Gerald Flurry: "...Satan has already been cast down to earth–but members have 'angelic protection.'"

Exit and Support Network had this up about Gerald Flurry's latest sermon.

February 17, 2021 

 

After the new U. S. president was sworn in GF gave another of his sermons with lunatic ideas and erroneous theology. Here are just a few: 

 

He believes Satan has already been cast down to earth–but members have “angelic protection.” However, Laodiceans (since they didn’t go with GF) are not so fortunate and Satan is “stamping all over them.” 

 

Only PCG can see the “vision” and “can prove it” since, as GF says, “We are a special people before God.” The world “has to listen to this one last message” from GF. You hear this in all his sermons. Everything is always one last–“one last chance,” “one last warning,” etc. How many one lasts are there? 

 

I had to shake my head when he said, “If you remain loyal to God, you are never going to be spiritually alone.” He won’t come out and say that what he really means is: “If you remain loyal to PCG government.” But even so, what does that have to do with being “spiritually alone”? Perhaps it means “alone” when you are thrown out of PCG. 

 

The word “loyal” isn’t even in the KJV which is what GF uses (except when he twists words from some other version such as the Moffat). What escapes GF is that loyal is primarily what God is to us. We are told in the Word of God that even if we are faithless, He remains faithful. (See II Timothy 2:13 NKJV:” If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.”) Why is that not understood by those in PCG? 

 

I would say it is because members are not being taught that if they belong to Christ, nothing can take away their salvation. [Note: See Q&A: Can We Ever Lose Our Salvation?] The Word of God continually says God will never leave us or forsake us and that He continues to work in us until the end of our life. (See Philippians 1:26 KJV: “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:” and Hebrews 13:5 KJV: “…he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” 

 

GF said to “study the new Trumpet magazine…especially the feature articles as they are truly outstanding.” Folks, how about studying the book of Colossians without PCG literature and find the treasures in Christ? (Colossians 2:3 KJV: “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”) We have everything we need in Christ. But that isn’t enough for GF.

He quoted from HWA so many times that I lost track of which were HWA’s words and which were GF’s, He said we are “going to rule the Universe” and “restore the Universe” (this doctrine comes from the Mormons) and we need to “get our minds on the New Jerusalem.” How about saying “get our minds on Christ” who is our only hope. (See Colossians 1:27: “Christ in you, the hope of glory:“) 

 

Towards the end of his sermon he said, “This is our future”and talked about the “power” we are going to be given. It’s all about power with GF. –PCG source

In the Church of God Semanitics Is Everything

Herbert W Armstrong: Semanitics Is Everything

 

If we Google the term semantics, we learn that this word conveys “the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.” And, while we all recognize the importance of being clear about the meaning and scope of what is being communicated, most of us have also experienced those obnoxious individuals who love to split hairs so that they can be right (and, more importantly, everyone else can be shown to be wrong). Unfortunately, in the religious realm, Herbert W Armstrong was one of those individuals who obsessed over semantics.

For Armstrong, most of Christianity had completely missed the proper meaning of what constituted the “gospel” or good news message which Christ taught to his disciples. Armstrong believed that the Christ-centric message of Traditional Christianity completely ignored or suppressed the message about a future and literal world government headed by Christ. And, as has been pointed out in this forum and other places, Armstrong both ignored the Great Commission of Matthew 28 and the clear indications in Paul’s epistles that his message was focused on Jesus Christ and his salvific work. It is unfortunate that Mr. Armstrong seemed incapable of allowing that a message about Christ could accommodate a message about his kingdom. For Armstrong, it was an either/or proposition – clarity demanded one explanation or the other (making one wrong and the other right).

It seemed to be incomprehensible to Mr. Armstrong that words can have multiple meanings. Indeed, his writings suggest that he rejected the notion that words, phrases, sentences or texts might be subject to different interpretations. Armstrong had discovered “THE TRUTH.” If there were other possible meanings/interpretations, they must be disregarded because God or the Holy Spirit had revealed to him the “TRUE” meaning/interpretation.

Armstrong believed that the fact that his organization incorporated the terminology “Church of God” as part of its name was a hallmark that his group was the “TRUE” Church which Jesus Christ had founded on that day of Pentecost so long ago. Never mind that the Greek word “ekklesia” suggests an assembly of people called together for the purpose of worship. Never mind that Scripture also attaches the term to Christ, the First Born and various places. Why not the “Assembly of God”? Why not the “Assembly of the First Born”? And, if the “ekklesia” was composed of everyone who had God’s Holy Spirit, would it really be accurate to suggest that any one human organization claiming to be the “Church of God” fully encompassed what that term really means?

For Herbert Armstrong, traditional understandings of terms like religion, Christian, paganism, grace and truth were said to be wrong. Indeed, in almost any area of Christian doctrine/dogma which we could name, Armstrong claimed that the traditional understanding was the diametric opposite of the truth.

However, Armstrong’s preoccupation with semantics was probably no where more apparent than in the realm of prophecy. It was how Armstrong defined terms like Israel, Babylon, Assyria, Zerubbabel, one crying out in the wilderness, place of safety and Great Whore which colored his unique interpretations of Biblical prophecy. For Herbert Armstrong, it wasn’t just the meaning of these terms either – it was the timing and chronology which he insisted were implied by those understandings. In short, Armstrong’s semantics demanded that the “end times” were upon us and insisted that his followers even more fully embrace his understandings of Biblical semantics.

There are a few scriptures that come to mind when dealing with the power of words, and how they can positively or negatively impact us. Here are a few of them: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits” (Proverbs 18:21), “There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing” (Proverbs 12:18), “Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble “ (Proverbs 21:23), “Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin” (Proverbs 13:3), “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matthew 12:36), “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12) and “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.” (James 1:26) One has to wonder what Mr. Armstrong thought these verses meant.

Miller Jones/Lonnie Hendrix

Bob Thiel: Does he know more than Dr. Fauci and did he discover a cure for AIDS?

 

The other day. the official Church of God Wonder Boy and God's ONLY double blessed self-appointed prophet came out with a bunch of zingers that show just how deceitfully crafty he is in his claims.

Now before going further, let me state that 1) I have been trained in virology 2) the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease twice concluded that my work with herbal, glandular, and vitamin therapy had ‘significant scientific merit’ against the HIV coronavirus in the 1990s, 3) I do have a Ph.D. in a biological field, and 4) I have successfully treated people with a variety of viruses with natural interventions for about thirty years (this is not something that people like Dr. Fauci, who the AP has repeatedly promoted as an expert has done).

A retired Public Health Educator from Indiana sent me this today: 

I am addressing this as a Retired Health Educator who for years had to evaluate material to make judgments on the reliability of information before using it to teach others. I am making no judgments on the science here, just the way the information is presented that sends up warning signals. 

 

But first: Is our good Dr. Bob telling us that HIV is a coronavirus? Or does the Doctor/Prophet make a typo?

Secondly: 

 

1) “I have been trained in virology” is not the sort of statement a virologist would make. “I have been trained (or studied, etc) at NAME OF INSTITUTION or “with NAME of SCIENTIST is more likely. 

 

2) A trained virologist would not make a statement that NIAID had “twice concluded” anything without giving us a reference citation to where those conclusions appeared. 

 

3) “I do have a PhD in a biological field” are red flag, weasel words. What “biological field? Again, someone with a valid PhD who is writing about viruses would specify the field. 

 

4) “I have successfully treated...for about thirty years” — where are his citations to any of this from established medical journals, conference proceedings, ANYTHING peer-reviewed? The failure to provide any peer-reviewed information is disquieting.

This is the same kind of deceitful nonsense that Gavin Rumney called Bob out on years ago when Bob claimed to have a theology Ph.D. from a real university, which ended up being a diploma mill out of India. Thiel also claims that he went to Fuller seminary as proof of his super fantastical theological understanding. One class in one semester does not make one a theologian AND he has no degree from Fuller or even Ambassador College, which, most assuredly does not make him a genuine theologian. His so-called education in theology comes from the junk theology of Herbert Armstrong and Rod Meredith which consists of booklets and sermons that proof-text scripture to fit the desired topic being spoken of. 

Is there anything truthful about Bob?