Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders

Monday, August 9, 2021

Why Do the Members of the Restored and Philadelphian Church of God Cults Stay Gyrating in Their Seats?




How Authoritarians Leaders Get Away with It
The one psychological move that frees followers from doubt.


(read the complete article here)
Excerpts from the article:

Experimental psychologist Bob Altemeyer spent his entire career studying authoritarians, both the leaders and the followers. In 1998, he wrote:

“Wanna-be tyrants in a democracy are just comical figures on soapboxes when they have no following. So the real…threat lay coiled in parts of the population itself…ready someday to catapult the next Hitler to power with their votes.”

His and other’s research yields this list of conclusions about authoritarian followers whether they follow tyrants on the left, right, religious, spiritual, whatever:

1. They are highly ethnocentric, highly inclined to see the world as their in-group versus everyone else. Because they are so committed to their in-group, they are very zealous in its cause. 
 
2. They are highly fearful of a dangerous world. Their parents taught them, more than parents usually do, that the world is dangerous. They may also be genetically predisposed to experiencing stronger fear than most people do. 
 
3. They are highly self-righteous. They believe they are the “good people” and this unlocks a lot of hostile impulses against those they consider bad. 
 
4. They are aggressive. Given the chance to attack someone with the approval of an authority, they will lower the boom. 
 
5. Their beliefs are a mass of contradictions. They have highly compartmentalized minds, in which opposite beliefs exist side-by-side in adjacent boxes. As a result, their thinking is full of double-standards. 
 
6. They reason poorly. If they like the conclusion of an argument, they don’t pay much attention to whether the evidence is valid or the argument is consistent. 
 
7. They are highly dogmatic. Because they have gotten their beliefs mainly from the authorities in their lives, rather than think things out for themselves, they have no real defense when facts or events indicate they are wrong. So they just dig in their heels and refuse to change. 
 
8. They are very dependent on social reinforcement of their beliefs. They think they are right because almost everyone they know, almost every news broadcast they see, almost every radio commentator they listen to, tells them they are. That is, they screen out the sources that will suggest that they are wrong. 
 
9. Because they severely limit their exposure to different people and ideas, they vastly overestimate the extent to which other people agree with them. And thinking they are “the moral majority” supports their attacks on the “evil minorities” they see in the country. 
 
10. They are easily duped by manipulators who pretend to espouse their causes when all the con-artists really want is personal gain. 
 
11. They are largely blind to themselves. They have little self-understanding and insight into why they think and do what they do.

Why would people be like this? Lots of reasons that are hard to distinguish. There are probably evolutionary origins beta males subordinating themselves in species with alpha males. Upbringing and social context play a role. We could list benefits of being a follower, for example, that self-certainty is fun. We could also list the costs of the alternatives, for example, that self-doubt, changing one’s mind, or admitting you’re wrong is uncomfortable.

Then there are those who aren’t choosing to be followers but can’t help it because they actually can’t think hard enough to make their own big choices. And then there’s an often overlooked factor: The more complicated the world becomes the more appealing it is to give up on thinking and put trust in an authority who speaks with confidence.

We need to know what motivates authoritarian followers in order to figure out how to deal with them. Demanding that someone think harder will backfire with people who can’t. Calling them con-artists when they’re simpletons or simpletons when they’re con-artists will backfire too. Still, it’s hard to discern true motives, especially with authoritarian-followers, people who don’t know their own motives and so couldn’t or wouldn’t report them.

Here then, rather than focusing on what motivates them, I’ll focus on how they can justify and rationalize believing anything their leaders say and do. I’ll call their approach "machine envy.” They act like they think life’s questions can be answered by a machine that they have discovered and become. Input anything into the machine, you get the one reliable true output.

An algorithm is basically a reliable machine made of numbers, for example, 1+X=Y. Whatever you put into X, you’ll get a reliable output for Y.

Authoritarian followers pretend life is reducible to machine-like cause and effect algorithms. It is the alternative to thinking, defined as doubting, wondering, struggling with ambiguity and ambivalence. Computers may be “intelligent” by some definitions of the term, but they do not think as defined here. They don’t strive to discern differences as though their lives depended on it. Humans think, not that we love having to do it. Still, our lives depend on it.

With authoritarian followers, the thinking is already over. They’re not guessing at what’s true. There’s no interpretation left to do. They and their leaders have already done all the interpretation necessary. They discovered the truth, embraced it, internalized it, and now only have to act on it like machines. They see reality clearly, truly and purely through their unambiguous mechanistic world view.

54 comments:

  1. Thanks, interesting article.

    Seems to describe most of the COG group’s critics on this site. They criticize all the leaders of those groups, but individually they themselves fit those 10 points, yet, don’t qualify to have a group following of their own. Yes, very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob
      The ACOG leaders on this blog are criticized for their immoral mistreatment of members, which you conveniently ignore. You seem to be blaming the victims.
      Try having a long look in a moral mirror.

      Delete
  2. "With authoritarian followers, the thinking is already over. They’re not guessing at what’s true. There’s no interpretation left to do. They and their leaders have already done all the interpretation necessary. They discovered the truth, embraced it, internalized it, and now only have to act on it like machines. They see reality clearly, truly and purely through their unambiguous mechanistic world view."

    Ouch! Very true. It took me a long time to admit I was locked in, despite the evidence to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Petry's comment is the classic example how everyone feels everyone else but them does these things and thus they can keep doing what they do when you shouldn't. Or as they say, the eye that sees can't see itself, which they also can say back and thus no progress is ever made on anything.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Petry is guilty of all 10 of those things he condemns everyone here with. He has been quite nasty over the year on his blogs and was absolutely crazy in his prophetic predictions as Bob Thiel and Dave Pack.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob Petry: there are 11 points and the last one reminds me of the following admonition, so maybe we should leave all the Armstwrongish COGs alone but still can comment on this blog: Matthew 15:14 - Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Dennis.
    Right back at you.
    And, how are you different from those 10?

    Those 10 are nothing more than generalities that fit all of us. For example, you and the other critics of COGs, aka WCG, CCG, etc. ad infinitum, are telling them what you think is right vs what you think is wrong with them. So, what makes you all right, and the authority on how they should conduct themselves?

    And what makes you think an atheist should tell a believer how to conduct their faith?

    And, why is it wrong for me to criticize what’s wrong with this site, while it is ok for you to blatantly bombast religious folks daily?

    Can’t the critics here present a better opportunity and example of how things should be done versus calling others the low life names and labels used here?

    There are better ways for all of us, so let’s use them.

    But, of course, iron sharpens iron, and the Word is a two edged sword.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon. 12:36 makes a great point.

    Mt. 13:15, I Cor. 14:38, II Tim. 4:2, Titus 2:15 are some other valid points.

    Sometimes the words exhort and rebuke are overlooked, well, most of the time. But, good or bad, depending on the viewer, those words lead to marvelous personal growth!

    Well, I did call 9/11 on live tv 7 months before it happened. And was the first person ever to name an event before it happened — 9/11.

    And, also called Gaza being given back to the Palestinians by Israel before it happened. I called what later became named the Arab Spring on Twitter before it happened. And, a few other things on live tv.

    Now, wow, I called events before they happened!!! See, I am a prophet, right? NOPE.
    I am not. I just found some scriptures that gave me some clues, and they worked. Others didn’t.

    And, I found a simple prophetic chronology that seems to be working still, but no one wants to hear it, neither WCGs, nor atheists, etc. At first I tried to tell a few so a group could look into it to verify it or not. Well, couldn’t get a single person to help.

    So, those who profess prove all things, wanted to prove nothing. Oh well.

    Too bad, for there are so many positive things to discuss still, and all just want to argue.

    ReplyDelete

  8. “Wanna-be tyrants in a democracy are just comical figures on soapboxes when they have no following. So the real…threat lay coiled in parts of the population itself…ready someday to catapult the next Hitler to power with their votes.”



    man, that guy nailed the liberal democrats for sure!

    all the way down the list one can't help but picture the current people in power....

    ReplyDelete
  9. The point of posting the Psychology Today article to to address why it is that people in the more authoritarian churches of God such as Restored Under Apostle Know It All Though It Never Come to Pass Pack and Gerald Flately Flurry stay week after week. The amount of personal control these men claim over everyone is classic and those who put up with it do so because of these tendencies in their personalities evidently.

    I have no interest in telling you or anyone else how to live out their faith. And my being an atheist should not bother you as much as it did in the private judgmental email rants on the real reason I was an atheist you sent me awhile back. I think, and I don't have the email, your point then was that I was an atheist because Herbert W Armstrong broke the chain of apostolic authority by leaving SDCOG back in the day and all ordained by him were invalid as real Christians anyway, or something like that. Not exactly a live and let live perspective on your part

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oops..I found your email to me and it was the Baptist minister at Hinson Baptist Church, which I drove by today here in Portland, that gummed up all that followed in the true pecking order.

    You said:
    "Partial wva, however the church teaching was laying on of hands after baptism for receiving of the spirit. Had to be through “God’s ministers” as they only could pass it on. So, HWA baptized and anointed ministers and members. Then those ministers did the same. The baptist minister who baptized HWA broke the chain. The “true ministry” was through the 7th day cog. That was the teaching. Perhaps this is one of the reasons you and so many others became atheists. So, one could argue from HWA on, nothing was passed on to the membership but doctrine. Would explain a lot.

    Hope that helps a bit,
    Bob

    Not condescending just explaining the doctrine of the day."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dennis,

    Thanks for passing on what I wrote. And, that was the teaching and belief of the RCG at the time. Many people at the time, and since, had to be rebaptized because they had been baptized by a baptist minister, or other Protestant or Catholic minister. However, HWA was never re-baptized. And, it took a very long time before that was revealed. So, if the teaching was, believed, and practiced that only a minister of the “true church” could pass on the Spirit, then it could not be passed on by HWA and those he baptized.

    Therefore, under that teaching, the line of ministers after HWA could not pass on what they had not received, which lead to all kinds of problems. He even gave a scorching sermon against the ministry before he died. He said that based on the results, the ministers were not converted. The video is on youtube somewhere.

    This is also a potential reason for all the nonsense that came out of the WCG today which you guys are always bellyaching about. And, why so many so easily became atheists. When anyone does not have the Father’s Spirit they are or become godless, i.e. A-theoi. Plus, as the atheists published in their handbook on the Bible, there was a deliberate attack against the Worldwide. And, evidently a bunch of them slipped into the college and church to undermine from within.

    There is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed someone once said.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Denis, you raise a very good point about personal control by authoritarian leaders and those under them who because of their personalities, subject themselves to this rule. I remember a physiologist many years ago commenting that while such groups with a rigid leadership and control structure may seem oppressive to many , you will undoubtedly fine many perfectly happy within the confines of the organisation. And I admit for myself I was one and at ‘home’ within the cog movement. It was a shield and shelter from the reality of a world that I viewed as hostile to my Christian faith. While no longer a member of the cog movement or of any Christian church and looking back on the friendships I had and still enjoy, I am happier now and have a freedom that was lacking when I was involved. Which raises many points as to why so many who have left feel ‘better’. Thanks for this post.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 4.07 PM
    It was my observation that the WWCG was a gold mine for some members. Women were frequently dated because of a shortage of single women. These same women would have rarely been dated outside the church. Some members were in fact "perfectly happy" within the church. These were the "small fish" that ministers left alone, and often got away with misbehavior that wasn't tolerated out side the church. But too many paid too high a price for their membership.

    ReplyDelete
  14. And too Bob, the concept of required unbroken chains of spirit flow over 2000 years is ridiculous and would be irrelevant to any individuals ordination, baptism or personal conversion to NT Christianity. It's not like we all must be connected to the one true breaker box in the sky controlled by the one true Electrician God.

    So while it might explain atheism to you, it is not the real reason I or any I know lose faith in faith. They do it as they mature and drop their faith restrictions and allow in information, be it actual church history, the real origins of the Gospels and problems with them and the fact of evolution of all life which is actually understood by most as true and not a threat to their faith. It is a threat to Bible literalism however.

    And this is off topic so let's get back to why people stay with Flurry and Pack even in the light of one massive failure after another in their prediction addictions or their control over the members in areas that are actually none of their business

    I'd refer to a previous article of mine on what should be in all churches the Church Member Bill of Rights. Try this on Flurry or Pack and see how the authoritarian reacts.

    https://ezinearticles.com/?The-Church-Members-Bill-of-Rights----Basic-Rights-Any-Member-of-a-Church-Should-Expect-to-Enjoy&id=165318

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ok, Dennis, let’s get back on the topic.

    First though, you are incorrect that this my reason for atheism. It is clear Biblically why there are atheists.

    As for an atheist teaching the mechanics of baptism, ministerial lineage, etc. is sort of humorous since they don’t believe nor understand spiritual matters. I think you would prefer being a minister. You gave me the same answer Stan Rader gave the newspaper reporter that interview him and me and Ted Armstrong.

    As to explaining becoming an atheist because of allowing in information, etc. is full of holes and self deception. If that were true then there would be no atheists like Flew, Murray [Madelyn’s son], etc. for they make the same claim as you. They preached atheism, then turned to the Messiah, and the Bible. After spending 20 years ln an atheist hotbed, debating them in person, and on their live calls on our public access tv show, plus working tv crews with them, there is no way that claim holds up.

    So, back to the topic. Thanks for the commercial break.

    ReplyDelete
  16. People are always worried about the "next Hitler." It's a simple minded stereotype. The NWO is far left not far right. Hell will come, but not in the way people are expecting. Herb played right into this delusional stereotype.

    ReplyDelete
  17. People put up with Pack and Flurry because they are brainwashed into Armstrongism.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous said...
    Bob
    The ACOG leaders on this blog are criticized for their immoral mistreatment of members, which you conveniently ignore. You seem to be blaming the victims.
    Try having a long look in a moral mirror.
    —————————————-
    No, I do not ignore that. I am pointing out the way it is being done. I already know more than most of you about those problems. It is like reading a bunch of school yard bullies with a marines carnal vocabulary attacking another person. Go back and read the posts and tell me they are from concerned citizens. It’s more a bunch of hoodlums seeking revenge over reason. That kind of criticism doesn’t accomplish a thing, except as this saying makes it clear: What YOU are speaks so loudly I can’t hear what you are saying.

    Sorry, but people buy a product, according to marketing experts, based 85% on the salesman’s appearance.

    Say good night Gracie,

    ReplyDelete
  19. Then time to stop hanging here Bob. Don't torture yourself. Banned only exists to point out ongoing foolishness in the Church of God splits and splinters and their authoritarian foolish shepherd leadership such as Dave Pack and Gerald Flurry. It is done with the hope that those stuck in the cult can think it through and not fear to vote with their feet and reclaim their actual lives. Not to offer kind suggestions as to how they can do better. Authoritarians are not open to suggestions from all I have seen.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Restored Church of God is NOT a SPLINTER GROUP like PCG, LCG, ETC. , because the Restored Church of God is basically the Worldwide Church of God BROUGHT BACK SPIRITUALLY

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks Dennis,

    I wondered how long it would take. I’m not torturing myself. I’m enjoying every minute.
    By the way, one of the reasons people stick with Pack, etal, is the literature. It teaches the info people can check at anytime with or without Pack or fill in the blank ————- . Plus, in their videos, those people look happy, smiling, clear eyes, and more. Their is no happiness here, it’s all negative, with no positive solutions to replace what those folks already have.

    As I said, the experts say appearance is 85% of the sale.

    Also, having atheists trying to solve problems of the believer won’t work, as their solution leads to spiritual death. I’d rather work with believers having spiritual problems, than with atheists going nowhere.

    Still, the Creator we have described in the Bible has, through His Son, saved everyone who has lived, is living now, or whoever will live. And, that’s a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "And, why is it wrong for me to criticize what’s wrong with this site, while it is ok for you to blatantly bombast religious folks daily?

    Can’t the critics here present a better opportunity and example of how things should be done versus calling others the low life names and labels used here?" Bob Petry, I also pointed out how they insult people I don't think harsh criticism changes minds.

    ReplyDelete
  23. TC.

    You are crazy! Dave Pack's cult is absolutely a splinter cult of the Living Church of God. 100% a splinter cult. Dave's cult is nothing like the Worldwide Church of God ever was. There is no comparison. Herb would have kicked Daves's ass to the curb so fast even Jesus wouldn't have been able to find him.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anon 9:52 PM actually both LCG and RCG are splinters of the global church of God remember 80 percent of Global left to join Rod Meredith's new group LCG.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Joseph Tkach and his son and the other APOSTATES are SPIRITUAL MURDERERS for SPIRITUALLY KILLING the RIGHT MEETING PLACE in the 20th century and for LEAVING IT SPIRITUALLY DEAD. That SPIRITUALLY DEAD organization is NOTHING like the WAY it USED TO BE when it was SPIRITUALLY ALIVE and RUNNING WELL!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you go back and start reading all the co-worker letters….one has to ask ones self “was it ever really running well?”

      No it was a charade, an embarrassment.

      Delete
    2. I get the impression that our troll wasn't around for those days.

      Delete
  26. Petry wrote: "So, if the teaching was, believed, and practiced that only a minister of the “true church” could pass on the Spirit, then it could not be passed on by HWA and those he baptized."

    There are some weaknesses in this argument. If in fact the "laying on of hands" is necessary for a valid baptism, it is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. The fact that the Apostles did this and the Holy Spirit was imparted (Acts 18) does not necessarily create a universal principle for all time. The notable exception to this idea is found in the writing of Paul. Paul states:

    "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

    Paul identifies the proximate cause of receiving the Holy Spirit as faith. This makes sense because faith itself is a product of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. It also accommodates the Thief on the Cross situation. In the reading I did on this topic, I noticed that the Roman Catholic Church, the great champion of Apostolic Succession, believes that anyone can perform a valid baptism.

    If a continuous line of physical contact were required for imparting to someone valid conversion, then there are some serious, nay insurmountable logistical problems that must be addressed. The first and most obvious is the problem of "chain of custody." This is the administrative process that validates that something, usually a sample in a science lab, is bona fide. Paperwork accompanies the item testifying to its etiology and logistical movements. When the fifth person in the process receives the sample, he knows by looking at the signatures on the chain of custody document that it is the same sample that was received by the first person.

    We do not have a chain of custody for the Holy Spirit. Nor does scripture prescribe one. The problem with a system of personal physical contact for the transmisson of the Spirit is nominalism. What if you have an unbroken chain for five generations. But in the sixth generation the minister or bishop is a Christian in name only. He does not have the Holy Spirit to pass on. That breaks the chain. How does one verify a continuous chain of converted church administrators in order to assert a baptism is valid? My guess is that you would need to identify the nominals in the First Century just as a start. This is a fool's errand.

    And can we expect that a valid succession of physical contact passed through all those little weird Galatianistic sects that Dugger and Dodd claimed were early instantiations of the true church? I think not.

    It is nerdish, divisive and missing the point to reduce the ceremony of baptism and the receiving of the spirit to a chain of custody issue.

    ******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer



    ReplyDelete
  27. The points in the article apply to pretty much anyone regardless of beliefs about religion, "science," politics, or whatever. People are ignorant, deluded, and incapable of logic.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The NT says the canon of the bible must be preserved by THE TRUE CHURCH, i.e. "faithful men" but that's not what happened, unless the Catholic Church is the true church.

    ReplyDelete

  29. True [Mess] at 5:40 PM said...“The Restored Church of God is NOT a SPLINTER GROUP like PCG, LCG, ETC. , because the Restored Church of God is basically the Worldwide Church of God BROUGHT BACK SPIRITUALLY”


    That is just what klepto-Dave Pack-of-lies tells the victims of his Bait & Switch scam about his Restored Cash Grab (RCG) cult. Not true at all.

    ReplyDelete
  30. John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,).......and the disciples were not even converted yet - Luke 22:32!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10.05 AM
      But that's water baptism. There's no mention of people in this category receiving the holy spirit. Rather it's a type of a future 'real' baptism.

      Delete

  31. “Why Do the Members of the Restored and Philadelphian Church of God Cults Stay Gyrating in Their Seats?”


    Restored Cult members believe that they have to GYRATE in their seats to try to prove to Dave that they are really converted. It becomes a case of competitive gyrating to see who is the most converted to Dave's never-ending nonsense.

    Old Philadelphia Cult members SLEEP in their seats waiting for the boring taped sermons by Gerald to end so they can pursue their sexual interests. Old predators can hardly wait for Gerald's dull ramblings to end so they can pursue the younger cult members.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anon 9:24 AM keep in mind that the true church is a small flock not a big flock.

    ReplyDelete
  33. True Christian said...
    Anon 9:24 AM keep in mind that the true church is a small flock not a big flock.

    The "little flock" thing is the apologetic used when "Why don't they join our church?" and "How come nothing we do converts anyone?" becomes obvious. Feels better to feel it's suppose to be this way and not we have nothing convincing to offer.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous (9:24) wrote: "The NT says the canon of the bible must be preserved by THE TRUE CHURCH, i.e. "faithful men"

    Why don't you present your exegesis of that statement, please. I don't recall the term canon even being used in the NT.

    ******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

    ReplyDelete
  35. Neo stated, "It is nerdish, divisive and missing the point to reduce the ceremony of baptism and the receiving of the spirit to a chain of custody issue."

    I agree, and sooner or later the argument and logic falls apart, whether you are trying to defend the notion of "Apostolic Succession" or the validity of someone's baptism based solely who baptized them. If at any point in the link someone is proven to be "unconverted" or a "false teacher" the link breaks and in order to stay consistent with the logic of the argument, everyone who was either ordained or baptized after the faulty link would have to come into question, which places way too much importance and emphasis on the human being conducting the ceremony of baptism, rather than God, who gives the Holy Spirit to us. Luke 11:13; John 20:22

    Like the claim of the apostolic succession of popes somehow imparting them ultimate authority over the rest of Christendom, many of the COGs descending from WCG maintain their own in house version of these teachings, though their own link is inconsistent with the teaching. As someone else pointed out above, HWA was baptized by a Baptist preacher, making his link at least through baptism to the "true church" tenuous at best, and fraudulent at worst, which is something that isn't generally acknowledged within these groups.

    The double standard and hypocrisy comes in when others coming into the groups are required to be re-baptized, even if the previous denomination or group they attended with practiced full immersion baptism, and in many cases even if they are coming in from other Sabbath keeping groups such as the SDAs or even COG7. The reasoning and justification of this practice is usually something like, "that group teaches false doctrines" or the person wasn't baptized by a "duly ordained minister" of the "true church."

    The same reasoning is used in the recognition of someone's ministerial credentials. I've heard of cases fairly recently where the eldership of a person wasn't recognized by a COG splinter when they wanted to transfer their membership from the COG7 to that splinter because they decided they wanted to begin keeping the holy days. Yet, HWA purportedly left the same group and started his own group at least in part for the same reasons, and no one had any trouble accepting the validity of his eldership, and many among the splinters continue to see him as an apostle.

    If the validity of the eldership or baptism of HWA isn't to be questioned, then in order to be consistent and not reveal our own hypocrisy, the baptisms and ordinations of others coming from similar circumstances must also be accepted as valid, barring any other factors that might be an issue, such as behavior or actual fruits that can be observed. This however presents a conundrum for the COGs who want to maintain their own internal idea of exclusivity, because in order for that to stand it must be acknowledged that God works with individuals, and doesn't always stick to the the box we want to confine Him to.

    Concerned Sister

    ReplyDelete
  36. Blogger Normalized_Eigenvalue_Orthogonal said...
    Petry wrote: "So, if the teaching was, believed, and practiced that only a minister of the “true church” could pass on the Spirit, then it could not be passed on by HWA and those he baptized."

    There are some weaknesses in this argument. If in fact the "laying on of hands" is necessary for a valid baptism, it is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. The fact that the Apostles did this and the Holy Spirit was imparted (Acts 18) does not necessarily create a universal principle for all time. The notable exception to this idea is found in the writing of Paul. Paul states:

    —————————
    There are a few errors it appears in your summary.

    Here is an answer to the first one. The laying on of hands is for gaining the Spirit, not for a “valid” baptism. Acts 8:9-19 explains this clearly. As you will notice one may be baptized without laying on of hands. But, notice the Spirit IS given by the laying on of hands.
    There are several clear scriptures on the baptism question.

    Don’t think I should do a whole critique without questions to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous 10:05 said...
    John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,).......and the disciples were not even converted yet - Luke 22:32!
    ————————-
    John the Baptist and disciples baptized also.

    Neither of those were for receiving the Father’s Spirit as we understand it today for it was not given in that way till Acts 2. Please read.

    Plus the disciples were told to wait in Jerusalem until that event occurred. Acts 1. They did, and finally received what was promised.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous 10:05 said...
    John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,).......and the disciples were not even converted yet - Luke 22:32!
    ————————-
    John the Baptist and disciples baptized also.

    Neither of those were for receiving the Father’s Spirit as we understand it today for it was not given in that way till Acts 2. Please read.

    Plus the disciples were told to wait in Jerusalem until that event occurred. Acts 1. They did, and finally received what was promised.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Addendum to my previous comment:

    Does it seem reasonable that the God of all grace would make conversion and, hence, salvation dependent on a ritual that could not be brought under a credible quality assurance process? The entire thrust of the NC is that salvation comes by grace through faith. This view involving the passing of the Holy Spirit from person to person makes salvation dependent on a logistical work. For those under the New Covenant this is a recidivistic return to the Old Covenant principles.

    ******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

    ReplyDelete
  40. Bob Petry wrote "The laying on of hands is for gaining the Spirit, not for a “valid” baptism. Acts 8:9-19 explains this clearly."

    This is not as clear as you suggest. Perhaps looking at one passage in isolation from others gives some sense of conclusiveness but viewing the passage in broad context may lead to a different view. We have the Paul writing the following:

    "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal 3:5)

    This asserts that the proximate cause of receiving the Holy Spirit is faith.

    We have Peter making this statement:

    "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (the famous Acts 2:38)

    This asserts that the proximate cause of receiving the Holy spirit is Baptism.

    And then we have Acts 8 involving the Samaritans that is a special rather than generic case. We must ask ourselves, if it was quite well known that the laying on of hands imparts the Holy Spirit, why did Phillip not lay hands on them? I think Philip did all that he thought he needed to based on his past exerience. But in the ministry of the Holy Spirit (who is a Person) there was some need for the overt involvment of Peter and John in this specific case. I don't know what it was but my guess is that it had something to do with the influence of Simon the Sorcerer in Samaria.

    In 1 Timothy 4:14, Paul wrote:

    "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."

    There is a doctrine of the laying on of hands and it means of setting someone aside for a special purpose at the discretion of the Apostles. If it were an absolute requirement for receiving the Holy Spirit and had doctrinal status, it would not be absent from the Paul's statement in Gal 3:5 and Peter's statement in Acts 2:38.

    Adding requirements to the doctrine of salvation is not a good thing to be involved in. Many Old Testament weenies like to do this. I am not saying you are an OT weenie but you might be. And, BTW, there is no way you can be absolutely certain that everyone in the chain of laying on of hands leading to you was in good standing with God. What if a covert Simon Magus was in that succession somewhere? Then you are no better than your accusation against HWA.

    ******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

    ReplyDelete
  41. We saw our kids digging a hole in the backyard and filling it with water. They had a stray cat in custody. The last thing we heard before having to rescue the cat was "In the name of the Father, the Son and in the hole you go"

    ReplyDelete
  42. How'd we get from how authoritarian leaders get away with it to who gets a spirit charge and who doesn't? Oh-Bob Petry

    Three, six, nine the goose drank wine
    The monkey chewed the tobacco on the holy spirit line
    And the line broke and the monkey got chocked
    And none got to heaven as they only got soaked, clap clap

    ReplyDelete
  43. That "little flock" bit is misapplied. Jesus was talking to his disciples, who were his little flock. However, nowhere in Christian history is the term applied to the whole church. How could it be when Christ himself said the kingdom of God was like a tiny mustard seed that would grow into a large tree that all the birds would find shelter in. The ACOG's insist their sects will remain small, because they over focus on the little flock passage. Yet, how can you preach the Gospel to all creation, and make disciples of all nations if you remain a little flock? Logic has never been a strong point with Armstrong & Co.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Phinnpoy said...
    That "little flock" bit is misapplied. Jesus was talking to his disciples, who were his little flock. However, nowhere in Christian history is the term applied to the whole church.


    Exactly right. In my view, this has been used by the COGs as an excuse for lack of results. "well, we're supposed to be little, that's why we're not growing."

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous 6:46 said...
    How'd we get from how authoritarian leaders get away with it to who gets a spirit charge and who doesn't? Oh-Bob Petry
    ——————-

    Oops, I think that happened because Dennis looked for and found an email I had sent him, and he commented on it.

    All I was doing was mentioning to him why HWA’s baptism was upsetting to people when that info was released. At the time it made HWA look like he preached one thing but did another for himself. His reasoning was to have someone baptize him who would not require he also become a member of the minister’s particular church.

    Then NEO jumped in to explain, I guess, the accepted Christian position. That turns out to have some points that may be weaker than NEO thinks, for there are easy answers to all the objections mentioned. One being, for example, Phillip. He was a deacon, not an elder. Thus, he could baptize, but not lay hands on for receiving the holy spirit according to the church teaching on baptism.

    Also, Paul’s question “… by the law or by faith” does not negate the act vs the source. The source and reason was faith leading to the act of laying on of hands. Without the person’s faith they would not have wanted the process of baptism then laying on of hands.

    Plus, NEO mentioned the belief that the holy Spirit is a person. Not everybody believes that, and much debate has raged over the centuries. The RCG/WCG did not accept that during the time frame of HWA’s baptism.

    Put all the Scriptures together and it all becomes clear.

    It all fits and works, for good to those who loves their Creator, don’t cha’ think?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Phinnpoy: So God is now only calling—drawing—relatively few into His “little flock it is not a big flock like the false catholic church it is small has the name church of God and keeps the seventh-day Sabbath.

    ReplyDelete
  47. If you are LUCKY,you sleep during GERALD FLURRY'S BORING SERMONS! They are more effective at sedation than AMBIEN OR PROPOFOL! They could be marketed on a 2AM INFOMERCIAL to cure insomnia!!! BE HEALED FROM INSOMNIA by THAT PROPHET!!! Send in your 3RD TITHE NOW!!!

    ReplyDelete
  48. RC, your reply totally misses the point. You isolate one scripture passage without looking at other passages. I showed the passage about the mustard seed which became the largest of all trees. Alsi, the kingdom of God is also likened to a woman putting leaven in dough that causes it to rise. These parables show growth, nor your little flock nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  49. If God is blessing a person or organisation, its boundaries would expand. So even if it is a "little flock," and remains small, it would still be prospering. King David being a good example how even one person with God's blessing results in increasing power and wealth. Both not so the ACOGs.
    Posters on Banned and other dissident sites have repeatedly called out their toxic culture. But repentance is never forth coming. They keep clinging to Herb-world's blend of truth and error.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Phinnpoy: The kingdom of God starting small and getting big is not the same as the church. The kingdom of God is supposed to a world super government with the family of God ruling over it. That has not happened yet nor did the process of starting the kingdom start. Right now we are preparing to rule but we are not rulers yet when we become rulers in the first resurrection then it will start small and grow big.

    ReplyDelete