jones
I don't believe in book burning or similar. No one can be trusted with such a responsibility. The slippery slope thingie. But it's a bad idea to read anyone's religious books before reading the Bible. It puts a paradigm filter into people's minds before they read their Bible. I recall Herbs old Bible correspondence course doing this with the "why study the Bible" introduction.
All books should be read and seen through ones own eyes, with no middleman interpreter. People who subcontract this responsibility to others, end up in a Dave ('give me all your money') Pack type group.
To look into this more deeply, definitely read “The Mystery of the Church” from Mystery of the Ages, if not the whole book.
Wow! PCOG is becoming Laodicean! There was a time when you had to read at least Malachi's Message and the entirety of Mystery of the Ages and sometimes another booklet or two before a minister would even condescend to visit with you.
Im so glad that I'm on PCGs "DO NOT CALL LIST" ! ;-)
MOA is an important Armstrongist document. It is the nearest thing that they have to a Systematic Theology. As most readers of this blog know there was an attempt to correct this in conducting the STP project years ago but that effort quickly turned into a reformation rather than a capturing of existing policy. MOA is, in a way, HWA's answer to the STP Project. It is not an organized Systematic Theology - it is more of a lengthy, facile sales pitch - but it does reflect HWA's thinking across many theological subjects.
And MOA does have value to researchers. If you want to establish that HWA did not understand and rejected the Christian doctrine of grace, for instance, there is no better place to look than MOA. Armstrongism is defined by published material (mostly booklets and articles) + preaching + decisions by the WCG Church Administration. Since all of this is poorly documented or accessed with difficulty or not at all, Armstrongism is mutable. While some argue that Armstrongism is remarkably consistent, the existence of many, many splinter groups contravenes this.
Dogma without documentation seems to be a strategy of the more radical branches Millerism, such as Armstrongism and Branch Davidianism. David Koresh did not leave a large body of writing to history. And HWA leaves only a little more. MOA is one of the more important Armstrongist works.
The Little Flock concept is important to some people. I spoke with a friend back in the mid-Nineties, when the WCG was undergoing fragmentation, about her joining the Global Church of God. She mentioned that there were only seven people in her entire State that belonged to Global. But this was fine because in the Bible it said that Christians were the Little Flock. It was clear she was quite proud of belonging to such an exclusive group. She was not proud originally but a GCG minister convinced her that it was a privileged status. Thereafter she sifted through more and more small Armstrongists groups over the years as split after split occurred. When she passed away, she belonged to some small group that I had never heard of and whose leader I had never heard of - but her exclusivity was preserved.
Some people believe that the benefits of salvation can only be joyous to them personally if only a few people can have them. This view unfortunately spans most of Christianity.
NEO
The original STP paper is the nearest systematic reflection of Armtrongism.
It is 100 percent correct and closest to being the "state of affairs" around 1974 upto 1993.
The only reason hwa did not want it canonized is because the project was falsely reported to hwa and of course that any "constitution" means that the monarch is bound.
Nck
God most certainly calls, but it is not unto doctrinal interpretation.
The calling entails a movement unto and an urge to refocus ones life unto that which is not seen but that which becomes known (it is a process) over time.
The problem with the COGs are the human divised conditional aspects of mediating the calling from God and then compounding that act by making arbitrary judgments for the person called on how they can obtain salvation.
This dynamic has already been recorded and played out in two of the most important acts in the bible. In the garden mankind had direct access to what would constitute life eternal. Mankind stumbling about and with a bit of trepidation agreed with the narrative offered and took to themselves what they thought would be a life eternal. The second event involved a man in the wilderness hungry who was offered the narrative of how to save and enhance his physical life. No stumbling about here as the answers given gave the ultimate blueprint of just what the calling and walk is all about.
The COGs have just become the modern serpent or devil with a very similar narrative to step right on in and dictate a path were one will surely not die if........
NEO,
Having read MOA some 40 years ago, I can't comment about what HWA didn't or did understand concerning grace in that book but having reread Just What Do You Mean Salvation some ten years ago, Herbert Armstrong fully understood grace and adamantly proclaimed we do not teach salvation by works as apposed
to those who teach earning hell by their works.
The perception of different people as to what the WCG taught is certainly a clouded subject. There is the outside narrative, the inside narrative, the factional narrative and the exit(ing) narrative.
Having read what HWA wrote and having heard him many times in sermons or on the WT broadcast concerning his understanding of grace, he most certainly understood it in it's most practical and basic terms.
From that most basic point of understanding, it is up to each and every individual to figure out just how far it got all wrong.
Nck:
I do not know the contents of the STP. I had some copies of the early drafts but we were instructed to destroy them. Mine got destroyed pretty much unread. I do know that it took a different view of the D&R question. The example of some African tribes was used. The idea was that marriage around the world is not always what we in America believe it to be. Much is culturally determined. Hence, the application of scripture would have to be tailored or something like that. That view, of course, would go over like a lead balloon with most Armstrongists - certainly with HWA. The STP acquired a cachet of rebellion, I think, on the part of GTA. I only recently found out that Robert Kuhn had something to do with it.
The idea that an Armstrongist systematic theology could be written by anyone but HWA was a gross miscalculation. HWA owned Armstrongism. My guess is that if someone back then requested of HWA that a systematic theology be written, he would have just had a compilation of his little booklets and a few articles published.
The fact there is no systematic theology of Armstrongism leaves open the question of what Armstrongism actually is as a belief system. No doubt, LCG, COGWA and UCG all believe in different renditions of Armstrongism. I would not want to try to draw the Venn diagram. But I believe that without systematization, Armstrongism in the future will become less and less identifiable and more and more a point of division. Armstrongism's indeterminancy itself will become the leverage for future unbridled ramification.
Nck
I recall being told from the pulpit that HWA cancelled the STP project, calling it the Slide Towards Protestantism. Our minister waved the rather thick manual at us, so I wouldn't call it a paper. And it was in the loose leaf format, so that 'upgrades' could be easily made.
NEO
From what I've read, HWA splinters are in fact "remarkably consistent." They are almost exclusively into cattle rustling, so any differences have to be cosmetic. Even Dave Pack had to do a bait and switch before he introduced his Dominion nonsense, which I doubt most of his members have bought into.
Kuhn had "something" to do with it.
In fact he was the ONLY person able to comprehensively systemize the belief system in an acceptable format.
HWA believed the STP was a slide into protestantismnit because he was aware of its full contents but because of it opening up the possibility of "scrutinizing" decisions and HWA's authority. That is the very definition of protestsntism. "Those that protest the pope as an authority figure.
Why do you suppose we were praying for presidential crooks like Nixon? Not because God in any way had chosen them, but because they represented" government and authority. " It is all symbolism and metaphor in practice.
Nck
Nck, Bob Kuhn was perhaps the one individual who could have orchestrated the saving of Armstrongism as a movement for posterity. It appears that HWA was concerned for its existence only while he, HWA, was alive and presiding over it. He didn't want any of the protesting to exist so long as he was alive. One wonders what might have been going through HWA's mind as it became apparent that the timeline of his aging would not in fact correlate with the end times. If he even believed his own teachings, the approach of his own demise must have been very disillusioning. If it hadn't dawned on him before, he certainly had to know as he became enfeebled that he would not be the modern Joshua leading his followers into the place of safety, and the Kingdom.
We've been trying to figure all of this stuff out for decades now, some approaching it as if they had really been part of "the truth". The years since HWA's death continue to reveal that it was either all bogus to begin with, or a curious metaphor for something or other, subjectively evaluated and reevaluated after the fact by all of those whose lives it ever touched. At least recovering addicts realize and admit that they wasted the years of their addictions, and begin to make amends and to lead a meaningful life. Armstrongoholics are unique in that they seem to attempt to derive meaning from their wasted years. The old dude really messed with his followers' heads.
BB
HWA was always very clear that "he didn't know".
He said he didn't understand the pyramids, where the place of safety was going to be and if he were to lead the church into the wtm.
Stan Rader in the Ministerial Bulletin of 1980 said that he didn't believe there would be a successor to HWA.
Nck
Anonymous 3/8 @ 3:17,
I agree with you about burning/banning books. I'm saying that because Herbert saw fit to conduct business in the manner that he did (and Worldwide/Grace ended up with the copyrights to his works), that they had a moral obligation to ensure that those writings not end up in the hands of folks like Gerald Flurry! In other words, they had the power to make sure those works would never again be used to evangelize and manipulate anyone ever again. I have no problem with the book being available in libraries and seminaries as examples of how twisted and heretical some folks can be!
"What About the Truth" stated: "but having reread Just What Do You Mean Salvation some ten years ago, Herbert Armstrong fully understood grace"
I just reread sections of HWA's book online and it says what I thought it said. HWA thought that grace was a component of a point-in-time transaction called justification. After that transaction was completed, grace goes away never to return. HWA wrote:
"... to square up our past law-breaking — to wipe the slate clean, and give us, by His merciful grace, a fresh, clean start...So, from here on, we must obey — unto righteousness!"
Grace is the one-time pardon you receive, according to HWA, when you are forgiven. I agree with this but this is not the only function of grace. It continues throughout life and defines your relationship with God (Rom 5:2, Acts 13:43, and other scriptures). Armstrongists do not see this expanded role of grace, hence, you hardly ever hear them speak of grace nor do they have a gracious Christian walk. They have a legalistic walk. For them grace was a one-time historical event rather than being the hallmark of the Christian Faith.
"What about the Truth" wrote: HWA...adamantly proclaimed we do not teach salvation by works as apposed (sic) to those who teach earning hell by their works.
There is a bit of legerdemain in this. What HWA meant was not that he taught salvation by YOUR works. The perfect works still have to come out of you. To any external observer, it would look exactly like Performance Christianity or Pelagianism. HWA wrote:
"If Christ, by His GRACE, erased your guilty past, gave you access to God, and now pours forth into and through you the spiritual love that keeps the Law, this is not your righteousness, but God's ... and this is not YOUR "works"! It is nothing you earn!"
So you see why GRACE can go away after you receive your forensic pardon in HWA's picture of salvation (refer to my previous post). Now the Holy Spirit works in you to produce a perfect life (Consider Ellen G. Whites belief that Adventists must achieve earthly perfection before the Second Coming).
For Christians good works are natural activities correlated with salvation and produced by those in the continuing state of grace. They are not a condition for salvation but will be present.
For HWA good works, perfection actually, are a condition for salvation. It is just that the works are not ours so he can say we do not earn our salvation by works. For him, it is a labelling issue.
Note: I am just a Christian lay member and have no recognized authority to speak on behalf of the Christian movement. Sorry for the HWA-like all caps. I just wanted to point out some connections.
Miller Jones
Even restricting books raises the same problems as banning books outright. The problem is that infallible humans do not exist. Consider the behavior of human governments throughout history. Look at the historic intolerance of the Roman Catholic church. Sadly, allowing free access to even evil books, is the lesser of the two evils of allowing someone to play book policeman. I remind you that many, err, make that all the ACOGs would love to shut down this blog, using your own line of reasoning.
Anonymous 3/8 @ 5:21,
As a student of history, I'm well aware of the story of humankind's experiments in censorship. Once again, I share your disdain for banning and burning books. Placing restrictions on the use of printed material happens all the time - I'm speaking about the phenomenon we refer to as copyright law. You know, the kind of laws that gave Tolkien's heirs a say in how his works are used and portrayed. I'm thinking about the kind of laws that gave Margaret Mitchell's heirs a say in who would write a sequel to "Gone With the Wind." Moreover, we've decided as a society that there should be limits on how some types of printed material can be used, and who will have access to them (pornography, bomb making, plastic gun construction, publication of classified material, etc.). Restricting the use of intellectual property is NOT the equivalent of book burning/banning. Grace Communion sold their property to bat shit crazy Gerald Flurry to do with as he pleased (and it should have been abundantly clear to everyone what he would do with it). Once again, I believe the moral (and legal) thing to do would have been to not sell the material to a religious crackpot!
NEO, very astute observations and I agree to a degree with your points. There was a back door teaching and practice which predominated and shrouded what was pasted all over the front door.
My point was to bring to light what HWA actually wrote or spoke on the subject of grace which was what I and others plainly saw as our eyes became fixated on the WCG.
You wrote: Grace is the one-time pardon you receive, according to HWA, when you are forgiven. I agree with this but this is not the only function of grace. It continues throughout life and defines your relationship with God (Rom 5:2, Acts 13:43, and other scriptures). Armstrongists do not see this expanded role of grace, hence, you hardly ever hear them speak of grace nor do they have a gracious Christian walk. They have a legalistic walk. For them grace was a one-time historical event rather than being the hallmark of the Christian Faith.
I went back to look at the booklet myself. Here is HWAs concluding paragraph: finally, back again to you! Where are we, now? You have been converted — changed in mind, concept, attitude, direction of way of life — you are begotten as a child of God — you have now eternal life abiding in you — as long as you are LED by God's Spirit in God's way — as long as you continue in contact and fellowship with God (I John 1:3) — all by God's grace as His gift, and not anything you have earned by your works; and now if you continue overcoming, growing spiritually — and all this actually through God's power — you shall inherit the Kingdom of God, and be made immortal to live forever in happiness and joy.
HWA stated in this booklet that justification, the giving of His Holy Spirit and the gift of eternal life were all by grace. So these statements combined with his concluding paragraph indicate plainly that he believed that grace was more than a one time event at the beginning of the conversion process.
You and I both know that what was a Very recognizable storefront edifice wasn't necessarily the "door" one was "allowed" to walk through. And once caught in the backrooms of confusion the member forgot what building that they were really in.
Surprised that nothing apparently is mentioned in this article about the "Armstrong test."
You know - unless you declare HWA was the end-time Elijah, you can't attend a PCG service.
Some religions teach that true religion is "a way of living" like Judaism or Islam.
True, Zakath, Pilgrimage, Prayer etc are all pillars if faith but the religion are the works, not something that is felt in the heart or something.
Armstrongism claimed close connections to Abrahamic faith as traditional Christianity distanced itself from it and intellectualized... I know this is academics talking not some sincere Italian lady helping her Corona stricken neighbors. Yet academics make interesting observations in generalities.
Nck
What About the Truth wrote: "HWA stated in this booklet that justification, the giving of His Holy Spirit and the gift of eternal life were all by grace. So these statements combined with his concluding paragraph indicate plainly that he believed that grace was more than a one time event at the beginning of the conversion process."
I believe you are reading something into HWA's exposition that is not there. I read the last paragraph and he simply said "by grace" which can only refer in context to his point-in-time explanation earlier. The article contains no other model. You would have to give me your references and explain why they do not logically connect to his point-in-time model.
NEO,
HWA was belaboring the by grace point at the infancy of conversion because of the fake news (in his mind) at that time.
If you recall he spent a good amount of time addressing the immortal soul (born with) believers and castigated their belief as denying the gift (by grace) from God of immortal life, for as he said, God can't give you something that you claim you already have.
He spent more time in this area by going to his "famous" ye SHALL be saved future tense interpretation of only receiving this gift, which is the gift of eternal life and which can't be gotten by any of your works as he stated many times, then he went on to say you are at some point in the future changed into an immortal being.
So he implicitly states that eternal life is a gift that can't be earned and is received in the future sometime and all by grace. He in my mind plainly understands the end point of the Christian walk of receiving eternal life is by grace only.
If you agree he has a solid understanding of the role of grace in the beginning of the conversion process and I think he did enough to convey in this booklet that that role of grace is still in play at the finality of conversion then that leaves the middle period of the process to determine if he believed and understood the role of grace during that time period.
I think as well he did enough in the concluding paragraph by explaining if you continue to be led by God's Spirit in God's way and as long as you continue in contact and fellowship with God - all by God's grace as his gift, that this covers the time between the beginning of conversion and the end plainly enough.
Organically or academically understanding something in the religious context is like tithing cumin and mint. It is nice that it is understood but what about judgment mercy and faith which if the WCG would of applied grace through that filter, we might not have ever had what we have today.
nck,
The STP was not a paper but a collection of one or two page papers on various theological topics of interest to the WCG. The STP was Kuhn's idea (much to the consternation of Charles Dorothy who was doing something vaguely similar). He farmed out most of the work on the first draft to the ministers who were in Pasadena for a year of sabbatical education and were in his two-semester Doctrines of the WCG class. I was in this class the previous year and was around to see some of the writing and editing of the STP.
I assume your statement "It is 100 percent correct" is meant as satire.
CHURCH HISTORY
Christ's APOSTLE Herbert W. Armstrong, the human leader of the Worldwide Church of God, died on January 16, 1986.
The Devil's APOSTATE Joseph W. Tkach, Sr. destroyed the Worldwide Church of God with the Great Apostasy of January 1995. He threw out virtually everything that Herbert W. Armstrong had taught, and openly proclaimed it in the church's newspaper.
The Devil's FALSE PROPHET Gerald R. Flurry appeared and used Herbert W. Armstrong's name and photograph to lure former Worldwide Church of God members into his Philadelphia Church of Satan.
The Devil's APOSTATE Joseph Tkach, Jr. sold the copyrights to some of Herbert W. Armstrong's writings to the Devil's FALSE PROPHET Gerald Flurry so he could edit and change them in truly satanic ways while pretending to be faithfully preserving them.
Former Worldwide Church of God ministers formed the so-called “United” Church of Hirelings so they could continue to collect paychecks without mentioning Herbert W. Armstrong or the Worldwide Church of God in their official literature. They basically left all public use of Herbert W. Armstrong's name and photograph to the Devil's FALSE PROPHET Gerald Flurry. They did not mention the Worldwide Church of God or what had happened to it either, since many of them had gone along with the doctrinal changes of the APOSTATES until the income declined so much that they got laid off.
In addition to all of its smaller splitting and splintering, the so-called “United” Church of Hirelings had a major split in 2010 with the formation of the Church of God, a Worldwide Association. Jim Franks currently leads COGWA, while the former Tkach goon Victor Kubik leads what is left of the so-called “United” Church of Hirelings.
100 percent correct in the sense that it reflected the "official theology".
I responded to the notion that MOA was the only document doing that. MOA is a summary and broad "vision" sketch like books politicians issue before an election. (like it takes a village)
Nck
Oh but you do. You also have to declare that Flurry is "that prophet"....Ask me how I know!
Post a Comment