Friday, July 17, 2026

Work out your own salvation. We are all on different levels of growth, yet we are one spiritual organism.



Facebook groups are a fascinating place to discover Armstrongism. There are many COG groups on there; many are private, so you have to be screened before they let you in, and others are public. Many are innocuous, but others are at times batshit crazy. Some of those peopel are positive proof that Armstrongism is NOT normal.

The quote below is not one of the extreme posts, like those in the PCG post, but rather highlights how many in the church see themselves as a spiritual organism, a united body knit together as one, despite being in separate splinter groups.

This split had to happen, each having their own administrations, its easier to prevent corruption, as the churches of Asia Minor did, there were 7 churches in the beginning, they were separate, still many members, but one body, same what we have today. each church had its own name, "and to the church of Ephesus" ... we are still many members but one body. Each member is responsible for their own salvation, each having a separate relationship with God the Father asking him to direct each of us,what he allows.. God knows what we are dealing with. . Each on different levels of growth as we learn Gods ways, " there will be no divisions among you" as he tells us.

This statement is a masterpiece of biblical gymnastics — the kind where you twist Scripture into a pretzel, call it "truth,” and use it to paper over why Armstrongite groups keep fracturing like cheap drywall.   

"The split had to happen." This whole argument is the standard post-1986 Armstrongite coping mechanism. It’s a convenient way to avoid admitting that the heavy centralized model they inherited produced exactly the power struggles and fractures they now defend as “biblical.” Even Herbert Armstrong himself wrote against the idea of the Church having competing “branches.” Funny how that part gets memory-holed when it’s useful.

The 7 churches in Asia Minor weren’t the result of some noble “split that had to happen to prevent corruption.” There were seven literal congregations in different cities (Ephesus, Smyrna, etc.) that John wrote to in one single book. Same region, same basic faith, same apostolic oversight from John. They weren’t competing organizations with rival headquarters, different doctrines on British-Israelism, or separate tithe streams. They were local assemblies, not a biblical endorsement for modern schism factories. They are nowhere near today’s Armstrongite alphabet soup: UCG, LCG, RCG, CCOG, PCG, COGWA, etc.

“Each having their own administrations, it’s easier to prevent corruption” — ah yes, the classic “our little pope is less corrupt than their little pope” defense. The New Covenant church had structure (apostles, elders, deacons), but the head was always Christ, not a chain of command that keeps fracturing every time someone disagrees with the current guy in charge. History shows that when groups split to “avoid corruption,” they usually just create brand-new opportunities for it — plus endless arguments over who’s the real remnant this week.

"Each member is responsible for their own salvation," Armstrongism heavily promotes Philippians 2:12 to support its distinctive view that:

  • Salvation is not a completed reality at conversion or justification. It is a process of “overcoming,” character development, and obedience (especially to Old Covenant laws like the Sabbath, holy days, tithing, and clean/unclean meats).
  • Christians must “qualify” for the Kingdom through works and endurance. Most people are not being called/saved now; the Church is only the “firstfruits.” The vast majority will get their chance in the Millennium or the Great White Throne judgment later.
  • They present “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” as proof that you are not already saved and must strive hard (with the implication that failure can disqualify you). This creates a legalistic, performance-based framework where grace is acknowledged in theory but human effort and law-keeping become central to “qualifying.” This directly contradicts the New Covenant emphasis on the finished work of Christ and the believer’s secure position in Him.
Armstrongism uses Philippians 2:12 and the flexibility of “aion” to shift the focus from Christ’s completed work and present grace (New Covenant) to human striving, law-keeping, and a future-oriented, staged salvation plan. This turns the New Testament’s call to live out salvation by the power of the indwelling Spirit into a works-based qualification process and redefines judgment language to fit their unique eschatology and denial of eternal conscious punishment.

The New Covenant reading keeps both the assurance of grace and the serious call to obedient living — without turning salvation into something we must earn or “qualify” for through performance.

Today's COG groups are not "spiritual organisms". They are all independent groups doing whatever they want.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

I had a number episode until noticing Thyratira is twice in the posting........

R.L. said...

I had a WCG Pastor who loved to preach Philippians 2:12. And it left me depressed.

It took a woman I was dating to add verse 13 to it, where the pastor didn't for a long time - "For it is God which works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure."

Someone (maybe myself) finally showed the pastor he needed to include that additional verse. And to his credit, he did in later messages.

Anonymous said...

This is an example of why people who have left these orgs and regularly comment here appear to favor their own intelligence and perception as compared to those who remain in the ACOGs and do a botched and laughable job of defending their ACOG.

For most of us, with the possible exception of those who are doing the PIMO or nominal member thing, I don't think there is any attraction to the ACOG Facebook sites. They'd trigger the wrong emotions. Contempt. Pity. Anger. It would be just too disturbing to visit those folks' bubble..

Nice to have another reminder as to how the ministers get
away with all the crap they constantly pull. Many of the members are just totally defenseless.

Anonymous said...

The spelling on this article is horrendous and you and your cronies like to falsely accuse church members of not being able to spell !! Ha !

NO2HWA said...

That's all you got? Take a chill pill buttercup! Grammerly did not pick it up. Boo Hoo! ROTFLMAO!

Anonymous said...

Armstrong taught that salvation required Sabbath‑keeping, Holy Days, tithing, clean/unclean meats, and Old Covenant statutes. COG7 rejected all of these except the Sabbath and even the Sabbath was not taught as salvific. Some will object that Armstrong “did not say salvation depended on these things,” but this confuses his rhetoric with his doctrine. Armstrong denied salvation‑by‑works verbally, yet made salvation conditional on qualifying, overcoming, and obeying Old Covenant laws. In practice, his system made salvation depend on performance.

Armstrong constantly said, “We are not saved by works,” but he taught that you must qualify for the Kingdom, overcome, develop godly character, obey Old Covenant laws, endure to the end, remain loyal to the one true Church, keep the Sabbath and Holy Days, tithe faithfully, avoid unclean meats, submit to church government, reject “worldly churches,” accept British‑Israelism, and follow his prophetic timeline. Failure in any of these meant exclusion from the Kingdom - often accompanied by expulsion from the organisation. This is works‑based salvation in everything but name.

Armstrong was not less works‑based in the beginning; his earliest teachings already made salvation conditional on obedience and overcoming. His later doctrines simply intensified what was present from the start. By the 1940s once he gained more followers he escalated requirements: Holy Days became mandatory; tithing became triple‑tithing; church government became authoritarian; British‑Israelism became essential; medical treatment discouraged; birthdays, Christmas, and Easter banned; and the claim that “only the WCG is being called now” became central.

Armstrong’s system of “qualify through character” is one of the clearest signs that his man‑made theology was not of God. It was a doctrinal construction, not a restoration. And when placed alongside his prophetic failures and his habit of myth‑making, the whole framework reveals itself as a burdensome invention of man rather than biblical Christianity.

In the end, Armstrong’s system fittingly came to an end because it had no biblical foundation to sustain it whatsoever. And given its reliance on fear, legalism, false prophecy, and doctrinal deception, it is entirely fair - in the New Testament sense - to describe the system as spiritually harmful, even “Satanic” in the way Paul uses that term for teachings that distort the gospel.

Armstrong’s system ended because it depended entirely on one man’s authority. Jehovah’s Witnesses continue because their organisational structure is different but the underlying dynamics of high control, doctrinal exclusivity, and works‑based performance are similar. The issue is not the people, but the systems they inherited.

Anonymous said...

July 17, 2026 at 8:33
Makes one wonder if his message before that time was very different to the one after, cheers

Anonymous said...

With the church members, 10:57, the spelling and grammar are just the most noticeable symptoms.. Their defenses are simplistic and they employ faulty logic and child-like reasoning. Most of them repeat the same cliches over and over and over.

So, yeah. Chill out, or no chocolate bunny rabbit for you!

Anonymous said...

How many of these comments have been written by the same person!

Anonymous said...

Yea, the Armstrong system failed for various reasons and one of the main reasons is it attempted to put the Old Testament/Covenant above or superior to the New. And whatever is left of them, they still try to use that same approach. They didn’t make that adjustment. Not only that, they haven’t moved on from Mr. Armstrong himself who is no longer here.

Like someone posted the great comment a long time ago “Armstrong filtered the writings in the New Testament through the Old Testament instead of the other way around.”

For instance the apostles Peter and Paul filtered the spiritual meat of the Old Testament into their writings for the Christian faith, such as using Abraham’s faith (Act 3:25-26 & Galatians 3:7-8). The Armstrong system is still using Gen 12:1-3 for physical warfare (sea gates, gates of enemies, british throne), when the spiritual transition had already been made in Christianity by Christ and the apostles.

Anonymous said...

10:57 I think you mean “the spelling IN this article” lol

Anonymous said...

The statement “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” does not mean that we are responsible, like rugged individualists, for our personal salvation. This would contradict the major thrust of Pauline theology which clearly asserts that salvation comes by grace through faith and it is not of works.

Even in the next statement in verse 13, a ringing note of the vicarious humanity of Christ is sounded: “For it is God who is making active within you both the willing and the working of that which is dearly desirable (New Testament translation by David Bentley Hart).” There is no room in this statement for the idea that Armstrongists advocate that we own our salvation and must bring it about ourselves through character development and works of qualification. That is a principle not found in Christianity but is found in many non-Christian religions.

If God generates both the willing and the working, what then is left to us? We may respond by echoing the working of God in us and participating, as led by the Spirit, in the ongoing activity of our salvation. This echoing forms the basis for our being eventually rewarded for our works. The misinterpretation of “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” converts salvation to just another work that humans must achieve. Does that sound like Paul?

My two cents…

Scout

Anonymous said...

This thread stated: [[“… Some of those peopel are positive proof that Armstrongism is NOT normal.]]

And concluded by stating: [[Today's COG groups are … all independent groups doing whatever they want.]]

And then, Anon, Friday, July 17, 2026 at 11:24:38 PM PDT, stated: [["...Armstrong constantly said, “We are not saved by works,” but he taught that you must qualify for the Kingdom, overcome, develop godly character, obey Old Covenant laws, endure to the end, remain loyal to the one true Church, keep the Sabbath and Holy Days, tithe faithfully, avoid unclean meats, submit to church government, reject “worldly churches,” accept British‑Israelism, and follow his prophetic timeline. Failure in any of these meant exclusion from the Kingdom - often accompanied by expulsion from the organisation. This is works‑based salvation in everything but name...Armstrong’s system of “qualify through character” is one of the clearest signs that his man‑made theology was not of God..."]]
******
If the conclusion is that: "...man‑made theology was not of God....", then what does it all say about this entire present evil world's religions, because don't they all virtually teach that one must do something (works of self) to qualify for something (reward)?

Could it be that they are all not of God, but of god? Supposedly this world has been given over to Satan's control, and Satan is not going to preach/teach truth; it can't do it. His lies (John 8:44) are evident in the Garden of Eden account with Adam and Eve, and the murder of one of their sons (I John 3:12).

I John 3:8 states: "He that committeth sin is of the devil;..."

Has anybody proven they have the strength, or whatever, to choose to not sin again, and never sin again? Adam and Eve proved they lacked something.

Paul, many years after being an Apostle, sinned, but did not hold himself accountable:

"Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." Romans 7:17

Here's a man guided by God's Spirit admitted that? Is it true? Why? How come? Was that like a slip of the tongue? If yes, then why repeat the thought with similar words?

:20 "Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

So often, people talk about law. Here is a law Paul had in mind:

:21 "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me."

What kind of a law is that? Was Paul like a man "held captive?" Do we live in a world "held captive?"

We may want to consider: Satan's world would not focus on God but would be one that focuses on anything/anyone but God and instead rely on self: "You can do it!"

But, so far, the only perfect One, by the power of God's Spirit, has been Jesus Christ, so what are all of these religions and groups, all perhaps more similar than they are different, proving?

2 Cor 11:13 "For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
:15 Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

Are we wrestling flesh and blood or principalities (Eph 2:12), while Satan wants us to focus on blaming/judging human beings? Is this world in our hearts? Is so-called Armstongism all that much different from the other religions of this present evil world?

"He hath made every [thing] beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end." Eccl 3:11

Is this all a part of vanity?

"For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope," Romans 8:20

Will we all eventually experience the hope of Romans 8:21, because of God's grace and blessings upon all nations/families?

Time will tell...

John

BP8 said...

Everything said in this post about Armstrongism could also apply to the entire Christian religious movement (factions, splits, corruption, independent groups doing what they want, etc.).

Recently mother Rome cut off one of her splinter groups. A couple of years ago the UMC underwent a major split, where Methodism now has 3 denominations instead of the one. In both cases, were talking numbers only Armstrongism could dream of.

Perhaps not as wacky as Armstrong theater, the modern church of all persuasions also have their power structures, authority, and monetary concerns. By comparison their tactics are mild, for with church attendance and interest in the "spiritual" in decline, ruff!ing feathers is not the way to go. The splinters need to learn that!

The conclusion: The world system is what it is and will continue to function as such, and yes, each member is responsible for their own salvation!

Anonymous said...

I had made two comments (9:47 and 12:45), but since you asked, my response to you is my third. šŸ˜Ž

Anonymous said...

6:47 You forgot a full stop Mr Grammar Nazi.

Anonymous said...

Agh yes John the Three Laws

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

Romans 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. (7:17)

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.


God’s Law, the law of sin, and the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ. Paul does acknowledge a battle, but then God’s spirit is the Helper and frees one of the eternal penalty of sin.

Like one said, it’s not just armstrongism but also other “christian groups” that have their issues. The fruits of the spirit is what we are blessed with. Like fruit trees producing fruit in their season. What kind of fruit did Armstrongism produce? Fruit takes time.

Anonymous said...

July 18, 2026 at 8:04 John
If Armstrong’s theology was man‑made and not of God, the broader implication is whenever a religious system makes salvation depend on human effort, qualification, or performance, it reflects the human tendency toward works‑based religion rather than the grace‑based gospel described in the New Testament. This is a pattern seen throughout history, not a judgment about any particular group of people.

The core of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians is Paul repeatedly teaching salvation is by grace, not by works; not by law‑keeping, not by human performance or ritual; not by qualification or endurance as a condition for salvation.
But people like the other because it shows they are achieving a great deal and progressing. People love systems where they can measure progress and feel like they’re achieving something. It scratches the ego. Grace doesn’t do that. Grace gives you nothing to boast about. And that’s why works‑based religion keeps popping up everywhere - it feels productive, even while it quietly becomes a burden.
Grace says “Christ did it all.” Works say “I am doing something impressive.”

This is why Paul calls works‑based religion “boasting” (Rom 3:27); “confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:3); “a return to slavery” (Gal 4:9); “another gospel” (Gal 1:6–9). And he warns that humans naturally prefer it.
In the end, Armstrongism simply demonstrated an old truth: whenever salvation is built on human effort rather than divine grace, the system may look impressive for a time, but it cannot endure because it rests on human striving rather than the gospel itself. One can have rituals and still be fully aligned with Paul’s grace‑based instruction, provided those rituals are not treated as conditions for salvation or measures of spiritual worth. Rituals may be practiced and meaningful and part of community life. But i think message is rituals must never be treated as qualifications for salvation.

Once a ritual becomes a requirement, a badge of superiority, or a condition for acceptance with God, it ceases to be harmless and becomes what Paul calls “a return to slavery.”

Anonymous said...

So, if we asked a 1960's R&B music fan his understanding of what someone converting to Armstrongism was supposed to do, I feel very strongly that he'd hit you with a verse from the Isley Brothers:

"Shake it up, Baby, now! (Shake it up Baby!)
Twist and shout! (Twist and shout!)
Come on Baby, now! (Come on Baby!)
Come on and work it on out! (Come on and work it on out!) whooo!"

The Beatles did a rebop of that when they were into doing covers, but HWA always said they sounded like roosters screaching, so we cannot dig to that particular rebop. I was waiting for the Lawrence Welk version, or theJohnny Mann Singers", or even the Young Caucasians', but I think they all died. Oh well, at least they got to escape the tribulation!

BP8 said...

The way Scout 708 rightly frames the text in Philippines, then no, we can't accomplish our own salvation. But how does that response to and participation in the work God is performing in us play out?

Titus 2:11-12 says, For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared. Teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly.

2 Timothy 2:19
The Lord knows them that are his, and let everyone that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

There are hundreds of like scriptures which follow this line of reasoning and none of them are advancing a different slant on salvation by works. They are all based on the principle found in the book of Galatians which applies to both Christian and non christian alike. " Be not deceived, God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, the same shall he also reap".

These are not qualifications to master, but expectations God has and wants for us. It's not difficult to see how a Christian can sometimes struggle and lose faith and has the need to be corralled back in. Therefore, we are often warned and given encouragement along the way. Since God is the one doing the working, one method we find that He often uses is, "the trying of your faith works patience" (James 1:1-3). But even here we are expected to respond by "allowing patience to have her perfect work". Yes Virginia, expectations not qualifications!

If you really want to take a brutal look at what Christ expects of us, check out the message to the churches in Revelation 2-3. Every single church except Smyrna and Philadelphia is chastised and expected to make drastic changes in their life. The ultimate reason and warning is stated in 2:23:

"And I will kill her children with death, and all the churches will know that I am He that searches the reins and hearts".

The good news in this is found in the concluding words at 3:19: " As many as I love I rebuke and chasten. Be zealous therefore and repent".

Since God is the one working this out, we don't need ministerial policemen monitoring every move we make. God knows the heart and He will take the appropriate action needed to see that we meet His expectations.

John 15:4-5
Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself EXCEPT IT ABIDE in the vine. For without Me, you can do nothing"!


Anonymous said...

9:44 I was correcting word usage, not punctuation—but thanks for proofreading. If we're handing out "Grammar Nazi" labels, then 10:57, who opened by policing the writing, seems the more obvious candidate.

Feastgoer said...

Do you realize one of the Isley Brothers became a WCG/GCI member?

Anonymous said...

Agree 8:26.

Anonymous said...

No! I did not know this! Thank you for the link, F/G! As someone who attempts to play the repetitious riffs from Sly and the Family Stone's catalogue convincingly, I particularly enjoyed Chris's explanation of funk and how difficult it is to play the same riff over and over and over convincingly. I thought it was difficult just because I'm a white boy!