Bob Thiel’s grand claim is that the true “Church of God” alone possessed and preserved the New Testament canon (and for that matter, the ENTIRE Bible) from the apostles forward, that Catholics and Protestants were latecomers and interlopers, and that this pure chain of custody somehow terminates in his own “Continuing” Church of God in 2026. This is not history. It is pure fictional COG mythology.
There was no organization in the first or second century that looked, taught, or behaved like modern Armstrongism. The groups Thiel waves at (Nazarenes, certain Asia Minor congregations, later Waldenses) did not keep the Armstrong package: British-Israel identity, the specific holy-day calendar HWA adopted, the rejection of the Trinity in the exact way the COGs do, the mandatory third tithe, or the “one true church” hierarchical structure that ends with a living apostle/prophet. Claiming them as “our people” is the same move every restorationist group makes: find someone who kept the Sabbath or rejected Rome and declare them your spiritual grandparents.
Bwana Bob's “chain of custody” is pure mythology. Yes, the apostles and their immediate successors knew which writings were authoritative. That is not news. What is news is the leap that only a continuous, doctrinally pure “Church of God” line ever possessed them while the rest of Christendom wandered in darkness. Polycarp of Smyrna is claimed by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants as one of their own early witnesses. He did not hand a sealed packet of 27 books to a secret COG courier with instructions to keep it away from those nasty Greco-Romans. The early lists, quotes, and disputes show a broad Christian community gradually recognizing the same core writings. The fact that some later Catholics and Orthodox included extra books (or temporarily disputed a few) does not magically transfer ownership of the canon to a 20th-century American splinter movement.
Crackpot Bob's timeline is a classic Armstrongist history rewrite. It treats every mention of “sacred scriptures” by an early writer as proof of the full modern Protestant canon already locked down and exclusive to “us.” Then it jumps centuries, waves at the Waldenses (who were not Church of God or Armstrongist in nature), skips the total absence of anything resembling the Radio Church of God or Worldwide Church of God for most of Christian history, and lands triumphantly on Herbert Armstrong in the 1930s. From there it is only a short, bitter hop through successive splits until Bob Thiel declares that his group now holds the true custodianship. This is not a chain. It is a series of historical non-sequiturs connected by wishful thinking and the magic phrase “Church of God.”
The claim that “the Bible is entirely a COG project” is laughable on its face. The books were written by first-century Jewish and Gentile believers, circulated among multiple congregations, quoted by a wide range of early Christian writers, and eventually standardized through the broader church’s process of recognition. No exclusive COG copyright office existed. The idea that God left His word only with a tiny, mostly invisible flock that somehow resurfaces every few centuries just long enough to hand the baton to the next true remnant is the same mythology every exclusive group tells itself.
Bwana Bob's endpoint is pure farce. Even if one granted every previous claim, the final link—“and therefore the Continuing Church of God under Bob Thiel is the true custodial church in 2026”—requires believing that a man who left Living Church of God over personality and prophetic disagreements, started his own group, and began issuing dreams and self-promotions is the living terminus of the apostolic canon. That is not continuity. That is a man writing himself into the story replacing God's hand in the entire matter.
Greco-Roman and Protestant churches have their own historical problems and anachronisms. That does not make Thiel’s alternative true by default. Two competing myths do not produce one historical fact. The books of the New Testament were recognized, preserved, and transmitted by the wider Christian movement. The idea that only one tiny, doctrinally specific stream ever truly “had” them is the kind of claim that sounds profound only if you already need it to be true.
In short: the apostles wrote letters. Later Christians recognized them. Centuries of ordinary transmission followed. Then, in the 20th century, a former advertising man in Oregon decided he had restored the true church. Decades of splits later, Bob Thiel decided he was the final custodian. That is not a chain of custody. That is pure Armstrongite myth making..
4 comments:
This is simply fantasy. The stuff of Hollywood legends. Wouldn’t even make a third rate movie. It all makes Scientology look relatively sane lol. The Armstrong movement is in irreversible decline and will soon exit stage left or is it stage right? Either way their days are numbered. But what grace and salvation we have in Christ. He has set us free from these charlatans who have lead so many astray sadly. The very scriptures they say speaks of them, speaks soundly against them.
In order to prove anything at all, you must first prove your proof! This "endless chain" thingamajig is pure speculation, evidence of Armstrong's admiration of Alexander Hislop's methodology. Bob should do an in depth analysis of the types of people his message attracts. That would be but the beginning of wisdom.. Alas, he can think no deeper than Herb.
Regarding Waldensians - Armstrong and his followers construct a completely false historical narrative and refuse to acknowledge the evidence that contradicts it.
Armstrong claimed that the medieval Waldenses were part of his “one true church” lineage. Historical evidence does not support this. The Waldenses were orthodox, Sunday‑keeping lay reformers within medieval Catholicism who affirmed the Trinity, infant baptism, the sacraments, and mainstream Christian doctrine. They held none of Armstrong’s distinctive teachings. His portrayal of them as Sabbath‑keeping remnants of his church is therefore historically inaccurate and reflects a manufactured reconstruction designed to support his continuity narrative. It is as unfounded as his self‑designation as an apostle
Seventh‑day Adventist writers likewise appropriated the Waldenses to support their continuity narrative, portraying them as Sabbath‑keepers who preserved “the truth” through the Middle Ages. This claim has no historical basis. Waldensian sources show Sunday worship, orthodox doctrine, and none of the distinctives of Adventism. The SDA use of the Waldenses is therefore another selective reconstruction designed to create an imagined lineage where none exists.
The Waldensians exist today as a church, and their consistent doctrinal record further demonstrates that neither Armstrongist nor Adventist claims about them have any historical foundation at all.
It is difficult to fathom how such falsities could be so blatantly constructed; at times it appears Armstrong simply repeated earlier Adventist assertions without verification. Given Armstrong’s broader pattern of historical misrepresentation and at points even outright fabrication - this additional claim should not surprise.
This is yet another way in which Armstrongism was time and date stamped. Armstrongism was only possible in the era of analog research. Imagine this. It is 1956, and you are driving home late at night in your Chevy. You are twirling the dial on your AM radio, and pick up a Midwestern radio station you cannot normally receive during daylight hours. The booming voice you suddenly hear is authoritatively sharing some really bizarre information, things you have never heard in your entire life. At the close, the speaker urges you to send for a free booklet which will provide additional information. You are totally captivated and pull over to jot down the name of the booklet and the address. When you arrive home, you compose your request.
Several weeks later, you receive the booklet, and begin reading it. The information is very disturbing, but it sticks in your mind. Like many Americans, you do have a set of World Book Encyclopedia, or perhaps Encyclopedia Americana, or if you have some college in your background, Encyclopedia Britannica. You attempt to verify the information, but so much of it is simply not in your encyclopedia. Still, the booklet has a certain logic to it, and what you read appears plausible. It references another booklet, supposedly to answer some more of your questions, and you feel compelled to request it as well. You are frightened by the possibilities put forth, and want to learn more. You soon have a complete set of booklets and have also requested the organization's monthly magazine They are very convincing and you find that you have begun to trust this man.
Flash forward to the present. You are surfing the net, and encounter a bizarre presentation. .Another apocalypse theorist. The speaker appears to be a typical businessman, and draws you in. You are instructed to click to see a video providing further information. You take the bait. Being somewhat wary, as your questions arise, you Google the man's name and organization, seek out information and opinions on him, the group for which he speaks, and answers for some of the questionable aspects of his information. You learn that his group is a derivative of Herbert W. Armstrong, a controversial figure who taught that Jesus Christ would return in 1975, and whose followers lived very strict and austere lives and believed teachings based on conspiracy theories. Many feel that this Herbert W. Armstrong was an early cult leader. You investigate the references which the speaker name-checked, and discover that many of them are dubious or have been debunked and discredited. Some of the information you encounter in your research directly refutes the information the speaker has shared. You are no longer troubled by this speaker or by what he has to share. You have easily, with a few judicious clicks of the mouse, diffused his contentions. You want to share your discoveries with others who may also have seen this webcast, but notice that the comment section has been disabled.
The promoters of Armstrongism stick to the old analog "facts" and methods because analog is the only context in which they can remain believable. This continues their legacy as bottom-feeders, with the key difference being that even the people from the lower socio-economic levels have gone digital these days. We live in an era when people trust information they find on the internet, and there is not a heck of a lot of positive information on .Armstrongism or its theories on the internet. This perfectly explains the state of affairs in which Armstrongism finds itself. Terms like "Laodicean" are antiquated remnants from the analog age.
Post a Comment