Bob Thiel's October 29, 2026 article, Church Fathers, Protestants, and Rome: Were the ‘Early Church Fathers’ Heretics? responding to Protestant writer David Cloud's criticism of the early church fathers, provides an excellent example of how Armstrongism rewrites church history to make its modern doctrines appear ancient.
The underlying argument is familiar: The Roman Catholic Church corrupted Christianity, Protestantism inherited many of its errors, and the Continuing Church of God (CCOG), supposedly, represents the surviving remnant of the original apostolic church.
There is just one rather inconvenient problem with this historical reconstruction: The early Christians did not belong to the Continuing Church of God, did not teach the distinctive theological system of Herbert W. Armstrong, and left no historical evidence establishing an unbroken Armstrongist succession.
Thiel attempts to solve that problem by dividing the early church fathers into two convenient categories: those he considers heretics and those he claims were faithful Church of God Christians. In other words, the historical record is apparently reliable when it supports Bob's theology and corrupted when it doesn't.
What a remarkably convenient arrangement!
The question is not whether some early Christian writers disagreed with later Catholic teachings. They certainly did. The question is whether those disagreements establish that the first- and second-century church was essentially an early version of Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God. That is an entirely different proposition, and Thiel's article does not establish it.
The Great Historical Shell Game
Thiel begins by agreeing with David Cloud that most of the church fathers were heretics. He then immediately announces that some of them were actually faithful Church of God Christians. How does he determine which ones were faithful? Apparently, by checking whether their writings agree with the doctrinal positions of the modern Continuing Church of God.
This is where the historical gymnastics begin.
Thiel identifies Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias, Melito of Sardis, Thraseas, Sagaris, Papirius, and several others as faithful representatives of the original Church of God. But notice what is missing: historical evidence that these individuals belonged to anything resembling the modern Armstrongist movement.
They lived in different communities, during different periods, and sometimes disagreed with one another. They were not members of a denomination headquartered in California, waiting for Herbert Armstrong to arrive approximately eighteen centuries later and explain what they had supposedly been doing all along.
Thiel is engaging in retrospective denominational labeling. He finds ancient Christians who observed particular practices that resemble modern COG practices, and then claims them as his spiritual ancestors. That is not historical research. It is denominational wishful thinking.
Finding an ancient Christian who observed Passover does not establish that he believed in British Israelism, Armstrong's prophetic interpretations, the modern COG understanding of the Godhead, its system of tithing, or its distinctive hierarchical government.
It establishes that he observed Passover. One similarity does not establish an entire theological identity.
If it did, we could claim almost any ancient Christian who practiced baptism, prayed, or read the Scriptures as a member of our preferred modern denomination.
1. The Early Church Was Not Waiting for Herbert Armstrong
One of the most revealing statements in Thiel's article is his claim that certain early church leaders were faithful Church of God Christians.
This raises an obvious question: What exactly does he mean by Church of God?
The expression church of God appears in the New Testament as a description of Christian congregations. It was not the registered denominational name of an organization possessing all the distinctive doctrines later assembled by Herbert Armstrong.
There is an enormous difference between Christians using the biblical expression church of God and belonging to a modern religious organization claiming exclusive ownership of that expression. The first-century Christians were not Armstrongists. They were followers of Jesus, living in a world dominated by Judaism, the Roman Empire, and the religious cultures of the Mediterranean.
They had no knowledge of:
Herbert W. Armstrong.
The Worldwide Church of God.
Ambassador College.
British-Israelism as promoted by Armstrong.
Armstrong's prophetic interpretations of modern nations.
The modern COG system of church government and ministerial authority.
The distinctive doctrinal package assembled and promoted during the twentieth century.
Some early Christians observed the seventh-day Sabbath. Some celebrated Passover according to the Jewish calendar. Others developed different patterns of worship and observance. There was diversity, disagreement, and theological development.
Modern scholarship recognizes that the early Christian movement was not a single, perfectly uniform institution with every theological question already settled. Henry Chadwick's discussion of early Christian diversity, for example, documents disagreements already present in the first and early second centuries.
Thiel needs his readers to believe that the original church was essentially Armstrongism before Armstrongism existed. History does not cooperate.
2. Ignatius of Antioch: An Inconvenient Early Christian
Thiel takes particular issue with David Cloud's criticism of Ignatius because Ignatius supported hierarchical church government. Thiel insists that Ignatius was simply teaching biblical church government. But what does Ignatius actually tell us?
Ignatius's letters provide some of the earliest substantial evidence for a developing structure of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. He repeatedly emphasizes the authority of the bishop in the local congregation. In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, he writes about the importance of following the bishop and associates the bishop's presence with the church's unity. That sounds rather familiar to anyone acquainted with Armstrongist government.
But here is the problem: Thiel cannot simply claim Ignatius because Ignatius believed in church hierarchy.
A bishop exercising authority in an early Christian congregation does not establish that Ignatius believed in the complete ministerial government system promoted by Herbert Armstrong and subsequently defended by COG leaders. Nor does it establish that Ignatius would have recognized Bob Thiel as a legitimate successor to the apostles.
There is an important distinction between finding an ancient precedent for a practice and demonstrating an unbroken institutional and doctrinal succession. Thiel repeatedly confuses the two.
3. Polycarp and Papias: Similarities Are Not Proof of Armstrongist Succession
Thiel places considerable emphasis on Polycarp of Smyrna and Papias, claiming that they knew the apostles or people who knew them. These are important figures in early Christian history.
Polycarp was associated with the apostolic generation, and Papias preserved traditions about earlier Christian teachers. But what does that prove?
It proves that there were Christians in the early second century who maintained connections with people from the apostolic generation. It does not prove that those Christians belonged to the theological tradition of the modern CCOG.
Thiel particularly likes Polycarp because of his association with the controversy over the date of Passover.
Polycarp represented the Asian practice of observing Pascha on the fourteenth day of Nisan, regardless of the day of the week. This became known as the Quartodeciman controversy. That is a genuine historical connection worth examining.
However, the word Pascha is important. Early Christians used it in connection with the Jewish Passover and the Christian celebration of Christ's death and resurrection. It cannot simply be translated into a modern denominational claim that everyone observing it was practicing the exact same religious system as Armstrongists.
The existence of Quartodeciman Christians demonstrates diversity in early Christian practice. It does not establish that the CCOG is their exclusive modern descendant. Thiel has taken one historical similarity and inflated it into a claim of spiritual inheritance.
4. Melito of Sardis and the Passover Argument
Thiel also uses Melito of Sardis as evidence that the original Church of God rejected Roman Catholic practices. He particularly emphasizes Melito's connection with Passover. But Melito's surviving work, On Pascha, deserves more careful treatment than Thiel gives it.
Melito is associated with the Quartodeciman tradition, but his understanding of Pascha was thoroughly Christ-centered. His surviving homily interprets the Passover through the death and significance of Christ.
The fact that Melito observed Pascha does not establish that he believed everything the modern CCOG teaches. Nor does the fact that his practices differed from later Western Christian customs prove that he was an Armstrongist.
This is an important distinction that Thiel consistently ignores.
Historical Christianity cannot be reduced to a checklist of modern denominational doctrines.
5. The Church Fathers Cannot Be Heretics Only When Bob Says So
Perhaps the most entertaining contradiction in Thiel's article is his treatment of the early church fathers themselves. He agrees with Cloud that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, and others were heretics or apostates. He then insists that other early writers were faithful Christians because they supposedly agreed with the COG.
But who gave Bob Thiel the authority to make that determination? More importantly, what objective historical standard is he using?
If Justin Martyr is an apostate because he disagrees with Armstrongist interpretations of the millennium, why should a reader automatically accept Thiel's assessment of Polycarp simply because Polycarp observed Passover?
If Irenaeus is disqualified because of his understanding of church tradition, why should Ignatius automatically qualify because he supported hierarchical leadership?
Thiel's approach is circular. He begins with the assumption that Armstrongism represents the original Christian faith. He then searches ancient writings for people who appear to support selected Armstrongist practices. Those people become faithful Christians. Anyone who disagrees becomes an apostate.
The conclusion was already decided before the historical investigation began. This is not a reliable way to reconstruct the past. It is a way to manufacture historical validation for a modern religious organization.
6. The Sunday Worship Problem
Thiel attacks Justin Martyr and other early Christian writers for their association with Sunday worship. He wants readers to believe that Sunday observance was simply an apostasy introduced by pagan influences. But the historical record is more complicated.
The Didache, an early Christian instructional document generally dated around the late first or early second century, discusses baptism, fasting, prayer, the Eucharist, and community leadership. Its fourteenth chapter refers to gathering on the Lord's Day. Justin Martyr, writing in the second century, explicitly describes Christians assembling on Sunday.
That does not prove that every Christian community abandoned the Sabbath. It does demonstrate that Sunday gatherings were established in some Christian communities very early.mThe historical evidence also shows that Christian worship developed differently across regions and over time.
The Armstrongist explanation is that these Christians had already been deceived. But that explanation is an assertion, not historical proof. Thiel wants to use the writings of early Christians when they support his interpretation while dismissing those same historical communities when they demonstrate practices that do not fit his narrative.
That is selective history.
7. The Missing Evidence: Where Is the Unbroken Armstrongist Church?
This is the most important question Thiel never adequately answers.
If the Continuing Church of God represents the true spiritual continuation of first-century Christianity, where is the historical evidence establishing that continuity? Where is the documented succession of congregations?
Where are the records showing that the distinctive doctrines of Herbert Armstrong were consistently preserved through the centuries?
Where is the evidence that the early Christians believed in the specific prophetic interpretations, British-Israel claims, tithing arrangements, and ministerial authority structures now promoted by Armstrongist organizations?
Thiel can produce names of ancient Christians. He can quote passages about Passover, the millennium, church government, and the Scriptures. But quoting ancient Christians is not the same thing as proving an unbroken institutional or doctrinal succession. And this is where the Armstrongist historical narrative becomes particularly problematic.
The modern Worldwide Church of God emerged in the twentieth century under Herbert Armstrong. Its distinctive doctrinal system was developed and promoted during his ministry.
It is entirely reasonable to investigate earlier Christian parallels to individual teachings. It is quite another thing to claim that the modern organization represents an uninterrupted continuation of the apostolic church.
The latter requires evidence that Thiel does not supply.
8. The New Testament Does Not Establish Bob Thiel's Exclusive Claim
There is another problem with Thiel's argument.
He repeatedly appeals to Jude 3, which speaks of contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. But Jude does not identify a twentieth-century denomination as the exclusive custodian of that faith. Neither does the expression church of God establish that a particular modern organization possesses exclusive spiritual authority.
Thiel's article repeatedly moves from a biblical principle to a denominational conclusion without demonstrating the connection.
It is one thing to say Christians should remain faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. It is quite another to say that faithfulness requires accepting the teachings of Herbert Armstrong, the organizational claims of the CCOG, and the authority of Bob Thiel.
Those are very different propositions. And the second does not automatically follow from the first.
9. The Great Irony: Armstrongism Accuses Everyone Else of Apostasy
One of the recurring themes in Armstrongist literature is that Christianity supposedly went into apostasy shortly after the apostles died. The Roman Catholic Church corrupted the faith. Protestantism inherited the corruption. Evangelicals misunderstand Scripture. Modern Christians have forgotten the truth.
Meanwhile, Armstrongism supposedly arrives to restore everything.
But consider the historical implications. If Christianity became so thoroughly corrupted that almost nobody retained the original faith, how does Thiel know that the Armstrongist interpretation of the scattered historical evidence is correct? Why should readers trust his interpretation over that of Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or independent historians?
Simply declaring everyone else apostate does not make your own historical reconstruction accurate. And claiming to possess restored truth does not demonstrate that you actually possess it.
The Armstrongist movement has an unfortunate habit of treating disagreement with its leaders as evidence of spiritual blindness. That is a convenient way to protect a religious system from historical and theological criticism. It also creates an extraordinary situation in which every generation of COG leaders seems to inherit the right to explain why everyone else has misunderstood Christianity for the past two thousand years.
Apparently, the apostles managed to communicate the truth, but nobody could properly understand it until Herbert Armstrong and Bob Thiel came along.
What a remarkable oversight on the part of the Holy Spirit!
Conclusion: The First-Century Christians In No Way Resemble 21st Century Armstrongists
Bob Thiel's article is an exercise in selective historical interpretation.
He correctly recognizes that early Christianity contained theological disagreements and that some early Christian writers expressed views that would not fit neatly into modern denominational categories. But he then turns around and claims those writers who happen to agree with selected Armstrongist teachings as members of his own spiritual tradition. That is not a legitimate historical conclusion.
The early Christians were not members of the Continuing Church of God. They were not waiting for Herbert Armstrong to restore their doctrines. They did not possess the modern Armstrongist theological system, and there is no demonstrated historical chain connecting their communities to Bob Thiel's organization.
Could some early Christians have agreed with Armstrongists on particular practices? Certainly. Could some have disagreed with Roman Catholic developments? Absolutely. Does that make them Armstrongists? Not remotely. There is a difference between recognizing historical similarities and claiming ownership of an entire religious movement that existed nearly two thousand years later.
If Bob Thiel wants to claim the early church fathers as spiritual ancestors, he needs to do more than find a few quotations about Passover, the millennium, or church government. He needs to demonstrate the historical continuity he claims exists. Until then, the Continuing Church of God has no more exclusive claim to the first-century church than any other modern denomination that finds convenient similarities in ancient writings.
And perhaps the most important question is this:
If a Christian from the year 100 AD walked into a modern Continuing Church of God congregation, would he recognize his own faith?
Would he recognize its denominational identity, its doctrines about modern national prophecy, its organizational claims, its tithing system, its interpretation of biblical prophecy, and its dependence on the teachings of a twentieth-century religious leader? There is no historical basis for confidently answering yes.
He might recognize the Bible, the name of Jesus, the observance of certain biblical festivals, and some familiar Christian practices. But those things belong to a much larger Christian inheritance. They do not establish Armstrongist ownership.
Bob Thiel would like everyone to believe that his organization is the surviving remnant of the original apostolic church. Unfortunately, history is not a denominational deed that can be transferred simply because someone finds a few ancient documents containing familiar terminology.
The first-century church does not need Bob Thiel to explain who its spiritual descendants are. And it certainly did not spend nineteen centuries waiting for the Continuing Church of God to arrive and issue itself a certificate of apostolic authenticity.
Silent Pilgrim
No comments:
Post a Comment