Mark Clarke

DWBH, You're right about ABC/COGGC not being "mainstream." Most other "mainstream" denominations consider them at least misguided if not a cult, because they reject the Trinity. And you're also right about ABC mainly serving its own denomination and not being able to grant a degree that means anything outside of the denomination. This is actually a problem that they are aware of, and have talked about with the students. They have a problem getting the accreditation they want because of their rejection of the Trinity. I've heard that they are trying other avenues, but I don't know exactly what. As far as I know, Vince's church is not "officially" a COGGC church, even though they agree on most doctrines. They recognize Vince's "pastorship" but they don't believe in lifetime ordinations like TWI and other ex-TWI groups do. They don't use the title "Reverend" if you notice. They have qualified candidates apply for a minister's license which is renewed every so often, and the title of Pastor is related to a person's position in a local church. As such, I don't know what Vince's "official" status is regarding their ministerial association. Yes, the trip to Africa was the one I mentioned. I don't know who sponsored or funded Vince's involvement though. I don't know about who monitors the money, salaries, etc. in Vince's church. I live in a different part of the country and haven't been involved with the day to day running of his ministry. I agree that it would be interesting to find out. I think you're right about the Doctrinal forum being the best place to discuss the doctrinal differences. I only brought this up here because you and a few others said that ALL of the offshoots are just trying to keep VPW's doctrine and practices alive. While there is no denying that LHIM is a TWI offshoot, I see very little resemblance to the old ministry, outside of saying that the Bible is God-inspired, that God is one not three, and that the dead are unconscious. Their focus is on what God has done, specifically the Gospel of the Kingdom. They don't teach the "law of believing" or that the holy spirit is now "our spirit" that we must nurture and develop. They also don't make abundance in this life a priority, but recognize that this world is fallen and there will be suffering until Christ returns and sets up his Kingdom on earth. Besides doctrinal differences, I also see little resemblance in the structure either. As far as I can tell, while they have various local "home fellowships" they are not organized in a Way-tree like structure, with leaders answering to their superiors up several levels. And I don't think Vince or anyone else decrees "official" doctrine which everyone must submit to, as in the Way. There are a number of doctrinal areas where different opinions are entertained, and even disagreements are allowed. For example, Vince and his son Sean still disagree on water baptism. As for encouraging him to post here, I don't have his email address (I actually don't think he has one, or at least it's not on the site). But I do have Sean's email address and have written to him before. I'll mention this thread to him and see if he'll pass it on to his dad. Thanks for your intelligent and civil discussion. Peace to you as well.

I started it to put together the message of the Kingdom of God that I have learned over the past several years. I included references to what I used to believe, so that other ex-Ways could identify with where I've come from and what I've learned from the Bible since then. I have found that this overall message is not limited to any particular group, and is not something that any one person got "special insight" about. Many people from all different backgrounds have seen it and realized how it makes the whole Bible fit together. They have started seeing this, and realizing that the Gospel of the Kingdom is the primary message that Jesus preached and taught. He also said that this Gospel would be preached to the whole world, and then the end would come (Matt. 24:14). My website is my small part in that. The more important question is not "who is teaching the truth?" but "what IS the truth?" All the arguments about who associates with whom, and who stands with what group, is IMO just carnal thinking like what Paul referred to in I Cor. 1:10ff.

What's wrong with fried okra? It's one of the few vegetables my wife will eat! :D But seriously, folks... I would not take the threat of eternal damnation seriously, because I don't believe that's what the Bible speaks of. Part of the confusion comes from the fact that the KJV and other versions translate two different words as "hell." One means simply the state of being dead (Greek hades, Hebrew sheol) and the other is the Lake of Fire described in Revelation and other places (Greek gehenna). Everybody goes to sheol when they die, but it is not a place of consciousness. The Lake of Fire, on the other hand, is called the "second death" and is the place where the unrepentent will be ultimately cast. But what happens when you throw something in a fire? It burns up! The Bible speaks of the wicked being destroyed or annihilated, not endlessly tortured. (I know there are some verses that seem to refer to endless torment, but I won't derail the thread by getting into that. You can read about it here.) Sunesis was right - most of what people believe about "hell" comes from Dante's Inferno, not from the Bible. In order to live eternally in conscious torment, God would have to grant them eternal life, but man does not have eternal life inherently. It is a gift from God, given to those that trust Christ. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible does not present a choice between "eternal life in heaven" and "eternal life in conscious torment." The choice is between life and death. "And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life" (I John 5:11-12). "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 6:23). I tend to agree with those who have said that the love of God, and His amazing offer, motivated them far more than any threat - whether of torture or just death - ever could. Those who reject God don't believe in and therefore don't care that their end is death. But Jesus promised a bright new world, a restored earth, a life without evil, sadness, or death. "The meek shall inherit the earth" (Psalm 37:11; Matt. 5:5). And we don't have to be "good enough" because God paid the price with His own Son. That's motivation.

Awesome video, Geisha. Thanks! Were those scenes from The Passion of the Christ? It's because God and His Son did so much for us that when someone turns away and no longer believes it, what more can God do? Frank, My only agenda is to get people to stop and think and look at the Bible, and not just blindly accept what they were taught. To assume that one could believe once, and later turn away and no longer believe, and have that be OK, to me cheapens the work that Jesus did. And more importantly, it contradicts those Scriptures that I listed in my previous post.

I thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong. :D Seriously, though, I know what you mean. I went through a period where I felt like I couldn't do anything right. I'm only starting to get over that.

Thank you for your concern and prayers. I do wonder why you consider my "new theology and Buzzard" to be aberrant. Are you still convinced that he or his church is an offshoot of Armstrong's cult?

We could get into a whole discussion about Dispensationalism, but that would be getting way off topic. Besides, I think it's already been done here in other threads. If anyone is interested, here is what I wrote about it on my web site: Dispensationalism One Gospel Hebrew Origins of the Bible Is the Kingdom of God Only For Israel?

This isn't revisionist history that I've been writing. From talks that Anthony has given on more than one occasion, in addition to what I have personally heard him say when I was at Atlanta Bible College, it was 1972 when he left the Worldwide Church of God. He did NOT start the Church of God General Conference (aka Church of God Abrahamic Faith). He joined that church which had already existed for many years, after he left Armstrong's group. They are a completely seperate organization that has never had anything to do with Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God. I know this from my personal experience with them, or you can read it on their website if you don't believe me. And the only "ties" he has to Armstrong's WCG is the fact that he used to belong to that group, and so has that in common with other ex-Armstrong people. He speaks often against the terrible things that went on in that cult. Partly, but also because I lived in New York (though not in Vince's area of Latham/Albany) and personally spoke with him on several occasions. I also saw his humility at accepting doctrines which radically departed from what TWI had taught. In addition I witnessed the way he handled being vilified by the other ex-Way leader in NY who "marked and avoided" him and anyone that had anything to do with him or Anthony Buzzard, even though they held most of the same doctrines. When I was kicked out of that other leader's church (in Syracuse), Vince called me on the phone to see how I was doing and asked if there was anything he could do. As I have said, he's not perfect and I don't agree with everything he teaches, but he has come a long way from the abuse and lying of TWI. I feel the same way, but my point is that not everyone who ever participated in a cult in the past is still promoting the cult's agenda. If "aberrant theology equals aberrant lifestyle" why can't a change in theology be accompanied by a change in lifestyle? Many who post here can tell you how they've moved past the cult mentality and have found new ways of serving God and teaching His people. While it's true that MOST of TWI's offshoots still hold to VPW's doctrines and practices, it is not true of ALL of them.

I got a charge out of that one, if you know watt I mean.

Not sure what you mean here. What should that statement be saying? Sorry. What point did I miss?

Not usually, but tonight I did. I had just written a long post, too, and when I clicked "Add Reply" it told me I was logged out and couldn't reply. When I logged in again, of course everything I had written was gone.

Happy Birthday, Socks! :B)

That list includes people that ever had anything to do with WCG in any way, shape or form. In fact it says at the top of the list, "This list contains addresses of various churches, fellowships, study groups, websites and service-providing organizations that trace a history back to the Worldwide Church of God." It lists Restoration Fellowship only because Anthony himself was once in WCG. Restoration Fellowship is simply the name he uses for his website, and for a loose affiliation of like-minded people in various parts of the world. It is not an organization with members nor is it a cult, and definitely not an offshoot of Armstrong's organization. They hadn't actually been Unitarian, but "Binitarian" - they believed Jesus and God were two members of a "God Family." But they did renounce that doctrine later. No. Anthony left the WCG back in 1972 when he saw much corruption in the organization. He had been involved since 1958, and I believe he knew Armstrong personally, though I'm not sure how well. The WCG went "mainstream" and accepted the Trinity after Armstrong's death in 1986 - long after Anthony Buzzard was no longer with them. The confusion here is the common use of the phrase "Church of God." The Church of God General Conference is the official name of the denomination that Anthony Buzzard is associated with. It is also known as the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, because many of the individual churches in that denomination have that as part of their name, and it helps to distinguish them from other groups with "Church of God" and even "General Conference" in their names. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Church of God General Conference, or Church of God Abrahamic Faith, have NEVER been associated with Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God. They started in the 1800's and officially organized the conference in 1921. Anthony, after leaving Armstrong's WCG in 1972, got involved with the Abrahamic Faith church, and was a teacher at Atlanta Bible College for many years since then. (He is semi-retired now.) As for his association with CES, he agreed with their book on the Trinity, and their stance on the dead not being conscious. He still talks to a few of their leaders, particularly John Shoenheit, but they disagree on dispensationalism, water baptism, and a few other things. BTW, Atlanta Bible College is having difficulty with accreditation because they would have to sign a statement of beliefs which includes the Trinity. They are trying to find other ways around that currently. It is this Church of God, Abrahamic Faith, that is listed as an "outreach partner" on Vince's site, as is Anthony's Restoration Fellowship. There are no organizational ties with either group, but only a cooperation and mutual respect, based on a shared set of doctrines. They go to each other's conferences and they confer on various matters, even though they disagree on a few issues, such as water baptism and the manifestations of holy spirit. Vince even travelled to Africa recently with a few other teachers from Atlanta Bible College. Leaders in TWI would never have aligned themselves with people from other groups, as they had the attitude of "we are the ones with the truth." The other ex-Way leader in NY had that attitude and disassociated himself with Vince, but Vince is not above dialoguing with others and learning more. As for the organizational structure of Vince's church, it was put in place when the split from TWI first happened, and yes, many of the ex-ways in the Albany/Latham, NY area stood with him. That's how the group started, and you can't undo the past. As some pointed out over on the "Will You Ever Be De-Wayed" thread, whether you continue to push the old TWI party line depends on your reason for leaving, and some (myself included) wrote about starting off trying to do so, and later realizing the error of it. But a lot has happened since then that I believe changed his heart and attitude, and I don't see his organization putting money and power before the teaching of the Word, as TWI did, nor is there the world-wide domination that TWI had. The outreach partners around the world are associated because they agree with what he's teaching and see the advancement of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to be more important than organizational structure. I'm sure there are things that could be done better, in terms of organization, but the heart that I've seen is leagues away from the abuse and misinformation that were the hallmarks of TWI.

There are actually two different issues here (three when you count the "other Jesus" question). The phrase "the life of the flesh is in the blood" in Lev. 17 was in the context of shedding blood in a sacrifice. Whether it meant there is a literal "life force" that resides in the blood, or that the blood gives a living creature "life" or vitality (as witnessed by the lack of life when the blood is drained, as in Geisha's story) is not the point. Blood was considered sacred regardless of why, and that's why it was the price for atonement, first in animals in the OT, and ultimately Christ's blood. The other question is whether the blood is passed on from the mother or the father. It's actually not directly passed on from either one, which is why a baby can have a different blood type from both parents. As I understand it, the actual blood is formed within the fetus, but the "life force" that makes it alive comes from the father's sperm. It has more to do with one's nature, at least figuratively if not literally. Even today we speak of someone having Irish or Italian blood in them. It doesn't mean there are physical elements in their literal blood that are Irish or Italian (tiny shamrocks or meatballs?), it has to do with their nature. This is why it's significant that Jesus was conceived in Mary by the power of the holy spirit. Whatever is in a human father's genetic makeup that makes him a partaker of Adam's sin nature was not involved in Jesus's formation. Thus he had sinless blood, which was shed for us to pay for our sins. It's more about what the blood represents than about the literal liquid that flows through our veins. As for the "other Jesus" being a demon (or devil spirit as they used to say), I remember hearing that too, but no Scripture was ever given to support it. There was also the erroneous doctrine that the name "Jesus" emphasized his humiliated side while "Christ" emphasized his exalted side. There is no indication of such a thing in the Bible, however. For years I would cringe when I heard the name of Jesus by itself, but in the last few years I've been able to happily refer to him as "Jesus" without always having to add "Christ." It really got awkward when they tried to change the lyrics to songs!

Just for clarity, I didn't say we are "not saved" - I said that it is not complete yet. I Peter 1:3-9 refers to the past reality of Christ’s resurrection, the hope reserved in heaven of a future inheritance, and the present state of being kept by God’s power through faith, unto the future salvation. There are past, present, and future aspects of our salvation. In I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15, where it says we "are saved" it is actually a participal in Greek and better translated, we "are being saved," as it is rendered in more modern versions. When we believe the Gospel, we receive the Word in our hearts, and the spirit begins a regenerating process. This process, when complete, will result in eternal life in the Age to Come. We have the incorruptible seed, which is the Word (I Peter 1:23), but it doesn’t say that WE are incorruptible. Like in the parable of the good seed, we could get distracted by cares or pleasures, or choked by pressures. We could even be deceived by false teachers. We must make sure that the seed grows and bears fruit. It is an ongoing process, and we are told that some will depart from the faith. When someone does turn away, he is not said to "lose" his salvation, since salvation is not something that he fully has yet. This is why we are exhorted to continue in faith until the end. If you believe it is a permanent seed that you can't ever lose, then what do you make of the conditional "if" statements and warnings to keep the faith in the following verses? This is an important warning that we should express to our brethren so they don’t get deceived, or become complacent and think that steadfast faith until the end is not required as long as they believed once. We are saved by grace through faith, but not a one-time moment of faith. We must continue in the faith until the end when our salvation will be complete.

For me there is a third option. After the big split in '89, I was involved in a couple of splinter groups because I thought I was in category 1. But little by little I came to realize that the doctrine itself was at fault. It wasn't that there was a contradiction between their doctrine and their practice as in category 2. They taught that it doesn't matter what you do after you confess Rom 10:9, you're still saved. This led to wide-spread sin with a "Biblical" excuse. And there were other doctrines as well, that I gradually found were not Biblical, through a process of study and examination. I was gradually weaned from Way thinking, but still catch myself thinking some of the old cliches. It's an ongoing process, but not impossible.

The Church of God Abrahamic Faith is not, nor ever was, associated with the Worldwide Church of God. It started as a loose collection of independent churches who were seeing the same things in the Scriptures back in the 1800's, and formed a General Conference in 1921, mainly for the purposes of combining resources. There was never any one top leader that got "special insight" like many of the cults. They were set apart from most other churches because of their rejection of the Trinity, their view of unconsciousness at death rather than going to heaven, and their belief in the coming Kingdom of God on earth. See more on their site. The only link to Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God is that a number of Abrahamic Faith people used to be with WWCOG, including Anthony Buzzard, who is a prominent Abrahamic Faith teacher. He got out of Armstrong's cult a number of years ago, and found Abrahamic Faith after searching for a bit, as have a number of other ex-members of cults. This seems (to me and those other ex-cult-members) to be because Anthony's theology is sound, based on a combination of genuine scholarship and commom sense, with a clear Scriptural foundation. Vince Finnegan was introduced to Anthony Buzzard and Abrahamic Faith when he began seeing the Kingdom of God message in the Bible, which is a completely different mindset from that which we were taught in TWI. He learned about the Kingdom of God from another ex-Way local leader in New York state, but later had a falling out because of that other leader's more Way-like attitude of "we are right and everyone else is wrong." Rather than the old controlling and manipulating that TWI used to do, I have only seen a genuine heart to serve. He's not perfect, as he would be the first to admit, but Vince has changed his views on many many subjects over the past few years, which to me demonstrates a humility which few ex-Ways display. Rather than trying to preserve what was taught or hanging onto the old ways (as so many ex-Way and ex-Armstrong splinter groups do), he has continued to seek the truth.

This is another of those TWI doctrines that we accepted without checking out, because we didn't know any better. It is ironic that TWI, who was so big on figures of speech, couldn't see the use of different words for the same thing in some cases, or one word having more than one meaning in other cases. That whole doctrine about man losing his spirit when he sinned, and being only two parts until he gets born again, is not accurate, if you study out the meanings of these words. Man does not "have" a soul, so much as man "is" a soul. Gen. 2:7 tells us that God breathed into man the breath (or 'spirit') of life, and man became a living soul. The primary usage of "soul" is "a living creature." In a secondary sense, man is sometimes said to "have soul" in the sense of having life, but it is not in the sense of the soul being a separate part of man. And the word for "spirit" is not limited to "the spirit of God," but is used to refer to the "breath of life" that makes man alive, as well. But it isn't the "real me" as TWI used to teach. (See this article for more detail.) To "lose your soul," as Jesus put it, meant to lose your whole being, not just lose one part of you. And the holy spirit is God's spirit, not "my spirit" (see this article for more detail). So there is a real danger of losing your soul, i.e., your whole self. This is another misunderstanding. The whole thing about losing only rewards but not losing your life is based on a misinterpretation of I Cor. 3:9-15. In that chapter, Paul is talking about planting the Word and building on the foundation of the Gospel that others may have started. If a man’s work (of planting the Gospel) is destroyed, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved. It is talking about the work of building a Church body. It’s not talking about the works a person does in his life after he is saved, and whether or not they affect his salvation. TWI took this out of context. As I pointed out in my previous posts, "salvation" is not something we fully have yet, so the Bible does say anything about "losing your salvation." But it does speak of turning back from God and not continuing in the faith. But it was the Way's idea of "cheap grace," as you so aptly called it, that said we would still be "saved" no matter what we did later, as long as we had a moment of faith at one time.

Be vewy, vewy quiet! I'm twacking bwanch weaders! hahahahahahahah!

DWBH, You're right, we all have the right to interpret the facts as we see fit. My response to your opinions had nothing to do with whether or not you agree with his current theology. All I was saying is that your opinion of Vince seems to be based on things that happened in the past, and it colors your view of what he's trying to do now. But that is, as you say, your right. My original point was that when he said nothing about his involvement with TWI, John Juedes implied that he was "hiding something," but when he writes of the positions and responsibilities he had, you imply that he is boasting or not being humble. I guess you can't please everyone. Anyway, while you may see many similarities between Vince's church and the other splinter groups, the fact is that most of the other splinter groups see him as being radically different, and consider him to have "foresaken the truth" because of his changes in doctrine. That's all I'm saying.

Ernest Martin explains it (except for the Hercules part!) in The Star That Astonished the World, which you can read on line. The chapter that discusses this point is here: http://www.askelm.com/star/star004.htm

It was indeed Ernest Martin; his book, The Birth of Christ Recalculated, is mentioned as one of the sources in the bibliography of Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed, though most Way and Ex-Way people wouldn't recognize his name. He has since expanded his writing, in the book The Star That Astonished the World. Here is a link to a page where you can read the book on line, which also has audio interviews and an interactive video by the Griffith Observatory: http://www.askelm.com/star/index.asp

cman, You say "by one parable the seed is the word." TWI said by one verse the seed is incorruptible. I don't think that's the way to understand the Bible either. The New Birth is based on "seed" in other scriptures too. John refers to being "begotten by the Father" in his epistles, and states that God's seed is in a person in I John 3:9. But what is that seed? The previously mentioned I Peter 1:23 says that we are born again "by the Word of God" and James 1:18 says, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth..." Also, while it may be only "one parable," Jesus said it was the most important one, and that if we didn't understand it we wouldn't understand any of the others. And he likens the planting of the Word to sowing seed and uses other agricultural analogies to describe both the growth in an individual and the growth of the Church. And if the parable of the sower's seed isn't talking about new birth, then Jesus never mentions the concept anywhere in the synoptic gospels. You have to connect the sower's seed with his mention of being born again in John. There are many aspects to this, more than just the one parable. (Have you read the article I linked to?) But the biggest problem is that other than I Peter 1:23, TWI never cited any Scripture to prove that you could not lose your salvation. They just appealed to the "logic" that if I always have my earthly father's seed in me, how could God not do as good a job? But that logic is not in the Bible. Following are a couple of excerpts from what I wrote on my site:

I am not very experienced with this sort of thing, so please forgive my ignorance. What is a cyber-stalker and what do they do? And what more could they do if they knew your real name?

To say one can lose one's salvation assumes that one has salvation in the first place. The whole argument depends on your definition of what salvation is. In TWI we were taught that once you were "saved" it didn't matter what you did, you were still saved. This idea led to rampant sin, because we were taught that the new birth is a permanent seed you could not lose. This was all based on a misunderstanding of I Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." But this verse tells us that it is the seed that is incorruptible, not the person who receives it. Our understanding of the New Birth should be understood in light of Jesus' words. I wrote about it in detail in an article about the New Birth on my website, but here is an excerpt: Since the seed which we receive is the Word which is incorruptible, the question arises, can one lose this seed? We were taught that it was like the seed of our earthly father, in that even if I was not in fellowship with him, his seed was still in me, and I was still his son. However, the Bible does not teach this. There are a number of verses which refer to the conditional nature of this new birth (I Corinthians 10:1-12; 15:1-2; II Timothy 2:12-13; II Peter 1:10; Hebrews 3:12-14; 6:11). We are saved by grace through faith and not by works. But we must continue in that faith until the end. If we do not continue in the faith, the Word which is working in us will not remain in our hearts. This becomes easier to understand when you realize that the seed is the Word and not a "new birth seed" that is in you unconditionally, regardless of what you do afterward. I wrote about this in more detail in an article about Once Saved Always Saved on my website.