The spiritual madness has descended deeper down the rabbit hole in the Philadelphia Church of God. For a while, many were looking at Stephen Flurry as the potential savior to lead the church out from under his dad's abominable teachings. That idea is moot now considering the following:
Flurrys Re-Writing the Bible With Their Heresies:
April 6, 2020
Almost everything that SF and GF says is unbiblical. Not only has GF re-written much of what Herbert Armstrong wrote, they are now re-writing the Bible with their heresies. Neither of them understand how to teach the Bible accurately.
On Saturday SF said Jesus Christ (our Advocate) can “help us get through to the Father.” Help us get through? Both SF and GF at this time of year do nothing but focus on members’ sins. The temple veil (signifying man was separated from God by sin) was torn the moment Jesus died. Jesus does not “help us get through” to the Father. He is our Advocate (“helper, adviser, or counselor” from the Greek word parakleton) in the sense of pleading our case because He has already satisfied the demands of the Law. True Christians have already “gotten through” to the Father because they have been redeemed by His Blood. Colossians 1:14: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.”
SF also said that Christ “will sit down and talk to our Father about how to remove our sins.” Such absolute nonsense. Christ already removed our sin when He died for all of them on the cross. Psalms 103:12: “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.” [Also read: The Sin Question]
Another heretical teaching is when SF says we have “two” comforters–the Holy Spirit (which he says is the power of God) and Jesus Christ. That is totally unbiblical. Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit when He went away, back to Heaven. [Read: Is the Holy Spirit Only the Power of God?]
I don’t know where SF and GF get these ideas but it’s not from the Bible. Not only do they not have the “love of Jesus Christ” as a previous letter said, but they do not even know how to feel or show love for Christ.
Also, the Flurrys are trying to create the impression that they are growing in numbers and so they’re propping up that illusion in the minds of their members. Most watching these “live presentations” are members. –W. N.From Exit and Support
29 comments:
SF also said that Christ “will sit down and talk to our Father about how to remove our sins.”
Um, really? I don't even know how to respond to such as stupid statement. I think the Flurry's need to close up shop and call it a day. Time to close up the PCG family business. I have a feeling that many of their followers will blindly accept what this moron had stated.
For you followers of the PCG, a hint as to what Jesus did to remove our sins - He died on the cross. Nuff said.
Craig
He quotes Col 1:14, he, and all Armstrongists, should check out Col 2:16 !
I've said this before here, I think that God is merciful enough that he could have forgiven our sins without Jesus' death. But if he did that, how much would we appreciate it? What would we learn?
Would we learn to hate sin if it was that easy? Yeah, I know Jesus' death is easy for us but if you're really close to God shouldn't knowing that he died for you hurt?
He died, not to pay a price that a demanding God required, he died so that we'd learn to hate sin and its consequences!
km
all Armstrongists, should check out Col 2:16
Indeed. Because a shadow isn't imaginary, like the imaginary antinomianism of the Tkaches and their supporters.
A shadow is real. If you are walking in sunlight, you will see a shadow. The only way to avoid the shadow is to walk in darkness.
The Tkaches chose to walk in darkness. Others recognize the shadow, God's law, as very real and very good and still valuable for Christians, precisely because the substance of that shadow is Jesus Christ.
3:03pm Am I to conclude that when you were an Armstrongist that you'd never read Col. 2:16?
The Flurry family business is living in the world of cultism. What else can one expect?
No ethics.
No compassion.
No understanding of history.
Morons with no theological training.
No basic traditional teachings of love.
No traditional teachings that exemplify Christ as the Savior.
They are Monsters!
Flurry and PCOG live in an alternative universe, separated from reality by the belief that they can change reality & alter scripture. They are headed for their own self-created great tribulation.
"Because a shadow isn't imaginary..A shadow is real. If you are walking in sunlight, you will see a shadow. The only way to avoid the shadow is to walk in darkness."
The most complex explanation of Colossians 2:16-17 yet; the simplest explanation is best: a straightforward reading of the passage in the light of other clear Pauline scriptures slamming the sabbatatians/new-moon/Jewish festival observers (Galatians 4:10)(Colossians 2:16-17)
km
Christ's death paid for our sins. Also, "by His strips we were healed." It's called cause and effect. It's why Christ died. God the Father forgiving our sins without Christ's death would be cheating. God would no longer be perfect and holy.
"God would no longer be perfect and holy."
That's a SDA teaching. A sick one at that! God could forgive without a sacrifice if he chose to. Yes, he's that merciful. He doesn't because he loves us and wants us to understand the evils of sin.
The idea that God demands a sacrifice is sick! Developed in the sick mind of religious people trying to control others.
km
very little (if anything) of what Flurry does is biblical....no news here.
6:41
I don't know km.
No culture on earth, neither the universe itself is without the concept of "balance, Ying and Yang, equilibrium" etc etc etc etc. "Sin" seems to be a concept of "intrusion", or "disturbance" of that balance that in one way or the other needs "restoration" into that equilibrium.
Nck
very little (if anything) of what Flurry does is biblical....no news here.
On the contrary, MUCH of what Flurry does is biblical. The Pharisees and even Satan are "biblical," you must remember. Very little of what Flurry does is Godly, or even good. But it is most definitely biblical.
km
I have no idea what the SDA believe, but I do know what my Bible says.
Isaiah 53.5 "..and by His stripes we are healed." It does NOT say "..by His stripes we understand the evils of sin." This gymnastic interpretation of the bible is a common form of deceit, plus adding/subtracting to God's word.
If you are going to ignore the obvious meaning of Bible sentences, why not write your own Bible. Call it The Truth According To Km Bible, and not to be confused with God's Bible.
Nck, I have no problem with your uncertainty about my theory.
The thing is, once I die, I've paid the penalty for my sin. If I'm resurrected it's because of God's great mercy.
I don't mean to take away from what Jesus did, it was great. My question is, was it for God's benefit (does he demand blood) or for ours (to enforce in our minds the evil and consequences of sin)?
km
" The Pharisees and even Satan are "biblical," you must remember. "
in a mechanical sort of way, certainly not spiritually.
same for the Flurrys.
I must say Stevo certainly improved his looks with the manly beard - Joe Jr's facial fuzz didn't suit at all.
Ah yes. The belief that our sins could only be forgiven if Jesus was substituted as a sacrifice. This is one of the dumbest damn things I've ever heard. Where is the logic in this?? Where is the reasoning behind it??? The notion that I can be spared by God because God decides to kill some other poor sucker in my place is pure insanity.
Just like Jon W Brisby both say Jesus has come in there flesh and his living in a man.
8:45am I guess this is beyond your ability to comprehend, or beyond your willingness to comprehend.
Did God demand Jesus' stripes before he'd be willing to heal? It must be a monster God that you worship. Or does God recognize the fact that we won't appreciate our healings if he grants them so easily?
Sicknesses are caused by sin, not necessarily the sin of the individual, but by sin nonetheless.
You can claim that I'm doing gymnastics in order to deceive all that you want but the fact is you're unable, or unwilling, to grasp the point that I'm making.
Christ's sacrifice and his stripes were not to appease a harsh God, not even a just God, though he is just, they were for our appreciation, our grasping, of the evils of sin.
If that's more than you can accept then maybe you need to contemplate God's mercy a little more!
I'm neither adding nor subtracting from anything!
I'm actually thinking, something most in the cog are unable or unwilling to do!
km
I fully appreciate km's line of thought. Coming from a legal background I have difficulty with the missing "retribution" aspect. I already made my "balancing of the universe/starwars the force" point and find km's theory "challenging" in the case of "love vs just compensation".
Does km pay for his sins by dying in the end? Hmmmmm, so we are all christ?
Not fighting km, just my worldly legal schooling protesting. As my professor said, an eye for an eye is just horror, but the principle of just compensation is fundamental.
Nck
Nck
Nck, you said it when you said "his" sins. How can I be compared to Christ if my death only covers my sin? If Christ would have sinned his death would have only covered his sin and that would be his reward, wage, death.
The thing to consider, my death may cover my sin and death being my eternal reward/wage, it in no way grants me eternal life. That's where God's grace comes into play.
Again, I'm not downplaying Christ dying for our sins, but did he die for God's benefit (as a demand for justice) or for our benefit (showing us that there are consequences for sin and we need to appreciate that fact)? The consequences being eternal death.
God didn't have to send Jesus for there to be justice. All he had to do was let us die, the wages of sin is death, justice would have been served.
Sending Jesus was God's mercy in full display, not the uncaring hand of justice.
Just my thoughts, in no way am I saying I'm 100% correct.
km
Nck, I really appreciate the respectful dialogue. May you and yours be well.
km
The more I comment the stupider I sound as, a non solar on the topic.
I think I understand the concept.
People, like Adam, die as wage for their own personal sins but Christ died to remove/or for the concept of sin in general.
It touches the subjects/concepts of "doing" sinful acts" or "being" sinful in nature by being" dust".
Also that Azazel goat sent into the desert comes to mind....but I should shut up as being not knowledgeable on the topic, just interested, given the time of year.
Nck
We are aiming to be well. One of the busiest airports in the world, around the corner, looks like a national park or nature reserve. (Christian) Easter morning only the sound of birds, Robbins and Ambulances going back and forth break the silence. It's like a bad bad 1980 B zombie movie by a director only getting fame 10 years after that project.
However. Atheists, Christians, Jews and others share hopes today of resurection as the NY governor talked about and I can confirm the sentiment from that particular hub is shared in wide circles through confinement in this hub.
I could rail on the cult leaders, but this week rather contemplate the nature of sin as in "bacteria, yeast" and the topic of redemption through action, non action and grace.
Interaction seems key and trying to understand the nature of the beast to gain immunity.
Nck
nck wrote:
The more I comment the stupider I sound as, a non solar on the topic.
Non solar? You admit you're in the dark on the topic? Nice.
3:42
"scolar"
True.
Mine are "just personal" opinions and thoughts. But no 6 month (comprehensive or cohesive) study in a library, I admit.
Nck
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
1 Peter 2:24 KJV
You are in herasey
Post a Comment