The Modern Worldwide Church of God WCG?

"Seems to be an evangelical..."

Vatican II seems to indicate a different "holy see". Not really.

Satan himself is become an angel of light.

Beware: the wolves dressed like sheep.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I think the wcg is orthodox now. From their own testimony, the examined the scriptures and realized that they were doing just about everything wrong.

 

could you please give some examples of that, NateT ?

_________________________________________


The off-shoot, The Church of God International, that the late GTA founded is (to my knowledge) still true to the original WCG of the late Herbert Armstrong.


http://garnertedarmstrong.ws/

 

They are now "fast tracking" to the dark side if you ask me.

http://www.wcg.org/lit/AboutUs/media/brieflist.htm

On the good side - they are trinitarian now.

On the "dark side" -- not only did they give up Christ the Creator's OWN memorial of Creation - HIS Holy Day - but they ALSO gave up the creator as well!! No Creation just evolutionISM!!

That is a rapid pace of error injection! Lets see how long it takes for the gay agenda to find a home in the WCG.

In Christ,

Bob

 

what difference does that make ?

 

Armstrongism always held to the Gap theory, in which the earth was millions of years old. Armstrong himself taught it in the Plain Truth. (Like you can see this most clearly in the 1983 article For Evolutionists Only). As for "the "change" of different life forms; they also acknowledged macro-evolution, as do many others.
As for the Sabbath; I think they did still continue meeting on the day, but simply do not legalize it anymore.
They did accept the Trinity, but tried to avoid the word "Person" favoring instead "hypostases", at least at first.
I also think they kept onto the unconscious state of the first and second death. That, from what I understand; is what led some people to still think they are not fully orthodox. If they ever changed that, they were pretty much silent with it, but then, there should be no reason for anyone to question them.

 

Eric - thanks for the background info.

What do you mean by "legalize"??

Is the commandment against adultery "still legalized"???

Does "legalize" mean "still admit to be in the 10 commandments" or "Still submit to as God's will"??

In that case - I am guessing that non-legalized would be "being faithful because it is customary not because you really think it is WRONG/sin to commit adultery"

Correct?

In Christ,

Bob

 

BTW - if we are to use the term "legalize" correctly - don't you really mean "they legalized Sabbath breaking so that now it is ok to ignore Christ the Creator's Holy Day" in favor of any man-made tradition that strikes your fancy??

 

The WCG went orthodox several years ago, led by one of the church's leaders, Joseph Tkach, Sr. and later by his son. I actually witnessed part of this at a conference where he was being interviewed on this topic. It is common knowledge among those who follow the WCG.

What happened after that was that those in the WCG who disagreed with this change split off, wanting to still follow the heretical teachings o Armstrong (who founded the WCG originally). These split-off churches are formulating their own doctrinal errors based on the original Armstrongian errors and it's just multiplying. They disagree with each other sometimes as a result, and they disagree with the orthodox turn the WCG took.

What the WCG did is a first. It's the first time a cult actually turned away from heresy and went orthodox. It's a cause for rejoicing!

 

what difference does that make ? </font>[/QUOTE]They used to deny the Trinity.

 

Here's more info:

They are still working out some kinks. Changes like this don't happen overnight.

 

My caution would be to beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Then there is Garner Ted--

Can a leopard change his spots?

This is about "pedigree".

i.e. If Jesus did not start it, it will never be "orthodox". Any church started by a man/woman is without authority and is necessarily "unorthodox.

We are still stumbling on: "On this rock "I" am building my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her." Mt. Ch. 16.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Well, that is a good question. I think I would want to know about the individual church the person might be going to, first. I would also want to be sure it was not a split-off church.

 

I think those of you who doubt this need to be aware that their changes have been documented.
It is true that there might be some confusion in this, and that is why caution should be exercised. Also, the split-off churches that want to stay with the old way need to be avoided.

And, yes, a leopard can change his spots through Christ! I did!

 

BTW, Garner Ted is dead. He died in 2003.

 

They are just continuing the legacy of one-upmanship that Armstrong started rolling. Armstrong came out of the Church of God 7th Day (Salem), which claimed to be more biblical than the Church of God 7th day (Denver; originally Stanberry) it came out of. Armstrong held that the 7 churches of Rev. were "eras", but while claiming these were the very last days, did not make his church the Laodicean era, but rather the next-to-the last "Philadelpia" era, which received no rebuke. This made it obvious that any turn from "the truth" after his death would naturally signify that body's entry into the "Laodicean" age. So of course, splinter groups would come out, denouncing the WCG. But since all are bent on being "the true Church", they all denounce each other. One want as far as to say that the WCG is not the Laodicean church, because it is not a church of Jesus Christ at all anymore, but that the Laodiceans were the other splinter groups that were supposedly "compromizing", though not as much as the WCG.
It is all about control, as Armstrong ran a tight ship. After he died; then it was a struggle among many ministers to gain control. this even began before he died; with the earlier spate of schisms that began with Garner's problems, and then financial problems. Then, you have an entiely different branch; beginning withthe Sacred namers, who took Armstrong's doctrines and added insistence on the name YHWH; and after that you have dozens of other similar groups , and they start denying other fundamentals, such as the deity of Christ (in favor of Arianism or even unitarianism), and arguing over the exact way to keep the holy days, etc; each claiming to be truer than the last one. It is carnal to the core. But that's the way men are.

I would mean it in the same sense that the Armstrong groups "legalize" the annual days. Does "legalize" mean "still admit to be in the 613 commandments" or "Still submit to as God's will"?? BTW - if we are to use the term "legalize" correctly - don't you really mean "they legalized annual Sabbath breaking so that now it is ok to ignore Christ the Creator's Holy Days" in favor of any man-made tradition that strikes your fancy??
It means to enforce it as a Law; and this is whether it is a Law, or once a Law; still a Law, etc. or not. We have been on and on about this, so don't start, please. It was only a passing reference. When I visited them right after the change, they still met on the day, but taught you did not have to keep it. I'm not sure what exactly they do now. That is all I have to say on that.

They had planned to publish an "annotated version of it", (wonder what that would be like), but it ran into legal snags with the other groups hremaining in Armstrong's teachings laying claim to it.

Why would the WCG still be considered as such?