Herbert Armstrong's Son-in-Law Drops the Bomb: "It's True. You Can Believe It."

Herbert Armstrong's Son-in-Law Drops the Bomb: "It's True. You Can Believe It." 

The Incest Scandal That PCG and the HWA Worshippers Can't Erase

Article is by an ex-PCG member

In the twisted carnival of Armstrongism, where failed prophecies pile up like unpaid tithes and "God's Apostle" Herbert W. Armstrong is still treated like some untouchable saint by the splinter groups, every so often a voice from the past punches through the denial. This time, it's coming straight from the family. Not some bitter ex-member with an axe to grind, but the husband of Armstrong's own daughter Dorothy—Vern Mattson himself.

Back in 2010, a PCG member (yes, one of Gerald Flurry's loyal tithers) picked up the phone and dialed Sun City, Arizona. What followed was a conversation that should have nuked any remaining illusions about the "one true church" founded by a man who allegedly molested his own daughter for years. But of course, in Armstrong-land, facts are just "attacks from Satan" and reality is whatever the current "leader" says it is.

Here's the letter excerpt from that former COG member, left intact as a raw, unfiltered quote:

They found that at this time, Vern Mattson resided in Sun City, AZ., the year being 2010. Upon finding their number, my dad simply called them. Vern Mattson picked up. Dad just told him that he was a member of the Philadelphia Church of God and had been for a few years, raising his children in the Worldwide and in the PCG. Then, he just told him what my mom had heard and could these things be true? And, if they were, our dad's big question was, to Vern Mattson, why didn't someone, somebody in their family come out years ago, and tell the WCG, the truth?

First thing out of Vern Mattson's mouth was that he couldn't believe that there was now an actual college named after Herbert Armstrong in Oklahoma, and why would they do that? My dad's answer was, starting with Gerald Flurry, right on down, they firmly believed that he (Herbert W. Armstrong) was God's man. Whatever, over the years, that the leaders or members have heard or seen, no way would it or could it be believed! He told him, it's who they are, it's their lives, just like it was ours. 

 

It's what our fathers have taught us and on down the line it goes!! My dad said it was pretty quiet on the other end there, for a bit. Then he heard the words, "Well, it's true. You can believe it." 

 

He said he really had no problem talking about it now, because his wife Dottie [Dorothy], had just recently passed. He said it made him angry, sickened them for a long time, because of the thousands of people out there, in the WCG, that really had no idea! He told my dad things that evening, on the phone, that my dad felt responsible to tell me. 

 

Vern Mattson said, over the years, with all that's out there now, on these computers, David Robinson's book, and plenty others written by his top ministers; he said, you got the Ambassador Report, full of documented facts and dates, exposing all the lies, mishandling of money, the incest with his own daughter. When I found out what he had done to my wife when she was just a young girl, you see we raised a daughter too, this was his own daughter, scaring and hurting her like that, over and over again, I was going to kill him! 

 

I won't forget her words, years ago, when she asked me, how could a great and loving God go against Himself like that, by calling a man to raise up His "one and only true Church," a man that would hurt his own daughter like that? 

 

To all the fathers out there who have a daughter, your little girl, how would you answer that? 

 

I can tell you how Herbert Armstrong answered that, because of the last thing Vern Mattson told my dad on the phone that day, something he said, he has never forgotten. His wife, Dottie [Dorothy], told him of an incident that had happened back in the late `30s or so, that he could never ever repeat, but what he could say, was that she was pleading with her father one night, she wanted it to stop. (Herbert Armstrong had her in a hotel room, and her voice was overheard by others, and a person who worked there came knocking on their door, wondering if anything was wrong?) His reply, his answer--the man we so strongly believed in--his answer when my wife, his daughter, his little girl, cried out to him, was: "God gave you to me and it is my job to teach you. This will help you to be a better wife someday." 

  

So there you are. Shocking Words That Herbert Armstrong Told His Daughter Dorothy

There you are, indeed. Straight from the mouth of the man who was married to Dorothy Armstrong Mattson. Not hearsay from some disgruntled employee, but confirmation from the guy who lived with the victim and raised a daughter of his own. Vern Mattson was ready to kill HWA when he found out. Can you blame him?

Think about that for a second! The same Herbert W. Armstrong who screamed about British Israelism, the "lost ten tribes," Saturday-only salvation, and tithing your way into the Kingdom allegedly took his own young daughter into a hotel room and "taught" her in ways that left her pleading for it to stop. When hotel staff heard her distress and knocked, Papa Herbert's pious response was essentially: "God gave her to me. This is for her own good. Future wife training."

How convenient. The Apostle of Incest turns divine calling into a license for familial rape. And this is the guy whose name still graces Herbert W. Armstrong College in Edmond, Oklahoma, where Flurry's crew indoctrinates the next generation of tithe-payers.

Vern Mattson couldn't believe they named a college after the man. Yeah, Vern, join the club. The cognitive dissonance in these groups is thicker than the Ambassador Auditorium's wool carpet. They heard the rumors for decades—David Robinson's book, the Ambassador Report with its documented facts, ex-ministers spilling the beans—and still doubled down: "No way could it be true! He's God's man!"

Meanwhile, Dorothy lived with the trauma. She questioned how a loving God could anoint such a monster to lead "His one and only true Church." Good question, Dottie. The answer, of course, is that He didn't. Armstrong was a charismatic grifter with a god complex, a serial adulterer (by his own admission in some accounts), and, according to his own son-in-law, an incestuous predator who used theology as a grooming tool.

This isn't ancient history to be swept under the "persecution" rug. This is the rotten foundation of the entire Armstrong empire—WCG, PCG, LCG, RCG, CCOG, and every other acronym still peddling the same legalistic poison while ignoring (or outright denying) the founder's personal corruption.

To all the current members and "ministers" still defending HWA: Vern Mattson, the man who married the victim and heard it from her own lips, said "It's true. You can believe it." Your wives, your daughters, your sons—how do you look them in the eye and keep sending in those tithes to prop up the legacy of a man who allegedly violated his own child?

The New Covenant offers real freedom from this garbage. No more idolizing dead false apostles. No more covering up evil with "don't judge God's servant" nonsense. Just Christ, grace, and the truth that sets people free.

Vern Mattson is gone now. Dorothy too. But the testimony remains. The wackiness, the hypocrisy, and the human wreckage of Armstrongism continue to be exposed—one phone call, one letter, one article at a time.

So there you are.

The Transformation of Torahic Slavery: A Peripheral Issue in Armstrongism

 

Bronze Age Celts were Great Enslavers of Germanic, Iberian and Other Celtic People

The Transformation of Torahic Slavery

A Peripheral Issue in Armstrongism

Dedicated to Anne

By Scout

My Quaker ancestors manumitted their slaves as a moral stand in the 1700s.  I know the name of only one slave that my family owned and manumitted.  Her name was Anne.   Her last name was probably my last name. Later in American history, my Great-Great-Great Grandfather owned a farm in Indiana that operated as a waystation on the Underground Railroad. Abolition was a special interest of the Society of Friends.  Herbert W. Armstrong also came from a Quaker background and condemned both slavery and the Civil War but, based on a short search of Armstrongist literature, did not seem to write about the theological import of slavery with respect to the Torah.  Slavery, as it is described in the Torah, is a model of how some laws were not set aside by the New Testament but were transformed.  The management of the Israelite institution of slavery is detailed in the Old Testament but slavery also continues as a transformed Christian concept in the New Testament.  The line of reasoning begins with the Torah.

Torahic Slavery in the Old Testament 

Slavery was common in the Bronze Age world.  For instance, it was not only an institution among the Northwest Semitic peoples, it was common in the British Isles. The Celts were great slavers.  They enslaved Germanic, Iberian, and other Celtic people.  Slavery had deep roots in the social and economic structures of these societies.   Slavery is not just a phenomenon that affects African-Americans.  All of us are descended from slave owners or the enslaved – probably both.  Mark Twain stated, “The skin of every human being contains a slave."  So, due to its wide social scope, it is not surprising that the Torah, as the national constitution of the ancient Israelite state, would have something to say about slavery.  

The surprising issue is that slavery is not condemned in the Old Testament, whether the chattel sort forced on Gentiles by Israelites or the indentured type forced on Israelites by Israelites.  Slavery is instead regulated in the Old Testament.  If you think that the Israelite form of slavery was a kinder, gentler form of slavery, like some apologists have maintained, look at this case:

“When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property (Exodus 21). 

This does not specify whether the slave is Gentile or Hebrew.  Nor is it limited by gender. Nor is it related to the severity of what caused the slave to be beaten.  So, if your elderly female cook burns the supper, you can beat her nearly to death, and if she lives to the next day, nobody can punish you.  Your whole punishment is the loss of her services.  If you maintain that Israelite slave owners would not do such a disgusting thing, understand that this would be because of their own personal morality, not because they were afraid of the Torah, which is permissive in this situation.  The law supports a specific view of human dignity. 

Armstrongists believe that the Torah is written on their hearts.  This would include the laws concerning the regulation of slavery.  These laws do not belong to the category of things that are no longer to be followed, such as the ceremonies and rituals.  Armstrongists frequently deny parts of the Torah that they don’t want to obey by saying that the particular law is either a “ceremony” or a “ritual.”  And this is generally unchallengeable because Armstrongists have never done a systematic study of the Torah and its applicability.  In a sense, the laws, because they exist, advocate the institution of slavery and a certain view of humanity.  If one believes that the Torah is written on the heart, the slavery laws will be included.  But does the New Testament see slavery from the same perspective?

Transformed Slavery in the New Testament

Certain laws in the Torah exist in a transformed, spiritual version in the New Testament Law of Christ.   This includes circumcision, the Sabbath, the sacrifices, and slavery.   Technically speaking, they did not go away.  They were instead subsumed in Christ.   Their physical implementations are set aside as covenantal requirements, but their spiritual content persists in Christ. 

So, we find that slavery exists in the New Testament, but it is spiritual rather than physical.   Paul stated the following principle in 1 Corinthians 7:22:

“For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave (Greek, doulos) is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave (doulos) belonging to Christ.”

Jesus himself is our model as a slave.  In Philippians 2:7, we have the great Kenosis:

“But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant (doulos), and was made in the likeness of men.”

Jesus elected to come to us in a diminished state as a slave.  And all Christians are slaves to Jesus Christ.  Paul, James, Peter, Jude, and John of Patmos all describe themselves as doulos. This category of spiritual slavery does not diminish human dignity as purely Torahic slavery did.  It is offset by the fact that Christians are also God’s children.  So, the concept of slavery is up close and personal for all of us.  Very likely, our ancestral lineages going way back included slaves.  And for those who walk in The Way, they are slaves of Christ. 

Slavery and the Personality of Armstrongism

A common sermon preached from the pulpits of the Confederacy was that African-Americans were descendants of Canaan and their being held in slavery was justified. This argument was referred to as the Biblical “Curse of Ham.” The Worldwide Church of God (WCG) was the only modern church that I know of that held to a very similar view. The same argument was made, but the conclusion was left unstated.  If there had been a stated conclusion in the WCG, I conjecture it would not have been that slavery was justified but, rather, explainable.  I never heard an official of the WCG say that slavery was justified from the pulpit.  

(Note: Genetic analysis indicates that Black Africans are not Canaanites.  They are y chromosome haplogroup E.  The modern-day Canaanites are the Lebanese.  They are y chromosome haplogroup J like many other peoples in the Middle East. The Lebanese are very closely related to the Jews. Herman Hoeh’s historical studies on this topic were clearly in error.  Hoeh did not have the science of genetics to aid him.)

But the pews formed a kind of notional understanding to fill the void. I had a deacon explain to me at the Feast of Tabernacles in Big Sandy back in the Seventies why African- Americans and Whites sat in separate sections.  He stated, “God’s church believes in segregation.”  I remember an article by Herman Hoeh in which he explained that people of different races should not socialize outside of church services.  If you search around in online Armstrongist archives, you won’t find much about the topic of slavery and its aftermath.  We are left with anecdotes for the most part.  These anecdotes form the personality of the WCG. 

Organizations have personalities.  And this is separate from their charters or other formal documents.  What the loyal organizational members write about the organization and what the organization’s personality actually is, may be two different things.  How the organization formally presents itself is found in carefully authored and redacted documents.  What it really is, is typically found in anecdote. The WCG projected, in my experience, a White Supremacist personality.  And this personality attracted a certain kind of membership.  I don’t know if this appeal was inadvertent or strategic. 

Conclusion

Slavery was not condemned in the Old Testament and was carried over into the New Testament in a different form.  This continuity has meaning.  The New Covenant is a covenant of better promises.  One place where this is clearly evident is in the case of the persisting but transformed institution of slavery.  The physical slavery of the Torah has given way to the spiritual slavery, an attitude of commitment and dedication, of the New Testament. Slavery is now a spiritual concept that pertains to everyone who walks in The Way.  Christians are slaves to God and Christ. 

 

 

Olam and the Seventh Day

 

Olam: it’s so far that we can’t see the end.

Olam and the Seventh Day

By Scout

Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual (olam, Hebrew) covenant.  It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever (olam, Hebrew): for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (KJV, Exodus 31:16-17)

I have said that God made the Sabbath a SEPARATE, ETERNAL, and PERPETUAL COVENANT, entirely separate and apart from what we term "the Old Covenant" made at Mt. Sinai ― Herbert W. Armstrong in his booklet “Which Day is the Christian Sabbath,” 1972.

 

 “Olam and the Seventh-day” sounds like a Disney movie about a Hebrew boy named Olam who learns about the seventh-day Sabbath.  But “olam” is, rather, a term in Hebrew that usually means “a long time” but can mean “eternity”.  The KJV translators seem to have made facile decisions about how to translate olam in the Old Testament.  I know of no documented, substantive exegesis concerning how they arrived at the decision to translate olam in its various usages in the Biblical text.   

In my examination of this issue, I will be relying extensively on the work of Dr. Eitan Bar who is an Israeli Jew and also a Christian and a graduate of the Dallas Theological Seminary.  Dr. Bar has a valuable word study of olam in his book titled, “Hellfire Deconstructed.”

Briefly, How the Old Testament Views Eternity

Eternity seems to be one of the leitmotifs of the Old Testament.  One gets the feeling of infinite duration as some scriptures are read.  If you get that feeling, the translators have probably misled you.  Dr. Eiten Bar wrote:

“One of the risks in interpreting an ancient Jewish Middle Eastern text—the Bible—from a Western perspective is the anachronism fallacy, which involves injecting modern ideas into the ancient text. This issue becomes particularly apparent when considering the concept of time.  In Western philosophy, eternity is a subject of extensive debate, but the concept, as understood today, essentially does not exist in the Near Eastern biblical context.”

The idea of infinite duration imposed on the ancient Hebrew language of the Old Testament creates an anachronism.  It is like Shakespeare writing of a striking clock in the play “Julius Caesar” when the mechanical striking clock was not invented until the Middle Ages.  The Hebrew term “olam,” which is often translated anachronistically as forever or everlasting, much later concepts, really just means something like “hidden” or “not visible” in the sense that it is beyond sight.  It means something that lasts so long or extends so far, for instance, that we cannot see the end of it from where we stand.  It does not rule out that it is finite or will one day end.  There are many Biblical examples of something that is olam and is of finite duration.  In Jeremiah 5:29, olam refers to a period of 70 years.  This issue of semantics has a direct impact on how Exodus 31:16-17, concerning the seventh-day, is interpreted. 

So, if you are reading the Old Testament and the text is laced with references to eternity, consider that your expansive mood may stem from the wrong impression, that the term olam for the most part does not mean eternity.  And it is time to read more deeply.

A Reassessment of the Seventh-Day Sabbath Covenant Text

When the Sabbath Covenant of Exodus 31 is reviewed in light of the equivocal meaning of olam, the Covenant might be eternal or it might not be. While olam refers to a finite but long duration, the term olam can also be used to mean “eternal” in at least one place in the Old Testament.  God is referred to as El Olam or the Eternal God.  Clearly, there is no finitude or possibility of a distant future ending possible in this usage.  So, how do we figure out what Olam means?  Olam means “a long time” or “eternity” depending on context. So, we must look at the context. 

Exodus 31 does not stand by itself.  In fact, nothing in the Old Testament stands by itself.  It is all under the authority of the New Testament.  This is because Jesus himself is the Word of God. The Old Testament is not superior to Jesus. It is absurd to think that Jesus was just another Torah-keeper, that the law is at the center and Jesus is peripheral. This profound transition from the Old to the New Testament is described by the Apostle John when he said, “The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”  Notice that Jesus brought not only grace but the truth.  Jesus brought us the true state of reality. This is one reason that the teachings of the New Testament may legitimately modify the Old Testament. 

We must reassess the seventh-day Sabbath covenant in Exodus 31.  To do this, we must see it in the context of the New Testament.  Prominent in any such review will be the Jerusalem Council’s conclusions.  Prominent will be the model of circumcision and how circumcision was transformed.   This will inevitably lead us to the conclusion that the Sabbath is still in force.  It is eternal just as Exodus 31 states.  But our rest is not in the seventh-day but in Jesus.  The line of reasoning follows.

The New Testament Rest is Not the Seventh-Day

It is important to understand that the concept of the seventh-day and the Sabbath are separate.  We know this from the New Testament.  The word Sabbath in Hebrew does not mean seventh-day or the number seven.  It means a deliberate cessation of activity, therefore, implying rest.  God implemented the Sabbath by resting from creation on the seventh-day in the allegorical language of Genesis.  (God does not need to rest in order to recharge like a human.  But he did cease from a certain kind of activity.) So, only God can re-implement the Sabbath in a different way.  Jesus said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matthew 11:28-29, NRSV).” We now find our rest in Jesus. Notice this statement covers both physical and spiritual rest.  Also, in this statement, Jesus separates spiritual rest from the seventh-day by making himself the new source of rest.  The concept of rest is carried forward but the physical ritual of the seventh-day is set aside. 

This change that makes Jesus our rest tells us the intent of the language of the Sabbath Covenant in Exodus in retrospect.  It is important to again consider at this point that the seventh-day Sabbath, like circumcision, is a composite of a spiritual concept and a physical ritual.  It is composed of both spiritual rest and the physical seventh-day observance.   Olam in the Exodus 31 context does mean “eternal” but it is focused on the meaning of the Sabbath as spiritual rest rather than on the physical seventh-day. We would not know the intended usage of olam in Exodus 31 if we did not have New Testament events to refer to. It is safe to conclude that Moses did not know the full extent of what he was saying in Exodus 31 because he did not have access to New Testament revelation.  So, the change Jesus made in how the rest is to happen through him asserts the meaning of olam as eternal in regard to spiritual rest only. 

Let me hasten to add, that the observance of the seventh-day is not wrong.  I am confident that prior to 70 AD, the Jerusalem Church observed the seventh-day and, perhaps, much of the Torah.  Pauline theology and the Book of Hebrews is convincing that this observation must have been liturgical – a worship form.  The seventh-day, like circumcision, only becomes a departure from Christianity if it is asserted that its observance is a requirement for salvation. 

Conclusion

The Hebrew word olam because of its ambiguity is not by itself sufficient to decree that the seventh-day is the Sabbath for all of eternity as Herbert W. Armstrong states.  One cannot cite the Sabbath Covenant in Exodus 13 as a means of settling all debate.  One cannot approach the New Testament scripture with the eternity of the seventh-day observance in pocket as an already-decided issue because the New Testament has the final word.  The covenant of circumcision was also described as eternal (olam) and ceased to be the cutting in the flesh in the Old Covenant and became a matter of the heart in the New Covenant. In regard to both circumcision and the seventh-day, the spiritual meaning has been retained but the former physical implementation has ended.  This is because the New Testament gives completed, present meaning to what was intended in the Old Testament.  Jesus is the Word of God in action and the New Testament message that he brought to us supplants the Old Testament.  

 

 

How One Miserable Little COG Leader Turned America’s Birthday Into His Personal Victimhood Parade...Of Course He Did...

Never in the history of the Churches of God have we had a more miserable, self-serving narcissistic asswipe as a Church of God leader than what we currently have in Bwana Bob Thiel, who is continually vomiting all over the COG, Christianity, and the United States. Bwana Bob is starting to make Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, and Ron Weinland look halfway sane! Is this guy ever happy or appreciative of ANYTHING?

As we approach July 4th, Bwana Bob is sitting in Arroyo Grande, squealing like a stuck pig stuck behind its feed trough.

He writes:

Typically, on the Fourth of July, many in the USA will have barbecues, watch parades, and/or view fireworks.

Those who live in the USA may wish to re-read its Declaration of Independence as its government in this century not only seems to have a disdain for more of the law of God, it also is probably more guilty than the old British rule for committing many acts that caused the colonists to revolt in the first place.

A reader sent me the following:

June and the first week of July, The colonies were at war against the great power of England. Men in a hot humid closed July room debated the future course of history. Lee’s proposal for independence led to a committee of of 5 to write out a Declaration. I will be showing Jefferson’s draft and the paragraph about slavery that was removed. Trumbull’s painting shows the draft being presented to Congress on June 28. Final approval and vote for independence soon followed.

Many years ago, I read my family much of the Declaration and commented upon how the then current USA federal, state, and local governments had committed most of the same actions against our family (directly and/or indirectly) that the USA’s revolutionary leaders objected to from the British king. I did that on the 4th of July a couple of times.

While every other Church of God leader in living memory has spent the Fourth of July the normal way — grilling burgers, watching parades, lighting fireworks, and actually enjoying the country — Bwana Bob has once again decided the holiday exists solely so he can lecture everyone about how oppressed he is. 

In his latest gloomy dispatch, Thiel announces that the Declaration of Independence has basically been weaponized against his family. Yes, you read that right. The same document that launched a revolution is now, according to Bob, a personal indictment of how the U.S. government has been picking on the Thiels. No other COG leader has ever pulled this narcissistic stunt. They celebrated the holiday. 

Bob turns it into a 3,000-word whiny little bitchfest about how the modern American state is somehow worse than King George III specifically because it has offended him.

Here’s what Bob actually wrote, stripped of the pious wrapping paper:

He starts by admitting that normal people do barbecues, parades, and fireworks on the Fourth. Then he immediately pivots to “you should re-read the Declaration because the current U.S. government is committing all the same crimes the British did… and worse.” He even brags that he used to read the whole thing to his family on the holiday and point out how the feds, states, and locals were doing the exact same oppressive things to them. Because of course the IRS audits, COVID rules, and surveillance programs were all about destroying the Thiel household personally. Classic.

He then pastes a reader’s email listing every modern annoyance — taxes, vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, CBDCs, “forever wars,” regulations, politicized justice, and cultural degeneracy — and treats it like fresh revelation. Bob’s big insight: Americans have “less independence to celebrate” every year. Shocking.

The heart of the piece is his line-by-line comparison of the Declaration’s grievances against King George to today’s America. He hits every greatest hit:

The king refused to assent to laws → Today’s presidents and courts do the same (especially when they don’t like what Bob likes) 

 

The king obstructed justice and created new offices to harass people → Patriot Act, Homeland Security, IRS targeting conservatives, COVID restrictions, and now even more biometric surveillance and AI under the current administration. 

 

Taxes without consent → We pay way more than the colonists ever did, so it’s basically the same. 

 

Standing armies and foreign mercenaries → Militarized police and endless foreign wars.  

 

Loss of privacy, property, due process, free speech, and bodily autonomy → Everything from SWAT teams to forced vaccines to government snooping. 

 

He even quotes John Whitehead at length about how the Constitution is already dead and we’re living under a de facto police state. Because nothing says “happy birthday, America” like telling everyone the founding documents are meaningless and the government is coming for your dog.

Thiel tops it all off by complaining that the Declaration is “too religious” for modern media (it mentions “Nature’s God” and “Divine Providence”), that the country has essentially declared independence from God, and that only national repentance can save us. He throws in the usual list of national sins — homosexuality, abortion, pornography, debt — for good measure. Then, in the classic Thiel closer, he says the country is doomed but you personally can still repent and have a brighter future than the nation. Translation: Listen to Bob or burn.

The entire article is one long exercise in turning a day of national celebration into Bob’s personal grievance session. He takes a document written by men who risked everything to create a new country and uses it as a mirror to stare at his own reflection and complain that the government isn’t nice enough to him. Other Church of God leaders managed to enjoy the Fourth without turning it into a sermon about how the entire United States is now a bigger tyrant than the one the founders overthrew — and how it’s all happening specifically to inconvenience Bob Thiel. 

He didn’t write a reflection on liberty. He wrote a 3,000-word complaint that the holiday exists to remind everyone how miserable he is and how everyone else should feel the same way. 

Happy Fourth, everyone. Try not to let Crackpot Bob ruin it.

Precept Upon Precept, Clown Upon Clown: How Armstrongism Turned God’s Mockery Into Their Holy Study Method

 

But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Isaiah 28:13

Ah, yes. The classic Armstrongist party trick. Whenever some wide-eyed prospective member or lingering splinter drone starts asking too many pesky questions about why the "one true church" cherry-picks doctrines like a starving raccoon in a dumpster, out comes the triumphant bellow: "Precept upon precept! Line upon line! Here a little, there a little!" It's their sacred get-out-of-context-free card, the magical incantation that justifies ripping verses from here, there, and everywhere to "prove" British Israelism, mandatory tithing to headquarters, triple tithes and offerings during "God's" feast days, the sacred calendar, clean/unclean meats, and whatever other Old Covenant legalism HWA and his prophetic successors decided was essential for salvation that week.

Let's actually open the Bible and see what Isaiah 28:9-13 says, shall we? (You know, the whole context thing that the "Philadelphia era" remnant claims to love so much.)

King James Version (because that's the one they prefer when it suits them):

9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Notice something? The phrases "precept upon precept" etc. are not a divine study method handed down from on high. They are the mocking taunt of drunken, scoffing priests and prophets in Ephraim (and by extension, Judah) who are ridiculing Isaiah's message. They're saying, in effect: "Who does this guy think he's teaching? Babies just weaned from the breast? Blah blah blah, rule on rule, line on line, a little here, a little there—yada yada yada." It's baby talk to their sophisticated, wine-soaked ears.

God is not patting them on the back for their systematic theology homework. He's pronouncing judgment. They rejected the true rest and refreshing found in Him (verse 12 — hello, New Covenant shadow), preferring their own religious game of collecting scattered proof-texts while ignoring the heart of the matter. As a result, the very words they mocked become a trap that causes them to stumble, fall backward, be broken, snared, and taken captive.

How Armstrongism Distorted It Masterfully

Herbert W. Armstrong and his theological descendants (Thiel, Pack, Flurry, Kitchen, Brisby, and the rest of the clown car) turned this passage of divine mockery and judgment into their primary hermeneutical operating system. "The Bible is a jigsaw puzzle! You have to put it together precept upon precept, here a little there a little!" they'd thunder from the pulpit, while conveniently ignoring that the passage is God describing how the unrepentant stumble over His word precisely because of that fragmented, rules-focused approach without the Spirit.

This "method" gave them unlimited license to:

• Proof-text their way to British Israelism by yanking obscure verses about ancient tribes and slapping them onto modern Anglo-Saxon nations. Never mind the mountains of genetic, historical, and archaeological evidence against it.

• Reimpose the Old Covenant (or their mutated version of it) on New Covenant believers. Tithing? Check. Holy Days? Check. Dietary laws? Check. Sabbath policing? Double check. All while Jesus and the Apostles made it clear the shadows have been fulfilled in Christ.

• Dodge the plain teaching of Scripture on grace, faith, and rest in Christ. Why deal with the finished work of the Cross when you can hopscotch through 66 books looking for supporting snippets?

• Maintain control. If everything is "here a little, there a little," only the enlightened Apostle or his chosen successor can properly assemble the puzzle. Question the assembly? You're a Laodicean, rebellious, or worse.

It's peak irony. The passage warns against treating God's word like a bunch of disconnected rules from a drunken religious elite who rejected rest in Him — and Armstrongism built an entire empire on doing exactly that.

The Real Point They Missed (Because It Would Bankrupt Their Empire)

Verse 12 is the heart: 

This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Sound familiar? Jesus said, "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28). The New Covenant isn't about mastering scattered precepts through human effort and headquarters-approved Bible studies. It's about faith in the finished work of Christ, the true Cornerstone (Isaiah 28:16, right in the same chapter they love to twist).

The Armstrongist approach — endless rule-stacking, fear of "falling away" if you miss a Holy Day, financial extraction disguised as "God's government," and spiritual exhaustion — is the exact opposite of rest. It's the path that leads to being "broken, and snared, and taken." Just look at the devastated lives, failed prophecies, scandals, and shrinking congregations across the splinters. The trap worked exactly as Isaiah described.

Congratulations, COG leaders! You've taken a passage where God mocks religious know-it-alls who treat His word like a rulebook for toddlers and turned it into your infallible method for reinventing Judaism with a thin coat of "Church of God" paint. Precept upon precept indeed — mostly the precepts of men that make the word of God of none effect (Mark 7:13, another verse they probably "here a little" away from).

If you're in one of these groups and feeling weary, exhausted, and spiritually snared... maybe stop treating the Bible like a drunken scoffer’s puzzle and listen to what God actually said about rest. The refreshing is available in Christ, not in another "special" Bible study booklet from Wadsworth, Grover Beach, Edmond, or wherever the latest self-appointed Elijah is holed up.

The word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept... that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken.

New Covenant Christians must grasp this passage not as a clever study tip, but as a stark warning against the very snare that trapped generations in Armstrongism. The "precept upon precept" approach, when stripped of its sarcastic biblical context, becomes a self-perpetuating system of spiritual bondage—piecing together isolated rules while missing the grand tapestry of grace fulfilled in Jesus. It keeps believers perpetually weaned from the true milk of the Word, treating Scripture as a divine puzzle only "God's government" can solve, rather than a living revelation pointing to rest in Christ.

In light of Armstrong's distortions, believers today are called to reject this fragmented legalism entirely. The New Covenant, sealed by the blood of the Lamb, frees us from the exhaustive labor of reassembling Old Covenant shadows. No more hunting "here a little, there a little" for justification through diet, days, or dollars. Instead, we stand on the solid Cornerstone, where the weary find genuine refreshing—not in headquarters-approved booklets or self-appointed apostles, but in the finished work of the Cross. This understanding dismantles the fear tactics and control mechanisms that thrive on confusion, replacing them with the simplicity of faith, love, and liberty in the Spirit. No one needs Bob Thiel, Dave Pack, Gerald Weston, Gerald Flurry telling them jus how things are supposed to be. 

Ultimately, Isaiah 28 exposes how religious elites stumble when they mock God's offer of rest. For those emerging from Armstrongist shadows, this means embracing the full implications of the New Covenant: no more hybrid law-grace systems, no more "one true church" elitism, and no more exhaustion masquerading as obedience. True doctrine flows not from puzzle-solving prowess, but from relationship with the One who is our Sabbath rest. As you study Scripture, do so with eyes fixed on Christ—the refreshing that the scoffers rejected. In doing so, you avoid the trap, walk in freedom, and become a voice of clarity for others still entangled in the wreckage of failed prophecies and man-made empires. The rest is not only better; it is the very gospel itself.

“Line Upon Line, precept upon precept” Is Not What You Think — The New Covenant Warning in Isaiah 28:10

UCG Council of Elders is getting ready to present to their followers a doctrinal paper on Isaiah 28:10.

Isaiah 28:10 (in context) does not teach “line upon line, precept upon precept” as a positive Bible-study method under the New Covenant. That is a common modern misapplication. Here is the accurate meaning, including its New Covenant fulfillment.

The Original Text and Context (Old Testament)

Isaiah 28:10 (NIV): “For it is: Do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there.”

KJV: “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.”

This verse sits in Isaiah 28, a chapter of judgment against the drunken leaders and false prophets of Ephraim (Israel) and Judah. In verses 7–9, the priests and prophets are staggering from wine and strong drink. They mock the true prophet Isaiah, treating his clear messages from God like baby talk or gibberish—repetitive, childish commands (“do and do… rule on rule”). The Hebrew sounds like nonsense syllables (tsav lātsāv, tsav lātsāv, qav lāqāv, qav lāqāv), similar to “blah blah blah” or “da da da.” 

God’s reply (verses 11–13) is that because they rejected His clear word, He will now speak to them through “strange lips” and a “foreign tongue” (the invading Assyrians). To them, God’s word will sound like the very mocking babble they used—leading to their downfall (“they may go and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken”).

In short: Verse 10 is mockery and judgment, not a recommended way to study Scripture.

New Covenant Meaning (New Testament Fulfillment)

The New Covenant (established by Jesus’ blood—see Hebrews 8:6–13, Luke 22:20) does not change the original meaning of Isaiah 28:10. Instead, the Apostle Paul directly applies the surrounding verses (especially Isaiah 28:11–12) to the New Testament church in 1 Corinthians 14:21–22.Paul writes: 

In the Law it is written: ‘With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me,’ says the Lord. (1 Corinthians 14:21, quoting Isaiah 28:11–12)

Then Paul explains: 

Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. (1 Corinthians 14:22)

What this means under the New Covenant:

The “strange lips / foreign tongue” of Isaiah 28 becomes the gift of speaking in tongues in the early church.

Just as the Assyrians’ foreign language was a sign of judgment to rebellious Israel (who refused to hear God’s clear prophets), tongues serve as a sign of judgment to unbelievers—especially unbelieving Jews in the first century who rejected Jesus.

If unbelievers hear tongues without interpretation, it sounds like chaotic babble (echoing Isaiah 28:10’s “precept upon precept” mockery). It confirms their hardness of heart, just as the foreign invaders confirmed Israel’s rebellion. Paul is correcting the Corinthian church: Tongues are real and from the Holy Spirit, but they are not primarily for showing off or for believers’ personal edification in public (without interpretation). They point back to this Old Testament pattern of judgment on those who refuse God’s clear message.

This is the direct New Covenant application—not a method for gradual Bible study, but a warning about how God can use unintelligible speech as a sign to the hard-hearted.

Why the Popular “Line Upon Line” Teaching Is a Misunderstanding

Many preachers today quote Isaiah 28:10 positively (“we study the Bible line upon line, precept upon precept”). While the principle of progressive, careful learning is biblical elsewhere (e.g., Hebrews 5:12–14; 2 Timothy 2:15), Isaiah 28:10 itself is not teaching that. It is the drunk mockers’ words (or God’s ironic judgment using their own phrase against them). 

The New Testament never uses it that way. Paul’s quotation in 1 Corinthians 14 confirms the context is about unintelligible speech and judgment. Under the New Covenant, we have the completed revelation in Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit. We grow “from glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18), but the specific verse you asked about points us to the proper, orderly use of spiritual gifts rather than a study technique.

The True New Covenant Meaning of Isaiah 28:10

Isaiah 28:10 is not a divine blueprint for “line upon line, precept upon precept” Bible study, as it is so often misquoted today. In its original context, it is the mocking, drunken ridicule of rebellious religious leaders who treated God’s clear prophetic word like childish gibberish—“Do this, do that… rule on rule… a little here, a little there.” Their contempt invited divine judgment: God would now speak to them through the “strange lips and foreign tongue” of invading armies, turning their own scornful phrase back on them as the sound of impending doom (Isaiah 28:11-13).

Under the New Covenant, this passage receives its definitive interpretation through the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22. Paul quotes Isaiah directly and declares that the “foreign tongue” has become the New Testament spiritual gift of tongues. Far from being a personal prayer language or a sign of spiritual maturity for believers, tongues function as a sign of judgment—exactly as the Assyrian invasion was a sign to hard-hearted Israel. When unbelievers hear uninterpreted tongues in the assembly, it sounds like the very babble the drunkards once hurled at Isaiah. It confirms their refusal to hear God’s plain message in Christ, just as the foreign invaders confirmed ancient Israel’s rebellion.

This is the heartbeat of the New Covenant application: God’s Word is no longer veiled or piecemeal. In Jesus, the full revelation has come (Hebrews 1:1-2). The Holy Spirit now indwells every believer, making the Scriptures clear and accessible. Progressive learning is certainly biblical (Hebrews 5:12-14; 2 Timothy 2:15), but Isaiah 28:10 was never the proof-text for it. Instead, the verse stands as a sobering warning against treating sacred things lightly—whether through mockery, drunkenness, or charismatic showmanship without order.

The enduring New Covenant lesson is this:

When people reject the simple, Spirit-illuminated gospel of Christ, God can sovereignly allow their own confusion to become the instrument of their judgment. Yet for those who humble themselves, the same God who once spoke through “strange lips” now speaks with unmistakable clarity through His completed Word and the indwelling Spirit. The call remains: hear clearly, repent fully, and walk in the freedom of the New Covenant—where the veil is removed and the truth sets us free (2 Corinthians 3:16-18; John 8:32).

Silent Pilgrim 

Personal Speculation in the Church of God: A Serious Abuse of the Pulpit

For decades, personal speculation has been the driving force behind much of the preaching in the Churches of God. This problem first exploded across the COG scene many years ago and has only intensified since the great apostasy that shattered the Worldwide Church of God (the Mother Church) in the late 1980s and 1990s. Today, the entire Church of God movement is riddled with abusive speculators such as Bob Thiel, Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, Ronald Weinland, Alton Billingsley, and virtually every human head of the hundreds of splinter groups now in existence.

Almost everything these leaders preach is pure speculation rather than solid biblical fact. Instead of faithfully teaching what Scripture clearly states, they repeatedly offer their own private interpretations, prophetic guesses, date-setting, and imaginative theories — presenting them as if they were direct revelations from God or authoritative “new truth.” Sermons and booklets are filled with bold claims about exactly when the Great Tribulation will begin, who the “man of sin” is, which nation will invade another, or how specific current events are fulfilling obscure prophecies down to the month or even the day.

This practice is not harmless. Nathan Albright has written a White Paper on this issue: “The Importance of Teaching What the Bible Says from the Pulpit and Avoiding Personal Speculation as an Abuse of the Power of the Pulpit”. It explains that the pulpit is a sacred trust, not a platform for personal opinion or philosophical display. A minister is a steward of divine revelation (1 Corinthians 4:1–2), not its owner. When a preacher substitutes personal theories, political opinions, or imaginative conjectures for biblical exposition, he abuses the authority God has given him and distorts the sacred office.

The fragmentation following the great apostasy created the perfect environment for speculation to flourish. When the Worldwide Church of God largely abandoned the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong, thousands of members fled into dozens — eventually hundreds — of splinter groups. With no central authority and intense competition for members, many new leaders felt pressure to distinguish themselves. The easiest and most effective way? Claiming special prophetic insight or “understanding” that others lacked. This turned the pulpit into a stage for one-upmanship rather than humble exposition of Scripture.

The results have been devastating on multiple levels:

• Repeated Prophetic Failures and Loss of Credibility History shows a clear pattern: leaders make specific predictions that do not come to pass, yet they rarely repent or stop. Instead, they often revise the dates, spiritualize the failure, or blame the members for not having enough faith. This cycle has repeated for decades across many groups. When predictions collapse, members experience disillusionment, bitterness, and shaken faith. Some leave the Church of God entirely, while others become cynical and distrustful of all ministry. The credibility of the entire movement suffers, making it harder to reach new people with the true gospel.

• Doctrinal Drift and Spiritual Confusion Speculative preaching erodes doctrinal clarity. Congregations begin treating human guesswork as inspired truth, leading to confusion, division, and spiritual instability (Ephesians 4:14). Members spend more time debating the latest “prophetic update” than growing in holiness, love, or practical Christian living. The Bible becomes a puzzle book for end-time timelines rather than the living Word that equips believers for every good work.

• Cult of Personality Over Christ When preachers promote their own interpretations as “God’s revelation through me,” the focus shifts from Scripture to the man in the pulpit. Loyalty is demanded toward the leader’s latest theory rather than to Christ and the plain Word of God (1 Corinthians 1:12–13). This fosters authoritarian control, where questioning the speculation is treated as rebellion against God Himself. The result is a toxic environment that resembles a cult of personality far more than the humble, Bible-centered fellowship of the early Church.

• Erosion of the Fear of the Lord and Reverence for Scripture Bold speculation about divine mysteries teaches listeners to treat God’s revelation lightly. It implies that human insight can add to, improve upon, or even replace what God has already clearly said. This normalizes irreverence. Instead of cultivating awe and trembling at God’s Word, members learn to chase the next exciting “revelation.” Over time, this weakens genuine faith and opens the door to further error.

• Spiritual and Psychological Coercion Because sincere believers rightly revere the pulpit, they are especially vulnerable. Leaders who equate their fears, preferences, or failed guesses with “the will of God” exercise coercive control over consciences. Members may feel pressured to give more money, isolate from family in other groups, or remain in unhealthy situations “until the prophecy is fulfilled.” This violates pastoral ethics and Christian liberty, turning the shepherd into a taskmaster.

• Institutional Decay and Endless Division Churches that tolerate or encourage speculation from the pulpit eventually suffer theological decay, loss of trust, and repeated schisms. The focus on the preacher’s latest theory rather than the immutable Word of God leads to more splits, more tiny groups, and more isolation. Instead of unity in the faith, we see competition, accusations, and a scattered remnant that cannot effectively do the work God has called the Church to do.

Nathan Albright's White Paper rightly warns that when opinion masquerades as revelation, the pulpit becomes abusive. To speculate beyond what Scripture actually says is not “deep insight” or “prophetic zeal.” It is spiritual malpractice. It distracts from the core gospel message, discourages biblical literacy, and replaces the freedom of God’s Word with the tyranny of human personality.

----------------------------------------------------

White Paper: The Importance of Teaching What the Bible Says from the Pulpit and Avoiding Personal Speculation as an Abuse of the Power of the Pulpit

Posted on October 14, 2025 by nathanalbright

Edge Induced Cohesion Blog

The pulpit occupies a sacred trust within the community of faith. It is not a platform for personal speculation or philosophical display, but a solemn charge to communicate the Word of God faithfully. This white paper examines the ethical, theological, and practical imperatives of confining pulpit teaching to what Scripture actually says. It warns against the creeping tendency of ministers to substitute personal theories, political opinions, or imaginative conjectures for biblical exposition—an act that constitutes an abuse of authority and a distortion of the sacred office.

I. The Nature of the Pulpit as a Sacred Trust

Divine Commission and Accountability The preacher stands as a steward, not a proprietor, of divine revelation (1 Corinthians 4:1–2). The words spoken from the pulpit are not personal property but entrusted truth. A minister’s authority derives entirely from fidelity to God’s Word; deviation converts stewardship into self-promotion. The Power of Influence The pulpit shapes consciences and directs lives. The hearers assume that what they are being told is the Word of God rightly divided (2 Timothy 2:15). Misusing this trust through speculation or conjecture exploits spiritual authority for personal ends. The Ethical Boundary Between Teaching and Storytelling A sermon may employ illustrations or analogies, but the moment a preacher speaks in the name of God about that which God has not revealed, the act crosses from illustration into invention—a violation of Deuteronomy 18:20 and Revelation 22:18–19.

II. The Dangers of Personal Speculation

Doctrinal Drift and Confusion Speculative preaching erodes doctrinal clarity. Congregations begin to treat theological guesswork as inspired truth, leading to confusion, division, and spiritual instability (Ephesians 4:14). Cultivation of Personality over Principle When preachers promote their own interpretations as truth, the pulpit becomes a stage for charisma rather than conviction. The result is a cult of personality that displaces reverence for God’s Word (1 Corinthians 1:12–13). Erosion of the Fear of the Lord To speculate boldly about divine mysteries teaches listeners to treat God’s revelation lightly. Instead of cultivating awe, the preacher normalizes irreverence by implying that human insight can rival divine revelation.

III. The Biblical Mandate for Faithful Exposition

Preach the Word, Not the Self (2 Timothy 4:2–4) Paul commands Timothy to “preach the Word,” not to entertain the hearers with opinions or fables. The apostolic model of preaching emphasizes reading, explaining, and applying Scripture. Pattern of Expository Ministry Ezra and the Levites “read from the book of the law of God, distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” (Nehemiah 8:8). This remains the pattern for all who handle the Word publicly. The Model of Christ and the Apostles Jesus consistently grounded His teaching in “It is written,” demonstrating submission to the authority of Scripture even as the incarnate Word. Likewise, the apostles preached “according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4).

IV. The Abuse of the Pulpit as a Power Structure

When Opinion Masquerades as Revelation The pulpit becomes abusive when preachers use its authority to sanctify personal conjecture. This blurs the line between divine and human speech, misleading the congregation into obedience to human will rather than divine command. Psychological and Spiritual Coercion Listeners who revere the pulpit are vulnerable. When leaders equate their preferences or fears with the will of God, they exercise coercive spiritual control, violating both pastoral ethics and Christian liberty. Institutional Consequences Churches that tolerate speculation from the pulpit eventually suffer theological decay, loss of trust, and internal schism. The congregation’s faith becomes grounded in the preacher’s personality rather than in the immutable Word.

V. Principles for Faithful Preaching

Textual Fidelity Every sermon should clearly identify, interpret, and apply Scripture. The text must control the message, not the other way around. Transparency of Interpretation Where interpretation is uncertain, the preacher must admit uncertainty rather than disguise it as revelation. Humility protects both the truth and the hearers. Doctrinal Consistency Preachers should anchor every message in the broader biblical witness, ensuring harmony with established doctrine and the full counsel of God. Accountability Structures Churches should maintain oversight mechanisms to ensure that pulpit teaching aligns with Scripture—peer review among elders, post-sermon Q&A, or theological training refreshers.

VI. Restoring Reverence for the Word

Renewed Emphasis on Biblical Literacy Congregations must be trained to discern the difference between what Scripture says and what a preacher merely imagines. The mature congregation becomes a safeguard against pulpit abuse. Cultivation of Expository Habits Teaching line by line through books of the Bible minimizes the temptation to speculate. The preacher’s role becomes that of a guide rather than an oracle. Repentance for Misuse of Authority Ministers who have used the pulpit for self-expression should publicly repent and recommit to faithful exposition. Restoration of trust begins with honesty before God and the flock.

VII. Conclusion: The Call Back to Scriptural Authority

The pulpit must be reclaimed as a platform for truth, not theory. When preachers restrict themselves to what the Bible actually says, they liberate their hearers from the tyranny of personality and return them to the freedom of God’s Word. To speculate beyond revelation is not creative theology—it is spiritual malpractice. The preacher’s calling is not to say something new, but to say again what God has already said, with clarity, conviction, and humility.

Appendices

Appendix A: Scriptural Citations on Preaching and Authority

Appendix B: Historical Examples of Pulpit Speculation and Its Consequences

Appendix C: Practical Framework for Sermon Review and Accountability

Appendix D: Training Outline for Expository Preaching

That Dog Won't Hunt!

That Dog Won't Hunt!

In the comments which followed my post The Linchpin of Armstrongism, some of the commentators brought up the fact that I am a celibate homosexual. For my regular readers, it will come as no surprise that I have always regarded my celibacy and faithfulness to God and my family as a tremendous source of moral authority for the things that I write about spiritual/theological issues. Hence, as part of my response to this mention, I wrote: "Perhaps, if Herbert Armstrong hadn't been such a narcissist and pervert, his teachings would carry more moral authority."

This statement provoked the following anonymous comment: "Earlier above, you excoriated HWA again for being such a 'narcissist and pervert' (doubting his conversion and believing the allegations against him, while calling yourself a redeemed one), and that if it hadn't been for that, 'his teachings would have carried more moral authority.' I detect a spirit of bitterness here. You don't know that Christ had him teach the truth for over 50 years, that many watched the WT and read the PT, and that attendance reached 140,000 until the apostasy set in? (to which you give assent if you disparage the law) His teachings did carry high moral authority from the Lord and led to many conversions (to which you have attested). Even after the trials and turmoil of the 70s, after all the allegations that he faced, he survived it until '86 when the church was still flourishing. If it was a work of men (which it began to be under the JWT's watch '93-'95), it would have come to nothing."

I completely understand where this person is coming from - once upon a time, I thought the same way. Like many of the folks who read this blog, I swallowed what Herbie was selling hook, line, and sinker! I believed that God had revealed THE TRUTH to that old guy, and that God had opened my mind to believe what He had revealed to Herbie. Later, however, I came to see that all that glitters is not gold - that there were a lot of holes in Herbie's "truth." I discovered that Herbie's dissertations on history and science were full of inaccuracies. Moreover, I eventually realized that many of his "prooftexts" had been taken out of context, and that his knowledge of the Bible and Christian theology was very superficial.

Finally, after an extensive reevaluation of Herbie's teachings, I came to understand that God had NOT worked through Mr. Armstrong. Indeed, it became very clear to me that he had twisted history, science, Scripture, research, and the thought process itself. Armstrong claimed that he had figured out God's plans, recovered First Century Christianity, and found the key to understanding prophecy. Sadly, it turned out that he didn't understand very much at all!

Then, I began learning more about the man himself - his character - his very real and glaring weaknesses and failures as a person. I talked to people who knew him personally and had worked with him. I reread his autobiography, and I saw things there that I had overlooked or ignored the first time I had read it. Herbert had written that his sister-in-law had been "indoctrinated" with the theory of evolution; and that she had called him "ignorant," because he had expressed his belief in Divine creation. The account continued:

"That accusation came hot on the heels of this Sabbath challenge from my wife. Of course, Hertha was only about 19, and had had but her freshman year in college. She was yet immature enough to be a bit oversold on what had been presented to her as a mark of intellectual distinction. Nevertheless, her manner was cutting, and a bit sarcastic, and 1 accepted it as a challenge. 'Hertha,' 1 responded, 'I am just starting a study of the Bible. I intend to include in this research a thorough study of the Biblical account of creation. Since it is admittedly one of the two - evolution or special creation - I will include an in-depth study of evolution. I feel sure that a thorough study into both sides will show that it is you who are ignorant, and that you merely studied one side of a two-sided question in freshman biology, and accepted what was funnelled into your mind without question. And if and when I do, I'm going to make you EAT those words!'" (spelling and punctuation were Herbert's)

Allow me to point out the things which I hadn't noticed the first time I read this passage. Notice that Herbie was responding to challenges from his wife and sister-in-law. Notice also that he disparaged his sister-in-law's college coursework (Mr. Armstrong did NOT have a college background of his own). He then proceeded to announce that he would launch his own independent study of science and the Bible, and that the results would be definitive. Finally, he told his sister-in-law that he would make her "eat those words." It hit me like a ton of bricks. This man was a classic narcissist! He was the smartest tool in the shed, and everybody else was inferior to him in intellect! This would become even clearer as Herbie continued the account of his life.

He wrote: "Most believers in the Bible and in the existence of God have probably just grown up believing it, because they were reared in an atmosphere where it was believed. But perhaps few ever studied into it deeply enough to obtain irrefutable PROOF. Likewise, the 'educated,' who have gone on through college or university, have, in the main, been taught the theory of evolution as a BELIEF. They have accepted it, in all probability, without having given any serious or thorough study of the Biblical claims." No one had studied the subject like Herbert Armstrong intended to study it! Look out "Darwin, Haeckel, Spencer, Huxley, and Vogt, Herbie was about to give those so-called intellectual giants the what for!

Even though Armstrong admitted that he was self-educated, he was going to challenge scientists and biblical scholars alike. He was going to get to the "truth" that no one else had been able to discover or discern! Even though he didn't have any training in research techniques and methods, he would ferret out the answers that had alluded all others! He continued:

I began this intensified study by obtaining everything I could find in the way of books, pamphlets and other literature both for and against what was often called 'the Jewish Sabbath.' I wanted, not only everything I could lay hands on, on the case for Sunday, and against the 7th-day Sabbath. I wanted, also, the arguments or proponents for it, which I hoped to be able honestly to refute. At the same time, I found, in the Portland Public Library, many scientific works either directly on evolution, or teaching in textbooks on biology, paleontology, and geology. Also I found books by scientists and doctors of philosophy puncturing many holes in the evolutionary hypothesis. Strangely, even the critics of evolution, being themselves scientific men, paradoxically accepted the very theory they so ably refuted."

Apparently, no one ever informed Mr. Armstrong that all sources are NOT created equal, or that some arguments are superior to others. It also appears that no one ever told him that a university library would be better for this kind of research than a public library - that he would have access to more of the latest thinking on any given subject in a university library than he would in a local public library. In Herbert's mind, his research was the most intensive that had ever been undertaken. His study would settle these questions for all time!

In addition to these personal revelations about Armstrong's narcissism and intellectual prowess, it was about this time that my father informed me about a conversation that he had had with Garner Ted Armstrong - before the masseuse and his messy exit from the Church of God International. To my shock and horror, GTA had confirmed to him that the rumors were true about his father's incestuous relationship with his sister! Prior to this, I had always dismissed the rumors and refused to look into the matter. I had assumed it was just sour grapes and character assassination. After my dad's bombshell, however, I became aware of the fact that there was a substantial body of circumstantial evidence which supported the accusation. So, Herbert Armstrong was a narcissist and an incestuous pedophile! He had also clearly divorced his second wife - it was a matter of public record. He wasn't even qualified to be a minister of Jesus Christ - let alone to be called an "apostle"!

In light of everything I had learned, it became clear to me that God had NEVER used Herbert Armstrong to reveal anything to anybody! "What about the success of the Worldwide Church?" my friends who were still entangled in Herbie's web of lies demanded. After all, Herbie had always pointed to PT circulation numbers, radio and television stations broadcasting The World Tomorrow, Ambassador College, and Ambassador IC Foundation, and income as proof that God was blessing his leadership of The Work. What we were never told, however, was that the Mormon Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses had an even greater reach and impact than we did. In fact, it turns out that financial and publishing success are NOT indicators of Divine favor! Bottom line, my apologies to the commentator referenced above - that dog won't hunt!

Posted by Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix

Decoding the Divine: Wade Cox's Wild Take on Michael the Archangel, Jesus, Satan, and the Elohim Family

The brothers Elohim are hard at work 

One thing you really have to credit Armstrongism for is how they took simple Bible stories and turned them into deep theological treatises that rarely ever made much sense once you really started examining them with an open mind. We so often hear this kind of nuttiness from Bob Thiel, Gerald Flurry, and Dave Pack—so much so that all we can do is laugh and move on. Then there's Wade Cox of the so-called "Christian" Churches of God, who loves to sit at picnic tables with the wind blowing his notes around, next to his sidekick, both talking like they failed the "Get the facts" and "Stir To Action" speeches—two things these blithering idiots seem to never do. 

Ah, theology—the grand arena where ancient texts meet modern interpretations, often resulting in ideas that make you go, "Wait, what?" If you've ever wondered what happens when you blend a dash of ancient Hebrew linguistics with a hefty dose of speculative cosmology (and perhaps a stiff breeze for dramatic effect), Cox's teachings provide a masterclass. At the heart of his doctrine is the eyebrow-raising notion that both Jesus Christ and Satan (once known as Lucifer) were part of the "elohim"—a council of divine beings created by the one true God, Eloah. It's like imagining heaven as a cosmic boardroom where Jesus and Satan were once colleagues, until one got fired for insubordination. But is this biblically sound, or just another theological plot twist gone delightfully awry? Let's dive in-depth, with a sprinkle of sarcasm for flavor, because sometimes you need a laugh to handle the heresy.

Wade Cox isn't your average Sunday school teacher. As the founder and coordinator of CCG, established in the 1990s as a splinter from the Worldwide Church of God, Cox has built a following around what he calls "original Christianity." Sound familiar? CCG positions itself as a guardian of uncorrupted biblical truth, rejecting mainstream doctrines like the Trinity in favor of a strict Unitarian view. God, in their eyes, is singular—Eloah, the Most High—who presides over a hierarchy of subordinate "gods" or elohim. This isn't polytheism, they insist; it's more like a divine pyramid scheme where humans can level up to elohim status through obedience and salvation.

Cox's writings, scattered across CCG's website and various papers, paint a picture of a universe teeming with spiritual bureaucracy. Papers like "The Elect as Elohim" and "Wars of the End: Preparing the Elohim" outline a plan where God's ultimate goal is to expand this elohim family. It's ambitious, sure, but it sets the stage for his most controversial claim: that Jesus and Satan were both charter members of this elite club. Oh, and did I mention Satan was the "Morning Star" assigned to Earth as its guardian? Because nothing says "trustworthy overseer" like the guy who ends up leading a rebellion.

At the core of Cox's theology is a reimagining of the Hebrew word "Elohim." In the Bible, it's often translated as "God," but it's grammatically plural, which Cox seizes upon like a kid finding an extra cookie in the jar or Bob Thiel being doubly "blessed". He argues that Elohim refers not just to the one God but to a whole assembly of divine beings—sons of God, if you will—created by Eloah to help run the cosmos. Psalm 82:1-6 gets a starring role here: God (Eloah) judges among the "gods" (elohim), calling them "sons of the Most High" but warning they'll die like mortals for their corruption. Cox sees this as evidence of a heavenly council, complete with job assignments and performance reviews.

Enter Jesus: In CCG lore, he's the firstborn elohim, the Logos or Word from John 1:1, who acted as Eloah's chief architect in creation. Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation") is twisted to mean he's created, not eternal. And Job 38:7's "morning stars" singing at creation? That's Jesus as one star, shining bright in the divine choir.

Now, the twist: Satan gets the same VIP treatment. Originally Lucifer, the "Light Bringer," he was another morning star—Earth's planetary manager, no less. Isaiah 14:12 and Ezekiel 28:14-16 paint him as a perfect cherub who fell due to pride, trying to grab equality with God (unlike humble Jesus, who didn't). In Cox's view, Satan was "Satan-el," an elohim of a planetary quadrant, part of the same created order as Jesus. They were like divine brothers—one stayed loyal, the other went rogue, leading to a cosmic HR nightmare. This resolves Genesis 1:26's "let us make man in our image" as the elohim council chatting, not some Trinitarian mystery. Clever, right? Or, as critics might say, a bit too convenient, like retrofitting the Bible to fit a sci-fi novel.

Cox assures us this restores “true pre-Nicene Christianity” before those pesky pagan Trinitarians ruined everything. Bonus perk: faithful humans get to join the elohim country club someday. Who wouldn’t want eternal godhood with dental? The only tiny problem? Equating the eternal Son of God with a created rebel angel tends to make actual biblical scholars develop facial tics.

From any mainstream Christian perspective—Trinitarian, Binitarian, or even garden-variety monotheist—Cox’s system doesn’t merely miss the mark; it’s playing an entirely different sport on a different planet. Let’s tally the score:

• Jesus gets demoted to a created middle manager. Arianism called; it wants its heresy back. John 1:1–3: the Word “was God,” not “was a god,” and “without him nothing was made that has been made.” If Jesus is created, who created him? Crickets. Hebrews 1:8–10 straight-up calls the Son “God” and credits him with laying Earth’s foundations. Angels worship him (Heb 1:6). Cox turns the Creator into a promoted creature. Bold. Wrong. Catastrophically wrong.

• Satan gets a massive, unearned promotion. The Bible calls him a fallen angel, created servant (Heb 1:14), a liar, and a murderer from the beginning. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are prophetic smack-talk against human tyrants, not Satan’s LinkedIn profile. Job’s morning stars? Poetic angels at creation, not evidence of Jesus and Satan sharing a bunk bed in eternity past. Making Satan a peer of Christ is the theological version of saying Darth Vader and Luke were equals before the family drama. No.

• Yes, the word is plural. It’s also frequently a majestic plural for the one God, like royalty saying “we.” Psalm 82 is God judging corrupt authorities (human or angelic), not unveiling a pantheon. Jesus quotes it in John 10 to defend his unique divinity, not to say “I’m just one of the guys.” Cox’s henotheism-lite crashes head-first into Isaiah 43:10: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” God isn’t franchising.

Critics call CCG exclusivist and cult-adjacent. Even classic Armstrongism kept Jesus eternally divine. Cox’s tweak risks turning the cross into cosmic performance art: if Jesus is just another created elohim, how exactly does his death pay for sin eternally? It’s like trying to settle the universe’s debt with a personal check from a bankrupt middle manager.

CCG sprouted from Armstrong’s God Family doctrine (Father and Son as the two eternal Elohim, humans next in line). Cox cranks the dial to eleven, expanding the elohim into a full celestial org chart with planetary quadrants that sound suspiciously like rejected Ancient Aliens scripts. Apostolic tradition? Early Church Fathers? Nah, too mainstream. Windy picnic tables are where the real revelation happens, apparently.

Wade Cox's belief that Jesus and Satan were elohim stems from a pluralistic reading of Scripture, aiming to demystify God's plan. It's creative, I'll give it that—like imagining heaven as a dysfunctional family sitcom, complete with windy picnic-table sermons delivered with all the conviction of a motivational speaker who forgot his script. But biblically, it crumbles under scrutiny, denying Christ's eternity and inflating Satan's resume. Why does it matter? Because theology shapes faith: Get God wrong, and everything unravels. So, next time someone pitches Jesus as Satan's ex-colleague, smile politely and suggest a reread of John 1. After all, in the divine drama, some plot twists are best left on the cutting room floor.

Wade writes:

The LCG and the other offshoots conveniently ignore key texts of the Bible that show clearly that the angels are all sons of God and that Satan is also a son of God. Job 1:6 and 2:1 show that they all had access to the throne of God including Satan and had such access at the time of Job who was a son of Issachar resident in the Middle East (probably in Midian). These sons of God were the elohim who were the angelic host and are recognised as such by the Biblical scholars such as Bullinger and others. The sons of God were termed elohim which is a plural word recognising God as an extended being. Elohim is referred to in Job 2:1 but the name Eloah is used many times to refer to the One True God throughout Job. Job 1:6 refers to Satan being among the sons of God. He is used then to tempt Job and afflict him. Job 2:1 also has the same scenario when the sons of God came before God and Satan was again among them. It is thus beyond dispute that there were many sons of God in OT times and Satan was among them and they all had access to the throne. These sons of God were divided into ranks and positions and we see from Job 38:4-7 that the One True God created the earth in the beginning and that the sons of God came together before God at the creation and all the Morning Stars sang for joy when they were shown the creation. Now a Morning Star is a planetary ruler and is referred to as a light bearer or “Lucifer” and these heads of the Heavenly Host were the rulers of the Heavenly Council which we were shown at Sinai being founded in the Tabernacle as the Sanhedrin of the Seventy plus Two, and who are divided into the Heavenly Council in Revelation chapters 4 and 5 of the Four Cherubim and the Twenty-four elders and the Lamb of God. The outer council was the other forty-two elders making up the 72. This was the Sanhedrin also from Sinai and the Seventy-two or Hebdomekonta [Duo] ordained by Christ as the elders of the church (Lk. 10:1,17).

Now many sons of God were sent to mankind as messengers and that word was Malak in Hebrew and the word in Greek was Aggellos. The word simply meant messenger and the elohim were all sons of God as elohim until they were sent to mankind as a malak. That is the reason why they were all referred to as Yahovah and the human host prostrated before them (Gr. proskuneo). That same word is used of the elect when those who say they are Jews and are not but lie proskuneo before the elect of the Philadelphian Church in Revelation 3. The Binitarian worshippers of the god Attis in Rome brought their heretical doctrines in to Christianity from 175 CE. To introduce the Binitarianism of Attis they had to elevate Christ to a level above the other sons of God or elohim. They did this by creating a class and called them “Angels” from the word aggellos or messenger which was the translation of the word malak or messenger in the OT. They then made them distinct from Christ and used the term elohim or theos of he and the Father only. Having done this fabrication they then introduced the Holy Spirit as the third element of a Triune God by 381 CE at the Council of Constantinople and confirmed it from Chalcedon in 451.