Oh, gather 'round for the epic tale of Fred R. Coulter and his scrappy little Christian Biblical Church of God (CBCG)—the Armstrongist splinter that's basically "Herbert W. Armstrong’s Greatest Hits: Director’s Cut Edition, Now With Phrenology, Calendar Upgrades, and Fred Fixing the Bible That the King James Translators Were Too Stupid to Understand.!"
Meet the Man, the Myth, the Bump-Reader Extraordinaire
Fred R. Coulter, proud Ambassador College grad (theology BA, 1964), got ordained in 1965 and dutifully pastored WCG flocks across the U.S. Then, in a stunning 1979 pre-Tkach power move, he dramatically resigned with a “Call to Repentance” sermon, sounding the alarm on all those “sinful practices.” What a prophet! (Or just the guy who jumped ship early.)
By 1983, armed with a magnificent core group of seven whole believers plus himself, he founded CBCG in Hollister, California. Decades later, he’s still the president, chief sermonizer, book-peddler (Restoring the Original Bible, etc.), and all-around restorer of “original Christianity.” They reach “thousands” online and through tiny scattered fellowships. Truly inspiring... if “thousands” in a sea of aging, fragmenting Armstrongist groups counts as a booming success.
Armstrongism 2.0: Now With Extra Pseudoscience and Bible Redos!
Classic package: Sabbath, Holy Days (Fred’s special “corrected” Hebrew calendar edition, because God’s original timing needed a tune-up), binitarian God-family theology, gentle tithing nudges, and that cozy “we’re the tiny elite flock while everyone else is apostate” glow. They wisely ditched the brutal top-down hierarchy (lessons learned from WCG’s spectacular crash) for local elders and “voluntary” vibes. So humble. So not-a-cult.
But wait—there’s more! Fred’s signature flair includes a documented soft spot for phrenology—that gloriously outdated 19th-century party trick of feeling skull bumps to diagnose character defects and spiritual oopsies. Because what better way to restore first-century Christianity than by channeling Victorian quack doctors? Nothing says “apostolic purity” like giving congregants a cranial exam instead of, you know, just praying or opening the actual Bible.
And then there’s the pièce de résistance: Fred had to redo the entire Bible because those poor, bumbling King James translators were apparently too dim to get it right. Those 1611 scholars with their “thee”s and “thou”s just couldn’t handle the job, so Brother Coulter stepped in like the theological superhero we didn’t know we needed. Behold—The Holy Bible In Its Original Order: A Faithful Version! He reordered all the books to his preferred “original” sequence, translated everything fresh from the Hebrew and Greek (with a little help), and clarified all those “problematic passages” the KJV idiots messed up.
It retains the KJV’s grandeur... while quietly fixing its many errors, of course. Because nothing screams humility like one guy declaring, “Move over, centuries of scholarship—Fred’s got this.” Perfect for the group that already knows better than mainstream Christianity on pretty much everything.
The Dangers of Signing Up for This Rapidly Shrinking Splinter Cult
If your spiritual needs include legalism, prophecy doom-scrolling, potential family rifts, and the warm fuzzy of being told you’re special while tithing into a tiny operation, CBCG could be your next adventure. Just don’t count on a thriving social scene—these Armstrong offshoots are mostly quietly graying out as members age and the internet keeps splintering the remnants.
Standard warnings apply: isolation tendencies, “us vs. the deceived world” superiority, a works-heavy “different gospel” that critics (and many ex-members) say distorts grace, plus the usual spiritual abuse red flags. Layer on the phrenology sessions and the “I had to rewrite the Bible because everyone before me was incompetent” energy, and you’ve got a doctrine combo that’s equal parts earnest and delightfully eccentric.
Ex-member sites highlight the control dynamics, the pressure to conform, and that perpetual feeling of never quite measuring up to Fred’s restored truth. With the group steadily shrinking like the rest of the COG diaspora, you might end up in a very intimate (read: microscopic) echo chamber as the founder advances in years.
Pro tip: Before committing to the skull-measuring appointments and the “Fred’s Bible Only” reading plan, try some independent study. Ask yourself if true “original Christianity” really needs phrenology charts and one man’s upgraded KJV correction. The apostles somehow survived without either. Welcome to the wonderful world of COG splinters—where the doctrines are restored, the calendars are perfected, the heads are palpated, and the Bible finally gets the Fred Coulter treatment it so desperately needed. What could possibly go wrong?
Silent Pilgrim
Silent Pilgrim
32 comments:
Hollister, CA is very important to bikers, because events associated with the July 4,1947 motorcycle rally were the basis for Marlon Brando's "The Wild One", which also starred Lee Marvin.
Be that as it may, getting back to Fred Coulter, anything which starts out as Armstrongism is going to end up as what the Brits call "rubbish"! No, make that "BLOODY Rubbish". People who attempt to put their own New and Improved stamp on it just make it sillier. Phrenology indeed! That's not in the Bible! Next thing you know somebody will associate prophecy with irritable bowel syndrome!
BB
I have a special contempt for this brand of Armstrongism. I've listened to him way too much, because I have people close to me who have dedicated their lives to his cause.
He is pompous and ignorant, a true danger to souls. He will waste your time teaching retarded "truths" about how to calculate the dates of certain observances; how eating unleavened bread on the day after the "Passover" led to the downfall of the WCG; how "the Catholics and the Protestants" and anyone who believes in the Trinity actually "worship Satan the Devil"; how his faithful members will meet with Jesus "on the sea o' glass" for a while at the second coming, where as spirit beings they will be eating delicious food and amazing wine (this is all visible from down below, because they're literally sitting in the sky doing this) and learning what their assignments will be when they finally come down and inaugurate the kingdom; etc. Members can end up listening to something like four sermons per weekend from his org, plus several online "Bible studies" with discussions during the week. Either it's pablum that any Christian knows or it's more Armstrong/Coulter inventions. When it's Coulter himself, he does his best to discredit actual Christianity.
Members are against any concept of hierarchy or modern-day "apostles"; they have learned from the past, they say. Yet they believe Coulter's public claims that his Passover book is the most important book ever written -- and that his own Bible is the very best English translation on the face of the earth.
I could go on and on.
I've done better for a good while now at not listening to COG stuff. And I simply roll my eyes in silence when I come across CGI or Bill Watson materials. But I take Coulter's stuff personally. He comes off as an old wise sage who is well versed in the Bible, but he's actually a spiritual enemy dragging others to hell with him.
I wonder if it would leave a burn mark if someone placed a blessed Crucifix on his forehead.
Seriously, I pray literally every day, without fail, for the souls of those he is harming. God have mercy.
Coulter should have asked Herbert to let him examine the bumps on his head and thereby determine donkeys years ago it was all a big farce.
Fred Coulter was not trained in Hebrew or Greek at a scholarly, academic, or linguistic level it appears so this means he used existing translations, lexicons, and the the like while along the way presenting himself as if he was an independent, expert .translator.
BB, Ebenezer Scrooge would agree with you on prophecy being associated with IBS. After all, he thought Marley's ghost was caused by indigestion.
Eh, the KJV is full of errors, no one disputes that. It's been around so long though, that the errors are well documented and can be used as an excellent study bible.
I know of members in other COG's (UCG/COGWA) who bring the Coulter Bible to services.
But I've never seen a minister in one of those groups use one.
I liked Fred's Jewish-Gregorian etc juxtaposed calendar for monthly dates but we're not in year 5786.....more like 6000+. For example the year of entering the land may be 1454 BC.......compared Lev 23:10-16 with Joshua 5:10-12 and noted Nisan/Abib 14 is only on "Saturday" in 1454 from 1460 to 1441 BC.
Went to their webpage for a look. Read Fred’s latest church letter, and seems they have some issues. Someone left and started their own church over disagreements on Passover. Nothing new here. Same old same. Division as usual. Small group active in New Zealand with former wwcog pastor leading, who is also an ex ambassador graduate. Aging congregation. There are more who have left Armstrongism than are in it today in NZ, by a large margin. They will soon pass from the scene as just another footnote in ecclesiastical history. I have some friends and know some lovely people still tied to Armstrongism unfortunately, but our contact is zero.
Went to their webpage for a look. Read Fred’s latest church letter, and seems they have some issues. Someone left and started their own church over disagreements on Passover. Nothing new here. Same old same. Division as usual. Small group active in New Zealand with former wwcog pastor leading, who is also an ex ambassador graduate. Aging congregation. There are more who have left Armstrongism than are in it today in NZ, by a large margin. They will soon pass from the scene as just another footnote in ecclesiastical history. I have some friends and know some lovely people still tied to Armstrongism unfortunately, but our contact is zero.
He be crazy, baby!
Coulter's order of books is designed to support his Armstrongist ideas for example feast‑day ideas, and his prophetic interpretations. Other systems designed preferred bibles too one well known example being the JW NWT - but there are others like Joseph Smith and others. No experts would support his order this is because it is something probably impossible to ever jknow.
I do not trust any preacher or church "leader" who insists on having his own special translation. There are plenty of modern English translations to choose from, none are perfect, and we do not have to stick with the archaic KJV with all its errors and biases either.
"He is pompous and ignorant, a true danger to souls."
And the RCC isn't???
Pot, meet kettle.
I would like to add, that I saw this video about cults: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEp2VGxbSQ4 which could easily apply to many ACOGs. And as Coulter has his own Bible, that makes it even more like a cult, like the Jehovah's Witnesses. And PCG have the writings of HArmstrong as their addition to the Bible.
How is it any less presumptuous to create your own translation of the Bible than it is to to ordain yourself as a prophet or apostle, or to name yourself after one of the patriarchs of the Bible?
The source for all of these activities is very obvious, unless you are are wearing the blinders they handed you!
BB
Correct, the RCC is not. In fact, she saves souls.
But sure, individual Catholics (not the Church proper) can be pompous and ignorant, including a particular pope. Welcome to humanity.
I was talking about Coulter the person, whose church is based on him and his false interpretations of Sacred Scripture.
The difference is that the Catholic Church is founded by Jesus but made up of sinners, and preserves the deposit of faith once delivered to the saints 2000 years ago. Coulter's church was founded by Coulter in the 1970s and spreads the doctrines of Coulter and Armstrong -- whose egos are the very reason for their churches' existence.
On the video tour of his facility, I couldn't help but think, "What would HWA think of his place?"
COG Catholic said: “the Catholic Church is founded by Jesus”
That’s debatable. Like HWA’s WCG and offshoots it might claim to be founded by JC, but it doesn’t make it so.
Yes the RCC claims to be founded by Jesus, but their teaching is for the most part 180 out from what Christ taught. Jesus never changes but RCC doctrine is constantly changing. A quick study of history shows that.
HWA started his own church not even a hundred years ago. Bill Watson started his last year. Protestants all have their human founders.
But who started the RCC? Any reasonable alternative theories? It's clear as a bell in history that Jesus's apostles appointed successors, and we know those who knew them, and they continued their work. These very people in the first generations of the Church observed Sunday, believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, believed in the primacy of the bishop of Rome, etc.
Catholic bishops (especially well documented in the case of the bishop of Rome) can be traced historically to the apostles. This is unlike Herbert, who merely asserted and invented his authority out of the blue, because his ego wanted to.
Jesus said he would build his church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He didn't say the gates would prevail almost immediately and then restablish a church, or churches, 1500 or 1900 years later.
How many churches do you know that are 2000 years old?
BILLW, as I understand it, a man named Ernest Martin came up with the 'original' order of the books as Fred uses it. Ernest and Fred remained friends, (Ernest left first), but disagreed on many doctrinal issues.
In my opinion Fred's is a pretty good translation. 30 years ago he used to teach that any 'decent translation' is good enough for salvation, but later discovered the need to produce his own. The translation is not so much of a problem as his opinion and commentary in 'explaining' what it means.
COG Catholic said:
HWA started his own church not even a hundred years ago. Bill Watson started his last year. Protestants all have their human founders.
But who started the RCC? Any reasonable alternative theories? It's clear as a bell in history that Jesus's apostles appointed successors, and we know those who knew them, and they continued their work. These very people in the first generations of the Church observed Sunday, believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, believed in the primacy of the bishop of Rome, etc.
Catholic bishops (especially well documented in the case of the bishop of Rome) can be traced historically to the apostles. This is unlike Herbert, who merely asserted and invented his authority out of the blue, because his ego wanted to.
Jesus said he would build his church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He didn't say the gates would prevail almost immediately and then restablish a church, or churches, 1500 or 1900 years later.
How many churches do you know that are 2000 years old?
You’re basically making a straight appeal to antiquity ie that coz the RCC is old, it must be the true church. That doesn’t follow. The Eastern Orthodox Church is just as old and claims the same apostolic succession, so age proves nothing.
You’re also assuming the Western (Roman) line is the standard. It isn’t.
The Eastern line via John the apostle, Polycarp and Polycrates of Ephesus show lines of continuity that didn’t simply defer to Rome, as the historical disputes over Pascha with the Roman bishops make clear.
And again, age isn’t the issue. By that logic, even the Pharisees and Sadducees in Jesus’ time could claim authority based on antiquity, yet Christ rebuked them countless times. The real question is whether your specific doctrines can actually be traced back to Christ and His apostles—not just whether your institution is old.
There is plenty of evidence that the Eastern churches recognized certain levels of primacy in the bishop of Rome. That doesn’t mean they always agreed on everything. John, Polycarp, and Polycrates were great Catholics, by the way, despite whether there were those who observed the Pascha celebration on a different day than the tradition Rome maintained (i.e., keeping the observance on the same day of the week). We’re talking about dates, not doctrines and dogmas, or “pagan days” vs. “holy days."
Catholics have great respect for the Eastern traditions as well. Neither resemble Armstrongism in any way whatsoever. Not even close. Armstrongism is an extremely late, invented tradition.
The Jewish schools of Pharisees and Sadducees in Jesus’ time could and would claim NO authority because they were not Christian. We don’t look to Jewish religious figures to lead the Christian religion.
The teachings of the historic Christian churches of the West and the East are certainly traced to the apostles and still preserved today. Who can say with a straight face that US&BC, Sabbathkeeping, bacon-shunning, 2nd and 3rd resurrections, becoming “spirit beings” (or “God Beings”), etc., belong to the one, historic, universal, apostolic Faith? The idea is absurd and ahistorical.
The only way to get there is to impose the false, Protestant, and unbiblical standard of sola scriptura, which results in every reader being his own authority. That's why there are so many disagreeing fake churches out there -- they can't agree on the essentials from the "Bible alone."
Jesus does not need to do an Extreme Makeover for her Bride, the Church, or trade her in for a new bride like a serial polygamist. The problem enters when people stray from Her and revolt by creating their own religions under the disguise of “reform," or becoming a so-called "Bible church."
The start of the RCC can be traced to Anaceitus, bishop of Rome, when he ditched the observance of the Passover in favor of Easter. It's been all downhill from there. They effectively left The Church and began adopting all manner of pagan rites, which God hates, and attaching the name of Jesus to them. A blasphemous organization if there ever was one.
Why would you think the RCC began with Pope Anicetus, merely for having a disputation with bishop Polycarp?
Not all disputes result in starting new churches. (We should already know that from serious disputes the apostle Paul had with others.)
In fact, while Anicetus and Polycarp had strong differences on which tradition to hold for when to observe the annual feast, bishop Polycarp remained in communion with the pope, who even let Polycarp celebrate the Eucharist right there in Rome. They were still bros at the end of the day. Neither started a new church or left the Faith or went off-the-wall bonkers.
By the way, neither of them argued on the basis of Bible verses, but on legit apostolic tradition. There were two conflicting traditions about when to observe the annual commemoration.
You might want to look at the primary sources for this controversy. I would ask you to search for any indication whatever that it was an argument about "God's Passover" versus "pagan Easter."
Share your findings if you see it is about something other than a dispute over when to observe, not what to observe. "Paganism" was not under discussion.
I think we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree brother. You're still assuming your conclusion—namely, that "Catholic"=the later Roman system—and then reading that back into the early figures.
Calling John, Polycarp and Polycrates “great Catholics” only works if you define “Catholic” broadly enough to include people who openly disagreed with Rome. But that weakens the claim. The Quartodeciman controversy wasn’t minor: Polycarp disagreed with the bishop of Rome without being corrected; and Polycrates later pushed back firmly when Rome tried to enforce its practice—Rome even threatened excommunication! That doesn’t show clear, universally accepted Roman authority; it shows a real disagreement where Rome’s authority didn’t go unquestioned.
On the Pharisees/Sadducees point, that’s a category error. Of course they weren’t “Christian”—there was no Christianity yet. The point is that they did claim religious authority based on antiquity and succession and Christ repeatedly challenged both their teachings and their practices. So appealing to age and continuity alone doesn’t establish truth; it didn’t then, and it doesn’t now.
And this gets to the core issue: continuity of institution vs. continuity of teaching. Pointing to an unbroken line of leadership doesn’t by itself prove that the teachings remained unchanged. Saying that later Catholic or Orthodox doctrines are the same as those of the apostles is exactly what needs to be demonstrated—not simply assumed.
As for “sola scriptura,” dismissing it doesn’t solve the problem—it highlights it. If Scripture isn’t the standard, then the question becomes: which tradition and why that one over competing claims?
So the core question remains unchanged: not “which body is oldest,” but “which teachings can actually be demonstrated to go back to Christ and the apostles?”
And this is precisely why IMHO the Protestant Reformation had real promise: it raised the possibility that the RCC would correct itself where its teachings drifted from plain Scripture. But a system that boasts itself in “semper eadem" leaves little room for meaningful reform—because it assumes from the outset that it has little, if anything, to correct.
Actually, Polycarp was holding to tradition, what the Apostles taught. Anaceitus spilt off onto a new path, adopting pagan rites. Easter was not, and still is not, a tradition of The Church. So no, there was no dispute over which tradition to follow.
Anicetus was never pope. He was simply the bishop of Rome. There were no popes for about 500yr or so. Then the Roman church went back and declared preceding Roman bishops to be popes.
The Roman church is good at playing word games to mislead the people. They continue doing it to this day.
Anonymous 11:20:54 AM Anicetus may not have been called the Pope, but the documents left by the early Christians shows he was the man the other bishops and churches turned to when problems arise that couldn't be resolved at a local level. Other historical documents show other bishops of Rome did the same, and could intervene in the affairs of local churches when it was warranted, way before your 500 year date.
There's so much I'd want to comment on. It would be a good in-person conversation. But I'll try to stick to a few of the main points.
I understand that an appeal to antiquity is not 100 percent legit in principle, in every context. But it has its place. One could go back to gnostic beliefs that crept into the Church during NT times, or the heresy of the Judaizers (ahem!), but that doesn't make those beliefs right.
It is legit, however, to point out that if Jesus built a Church, then it must have existed then and continues to exist today. There aren't many candidates that meet that criterion.
Your position is valid if we define the church as an invisible organism made up of true believers of true doctrine (however that's determined). But it's not valid if the Church is a visible, historically verified Body that anyone can point to and objectively say, "That is the Church that Jesus built, here are its leaders, and these are its members."
I know many Baptists (fans of the Trail of Tears approach) who trace their beliefs all the way back to the apostles -- to John the Baptist, in fact -- and insist they are therefore the apostolic church. That's the exact same approach HWA took, even applying a similar kind of church eras and latching onto many of the same groups/movemements.
This approach is so subjective. They see what they want to see according to their own interpretations of the Bible -- rather than recognizing the visible Church in history and, in addition, seeing how its teachings have been consistent through the millennia.
I still say that marking the start of the RCC with the Quartodeciman controversy is quite arbitrary. It doesn't follow that this kind of disagreement makes for a new church. Revolting and starting a new church is what makes a new (i.e., false) church.
But again, Jesus promised to build a Church, not a series of different church start-ups.
That explains why Polycarp called him out on his error of dumping the Passover observance in favor of Easter?
Post a Comment