The Painful Truth Asks About Church of God Leaders: : "Just How Can We Trust Them?"

The Painful Truth Blog has an entry today on "Just How Can We Trust Them?".  Credibility seems to have always been a big issue in the Churches of God down through the decades.  We claimed to have the only revealed truth on earth.  Yet myriads of pastors and evangelists have lied and blasphemed over the decades with one stupid utterance after another.  Thousands of failed prophecies, abhorrent biblical interpretations, and despicable treatment of members, all done by "great" shepherds of the chruch.  Today the Churches of God are filled with countless official Apostles and prophets, all claiming they are the final truth.  Why after decades of this silliness do members still sit there week after week soaking up the drivel from Pack, Weinland, Flurry and others?  Check out this inquiring post on the Painful Truth blog and join in the discussion!

Good question. How do you place your trust in men who seem to never do what is right? Men who serve the interest of themselves first and the interests of the member last?


Adrian from Australia wrote with these questions in mind.

•        The church claimed to be the church of brotherly love. My wife often said to me that if that’s what the church people are like then she didn’t want to be a part of the 1000 year reign with them. I agreed. I wondered how come my own family who I was told to reject as worldly, were always kind to us despite us not giving birthday presents to them and having Christmas etc. Despite the bible saying that if you see your brother in need and you do nothing about it how can God’s love dwell in a person. My physical family always helped us materially, church members didn’t ever.  Of course I forgot about all that free advice about how bad you were from members,  but I don’t think that qualifies as helpful. The bible says by their fruit you shall know them. It bothered me that they claimed to have brotherly love.

Byker Bob on "Bogus Authority"

Today's apparent theme of postings has centered around of bogus teachings and false authority of the Churches of God through the decades. Here is a comment from Byker Bob from a thread on an earlier post:

When Jesus didn't return as was vigorously promised and then furiously backpedalled upon back in 1975, I dumped the whole sorry mess of garbage. However, having been taught so much as fact, I still thought that much of the ancient history we were taught about paganism, pagan figures, and the infection of Christianity by these influences was basically true.

I had shelved a lot of this stuff, but when I began to revisit it due to many of the questions and actually accurate information presented on the internet, I was totally blown away by the nearly complete bogussness of the supporting materials with which we were presented. When you do your own due diligence, attempt to "prove all things", and carefully check history, you become aware that we were presented with a lying testimony, which is yet another huge reason why Armstrongism is totally NOT "God's true church"

People in the ACOG congregations would probably be disfellowshipped for presenting real facts that contradict the ACOG version, which is why ignorant people like David Pack continue to get away with teaching blatant inaccuracies and outright lies. It's seen as being an act of rebelliousness to even want to research all of this material on one's own, let alone to have a "voice" to set the facts straight. Basically, to do so is to doubt or want to contadict "God's Apostle". So, the wall is indeed quite thick and very high!

Purely and simply, Armstrongism is "religion". It's most certainly not an enlightened path leading to a personal relationship with God.

BB

Van Robison on "Insurance Against Church Deception"

Insurance Against Church Deception

Basically the only real insurance anyone has against deception in the church world, is to not go to church.  If you do go to church then you are most likely going to be persuaded by the speaker or speakers in the pulpits. Public speakers are quite often very convincing.  Whatever flavor of religious persuasion they spew forth, varies considerably depending on the church.  Most likely all pulpit speakers will quote some "Bible", which will vary considerably from the King James Version, the "New World Translation" (Jehovah Witnesses),  the Mormon Bible, or any one of hundreds of different Bibles, all purporting "truth", while very different from one another.

Many groups have their own personalized Bibles, such as the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons, the Roman Catholics and the Protestants.  Many defend the KJV as if God Himself penned it.  He didn't!  I have personally sat in the pews of different churches, including the Worldwide Church of God and soaked in hundreds of sermons, by many different preachers over a lifetime.  Maybe it was thousands of sermons.  The pastor was always looked upon as "royalty", "chosen", "above common people", "all knowing", "having all understanding", "understanding all the mysteries of the Bible", "having all wisdom", "knowing the mind of God", "infallible and inerrant", "having authority over the sheep", "having a right to your bank account for 10% plus", "having a right to tell you what to think and what to believe", "anointed by God" and the list of nonsense is endless.

The human mind is easily deceived by public, charismatic, authoritarian, self-righteous preachers, who pretend that they are more moral than all others.  They are not!  All preachers and those who assume the posture of religious false authority over others are no different than any other human being.  They all have human nature and you would most likely be appalled if you really knew what goes on behind the scenes, in the personal lives of the "pastors" and those you think are "holy" men or "holy" women.    Truth is, we are all human and we all have human nature.  We can pretend that we are "Holy" all day long, but who is really Holy other than God Himself?

There is no greater means of deception, than listening to those who want to control you, have authority over you and who insist that you need to send them money.  That sounds a whole like like politicians, governments and preachers of churches and religions of all kinds.  That millions think the Bible itself is an "exception to deception" and that you cannot be deceived by the Bible, is among the greatest fallacies on earth.  INK on PAPER is no guarantee that you will not be deceived.  Does it seem strange that Jesus warned repeatedly to BEWARE, because MANY would come in His name and DECEIVE people?  Why then is it that so many gullible human beings will flock into the churches, like they do to the Ice Cream Parlor and devour the goodies?

If you really want INSURANCE against church deception, life-long false fear of fake rulers and freedom from being financially looted and true peace of mind, then consider that Jesus Christ alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life and NOT your local church, national church or world church, nor the frauds who stand in pulpits and warp your thinking with endless FEAR about your salvation.


Van Robison

Dave Pack: Armstrongism's Least Educated Apostle?

Dave Pack has been trying for years now to let the world know what a highly intelligent man he is.  He is constantly being inspired by god with all kinds of revealed knowledge.  He runs the worlds largest church related internet site.  He produces more booklets and materials than any other Church of God.  On and on the list could go.  But just how "educated" is Dave Pack?  At least when it comes to chruch history.

Dave has been spending a lot of time lately spouting off about the Nicolaitanes.  There is the traditional educated view on who these people were and what they did and then there is the Dave Pack version.

Traditional views on the Nicolaitanes are:

Hippolytus of Rome states that the deacon Nicolas was the author of the heresy and the sect.^[2] Several of the early church fathers, including Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret mentioned this group. Irenaeus discusses them but adds nothing to the Apocalypse except that "they lead lives of unrestrained indulgence."^[3] Victorinus of Pettau states that they ate things offered to idols.^[4] Bede states that Nicolas allowed other men to marry his wife^[5] and Thomas Aquinas believed that Nicholas supported either polygamy or the holding of wives in common.^[6] Eusebius said that the sect was short-lived.^[7]

The biggest strike against them is that the were believers in antinomianism:

Antinomianism (a term coined by Martin Luther, from the Greek ἀντί, "against" + νόμος, "law") is defined as holding that, under the gospel dispensation of grace, moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation.^[1]
Although the concept is related to the foundational Protestant belief of Sola Fide where justification is through faith alone in Christ, it is taken to an extreme in antinomianism. It is seen by some as the opposite of the notion that obedience to a code of religious law earns salvation: legalism or works righteousness.

This is what many Armstrongite splinter cults claim that is wrong with those that do not follow the law. 

That is, until Dave Pack enters scene.  While he may still hold to part of that belief, he has added to it with his own interpretation. This is what Dave Pack claims Nicolaitanism is:

“In the New Testament, the followers of “Saint Nicolas” were referred to as Nicolaitanes. These people—falsely calling themselves Christians—honored Nimrod during the apostle John’s time—much as people do today!”.

Say what?

St Nicholas?

Nicolaitans are Santa Claus followers?

Can Dave really be serious?

Saint Nicolas was not even around during the time of the Nicolaitans!  But wait, good old Nimrod was, so that is how he connects Nicolaitans to Santa Claus or St. Nick.  Can the man truly be this stupid?

The All Knowing One writes:

Nicolaitane means “a follower of Nicolas.” It originates from the Greek words, nikos meaning “conquerer” or “destroyer,” and laos, meaning “people.” The original Nicolas—Nimrod (Gen. 10:8)—was a destroyer of the people. Nicolas is merely the Greek word for Nimrod. Within two centuries after the Flood, Nimrod had conquered the people and founded man-made civilization.

 While alive, Nimrod commanded his subjects to worship him in place of God. Even after his death, his followers continued to worship him as a divine heroic leader. He was called “Baal.” This name means “master” and “lord,” and is found many times in the Old Testament. This name describes the positions that Nimrod took to himself—to be considered Lord and Master of creation.

 But “Baal” was only one of Nimrod’s many names. Another one of his names, commonly used throughout Asia Minor, was “Santa.” Langer’s An Encyclopedia of World History explains further that “Santa Claus” is a shortened form of “Saint Nicolas” or “Santa Nicolas.”

In the New Testament, the followers of “Saint Nicolas” were referred to as Nicolaitanes. These people—falsely calling themselves Christians—honored Nimrod during the apostle John’s time—much as people do today!

The sad part in all of this is that the sheeple in his cult will actually believe this without ever researching it.  He knows it too.  As long as he claims God revealed that to him they will swallow it.

I am glad to see that Ambassador education has finally paid off!  Way to go big guy!