Executive Summary
In the centuries following the apostolic era, a widening rift emerged between Jewish communities and the increasingly Gentile, Hellenizing forms of Christianity. While this hostility had complex political, cultural, and theological causes, one group was caught in the middle: believers in Jesus who maintained the original apostolic practice of Sabbath observance and biblical law adherence. This paper examines the historical trajectory by which these communities became victims of suspicion, persecution, and eventual erasure — attacked by both sides as neither fully Jewish nor fully aligned with the new Greco-Roman Christian orthodoxy.
1. Introduction
The earliest followers of Jesus were almost entirely Jewish and remained within the framework of Torah observance. They attended synagogue, kept the Sabbath, celebrated the biblical festivals, and upheld the dietary laws. Acts 21:20 records that there were “many thousands of Jews who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law.” Gentile converts were welcomed into fellowship but were not required to become Jews through circumcision (Acts 15), yet were expected to live in ways consistent with the holiness of the God of Israel.
Over the next century, as Christianity spread into the Gentile world, tension emerged between two poles:
The Jewish community — often suspicious of Jesus-believers, seeing them as a sect that undermined Jewish cohesion and religious authority. Hellenizing “Christians” — Gentile believers increasingly shaped by Greco-Roman thought, seeking to distance themselves from Jewish customs to gain legitimacy within the Empire.
Those who continued in the original apostolic pattern of Sabbath keeping and Torah observance found themselves alienated from both.
2. Historical Background of the Hostility
2.1 Jewish-Christian Relations in the First Two Centuries
The destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–135 CE hardened the separation between mainstream Judaism and the Jesus movement. Rabbinic leadership sought to consolidate Jewish identity, in part by excluding those who confessed Jesus as Messiah. Messianic Jews who continued synagogue attendance risked being anathematized.
2.2 Hellenizing Tendencies in Gentile Christianity
Gentile leadership in the church increasingly viewed Jewish customs as alien and retrograde. Influential church fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch (in the middle recension of his letters) warned against “Judaizing,” even when directed at believers in Jesus. By the time of Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century), the narrative of the “true people of God” was shifting decisively away from Israel toward the Gentile church.
2.3 Political Pressures Under Rome
Under Roman law, Jews enjoyed a limited legal protection as an ancient, recognized religion (religio licita). Christians were not granted the same protection and, by distinguishing themselves from Jews, Gentile Christians hoped to reduce their own vulnerability. Conversely, the Jewish community was eager to prevent Roman authorities from conflating them with the Jesus movement, which they saw as destabilizing.
3. The Marginalization of Apostolic Sabbath Keepers
3.1 Social Alienation
For Torah-observant Jesus-believers, loyalty to both the God of Israel and the teachings of the apostles meant they were viewed as defectors by Jews and as stubbornly “Jewish” by Hellenizing Christians. Their communities were excluded from both synagogue and increasingly from Christian fellowship.
3.2 Theological Delegitimization
Church fathers began to recast Sabbath keeping and biblical festivals as either spiritually fulfilled or outright sinful for Christians. In the long recension of Ignatius’ letters, Sabbath keeping is contrasted unfavorably with Sunday observance, with Sabbath keepers portrayed as clinging to shadows rather than embracing the “true” faith. This rhetoric delegitimized apostolic practice in the eyes of mainstream Gentile Christianity.
3.3 Loss of Institutional Support
As Gentile Christianity consolidated power, Sabbath-keeping congregations lost access to episcopal protection and theological defense. They were increasingly categorized as sectarian (Ebionites, Nazarenes) and treated as heretical. With the loss of legal standing under Roman Christian emperors, they were subject to both civic and ecclesiastical penalties.
3.4 Persecution from Both Sides
From the Jewish side, Torah-observant believers in Jesus were denounced as traitors who distorted the Law. From the Hellenizing Christian side, they were branded as “Judaizers” resisting the gospel. By the fourth century, laws under Constantine and later Theodosius punished those who observed the biblical Sabbath and festivals, effectively criminalizing the apostolic way of life.
4. Long-Term Consequences
Erasure from Historical Memory – By the medieval period, most Sabbath-keeping, Torah-observant Christian communities had disappeared from the historical mainstream, surviving only in isolated pockets or through scattered heretical labels in polemical texts. Doctrinal Transformation – The early theological linkage between Jesus, the Sabbath, and covenant faithfulness was replaced by a Sunday-centered, law-superseding theology. Cultural Misrepresentation – Later Christian historiography retroactively portrayed these believers as either legalistic sects or failed transitional forms between Judaism and Christianity, rather than as legitimate heirs of apostolic teaching.
5. Lessons for Understanding Religious Marginalization
The history of apostolic Sabbath keepers illustrates how theological disputes intertwined with political and cultural hostilities can erase entire streams of belief and practice. When two larger factions engage in mutual hostility, those who hold to a mediating or original position can be viewed as enemies by both. In this case:
The Jewish-Christian split severed covenantal continuity. The Gentile-Hellenistic theological shift recast fidelity to the Law as apostasy from the gospel. Imperial political incentives accelerated separation and suppression.
6. Conclusion
The hostility between Jews and Hellenizing Christians was not a simple matter of theological disagreement; it was a complex cultural and political realignment in which power, identity, and legitimacy were at stake. Apostolic Sabbath keepers, adhering to the original practices of the earliest believers, paid the price for this shift. Their eventual disappearance from the center of Christian history stands as a cautionary tale about how the victors in theological disputes can reshape history, doctrine, and even the memory of the faith itself.
Selected References
Bauckham, R. (1994). The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM Press. Boyarin, D. (1999). Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ehrman, B. D. (2003). The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Skarsaune, O. (2002). In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Strecker, G. (2007). Jewish Christianity in the Early Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
Genuine issue here — tell me if I am misreading this paragraph:
“Under Roman law, Jews enjoyed a limited legal protection as an ancient, recognized religion (religio licita). Christians were not granted the same protection and, by distinguishing themselves from Jews, Gentile Christians hoped to reduce their own vulnerability. Conversely, the Jewish community was eager to prevent Roman authorities from conflating them with the Jesus movement, which they saw as destabilizing.”
This doesn’t make sense, nor does it fit with my understanding of the history of the time. Gentile Christians distinguishing themselves from the people who have legal protection (Jews) would make them MORE vulnerable, not less. It tends toward making “Christianity” a separate religion not having that legal protection. And what you say about the Gentile Christians would actually fit perfectly with your stated aim of the Jews (“conversely”?).
This is not saying the same thing as Gentile Christians outside the Holy Land shifting to more widely embracing the Israelite-only view of things like Leviticus 11 and 23 (cf Romans 14). Israelite-only was the predominant view in the Holy Land on the matter, while universal application was predominant in the Diaspora. (But neither view was unanimous either regionally, or by demographic — Jew, Hellenist, and Gentile God-fearer.) Since such practice would by anppearances identify the Gentile Christians with the Jews, it would make a certain sense for them to distance themselves in terms of appearance during times of the Jews came on the persecution.
Be honest, we have all faced a difficulty because of a tenet of our faith, and been driven to reevaluate it — “Here I am, a Gentile Christian holding the universal applicability view in this time and place of Jews being persecuted. But is this practice really required for me, a Gentile never circumcised and commonly referred to as a ‘God-fearer’? Maybe those of the Jews and those of my fellow Christians of all demographics who hold the Israelite-only view are right after all in how I, a Gentile, am to ‘live in ways consistent with the holiness of the God of Israel.’”
But in a certain frying pan-to-fire goof, it would actually rob them of a tangential legal protection.
I remember that Bacchiocchi turned off both SDAs and Armstrong with his research on this. So I get that it’s a departure from what you are accustomed to hearing. But it does fit the history. There was no unanimity on a universal application of non-Noachide laws in the Hebrew Scriptures (note Deut 14:21 for a clear example of distinction in the Law). And the Apostle Paul made a point of not getting involved in the attendant “wranglings” (Titus 3:9). He did not withhold information he had indeed been divinely given (Acts 20:27), thus making it more likely than not that this matter had NOT been clarified to him or the first-century Christian church. Hence, Romans 14.
Aside from that paragraph, I really didn’t notice any particular or explicit issue with this post that would be much more than a quibble.
LikeLike
There does seem to be some genuine frying pan to fire problems that are worthy of attention. The Jewish Revolts of 67 and 132 created an atmosphere where Jews were suffering persecution in areas of the Roman Empire because of their rebellion against Rome in Judea. There are records of massive riots in places like Alexandria and Cyprus, for example. In such an atmosphere, where Jews did not consider Christians to be legitimate members of their community and were suffering persecution, it may have been very tempting for leaders and spokesmen in many places to differentiate themselves from the Jews even if this ended up making them more vulnerable to suffer abuse and official persecution for not being part of a licit religion. This was already a problem in the Letters of Pliny the Younger during Trajans reign.
LikeLike
That fits it together better than your original paragraph, and agrees with my expounding upon it, as far as it goes.
LikeLike
This goes to what I said yesterday about how if you are responsive to critics, they will be more civil. You addressed the basic paragraph issue, but offered no response to my historical challenge to Armstrongist orthodoxy. I remember seeing literature from the “Church of Israel,” a now-defunct Christian Identity group. They printed a letter from a woman asking about Matthew 8:10-12. Verse 10 seems to call into question their CI idea that the Romans were actually among the Lost Tribes. Indeed, their view was that essentially all White people are Israelites, period. The response started out, “Matthew 8:11-12…” and followed with a rather generic exposition of those two verses. Verse 10 was never addressed. Not only is this insulting to the woman asking the question, but it gives the clear impression that they had no idea how to handle the objection. Their devout members might laugh at the (not-so-)clever bypassing, but outsiders would see the outfit as not willing to face contrary information. Cred kill. But what about their own members who were themselves questioning things? The real mission would feed their own doubts. “Maybe there is no answer to that. Maybe we’re wrong.” The same can happen here. Armstrongists coming across your blog and seeing that conversation may well find their religion undermined by your lack of 1Pet3:15 execution. Personally, I believe both sides benefit from discussion. I could urge you to remain silent and undermine your own side that way. But honestly, smashing out the issues is a much better way to persuade and/or retain people.
I get that this is how ACOGs traditionally handle such things. Remember, I was there. Even “In Transition,” the famed “Armstrongistfree press” publication that went through a liter evolution or two, would famously print letters critical of their UCG bias, but offer no response. This despite regularly replying to other letters they printed. They even printed one letter saying that the “silence is deafening” — and then offered no response! (I remember it appeared right below a letter from me addressing the bias. Neat, huh.) It’s not the right way to be. And there is the simple respect of responding. You want charitable treatment from critics. You need to do the same.
LikeLike
I think a lot of the aspects of responding you want relate to the fact that since you read everything from a hostile place and perspective that there is neither any point nor benefit in engaging you in your false presuppositions. The valid biblical reference here is not casting pearls before swine. Where there is honest discussion that can take place based on mutually accepted foundations such conversation is definitely to be preferred, but no one wants to feed the trolls.
LikeLike
Show me where I’m false.
LikeLike
You have the wrong attitude/approach/motives you impute. That is an error that warrants a shutdown of discussion in such areas. Your proper response in such a circumstance is to repent of a bitter heart and attitude, not to make demands on your audience.
LikeLike
And your approach things from the blasphemy of a cult, a cult which you have acknowledged on innumerable occasions to be fundamentally in error biblically and suspect operationally. Your proper response is to denounce your cult and move on with your relationship with God. See, two can play at that game. The difference is, I’m right about this.
LikeLike
Unfortunately for you, you’re not. You keep forgetting that Herbert Armstrong never pointed to himself as the spiritual leader of the church. He always pointed to God; Christ being the Head of the spiritual body. You keep referencing that single article, written in the context of his son’s questioning truth already proven, of his wondering whether he should have given that advice to followers who would keep reinventing the wheel like his son did. Once proven, we are to move forward and build on that foundation instead of continue to be stuck on basics, as was the case in Hebrews. People who do that generally have issues with authority. If it’s not the doctrinal issues outright, it’s usually the ones that have to do with submitting to authority. God chooses to work with very fallible people and we have to see beyond appearances. It takes spiritual vision, not blind faith. There’s a huge difference. The way to salvation is difficult and narrow, and the wisdom of God is foolishness to the human mind.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
Not the “spiritual leader.” — I’m not a stickler on semantics. But, I bet you looked at the same Copilot result I did. The problem is, if you did, you left out the rest of it: He “claimed to be God’s one and only apostle and that his teachings were a product of a unique calling from God.” Attendant to this, of course, is his “one true Church” claim, which I invalidated (did you dare look at that? — https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/03/reference-to-followers-of-armstrongism.html?m=1). Plus, there is his 1960 instruction that members were not to listen to teachers other than himself and his ministers (https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=getmagazine&InfoID=1324739652&SearchWhat=KeyWord&SearchFor=Should%20we%20listen%20to%20others%201960&NoShow=&page=&return=search ). Add to that his fostering of the idea of himself being the fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy. Also, there is his likening of his role as “the Apostle” to that of the Holy Spirit: “guiding and putting truth into the Church” — 01 December 1980, Tucson, Arizona; cf “guide you into all truth” — John 16:13. All that in addition to his 1979 statement which you try to deny.
And all of that being reinforced for decades in innumerable articles, sermons, disciplinary actions, and a church culture characterized by a deliberate blindness to any outside information. (Everything Tkach did was talked about in advance in various religious publications, but we all closed our eyes to it.)
Ma’am, in the spirit of 1 Cor 14/1 Tim 2, I have sought to be particularly respectful to you. Thus, I will simply say that the reality is that your view is shaped by all of that.
I do wish you a good Sabbath, and I hope that both you and your son will honestly and objectively — and prayerfully — consider what I have laid out here on this blog, on my own blog, and in emails to your son.
LikeLike
Thank you for your respect and wishes for a good Sabbath. I hope you enjoy the same. We do not deny Mr. Armstrong’s 1979 statement but merely place it into context. Our calling from God is a unique one. This applied to Mr. Armstrong as well as anyone else. One thing that was revealed regarding scripture was that it never contradicts itself. Apparent discrepancies need to be investigated more closely because the Bible interprets itself, using the “line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, there a little” principle. Translational problems are often the core issue. Doctrinal purity required that we look to the Bible for the source of knowledge and seek the answers there instead of outside places or people. It has been necessary to seek assistance from Hebrew scholars to correct the counting of Pentecost, for example, but this is part of looking to the scriptures and studying them for clarity so that we obey. But our obedience must be heartfelt; in sincerity and truth. The way is narrow and many in these times perceive that as narrow minded because we reject sliding scale morality. Truth is absolute and the things beyond physical can only be discerned by God’s spirit. It will guide us to all truth. The three spiritual virtues—faith, hope and love—can only come from God. He either renders them to us or He doesn’t at this time. We believe, know, have the vision and actively remain faithful because we love God first and know His plan is inviolate, despite appearances.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
In the 1960 article, Armstrong gave himself and his ministers a monopoly on influence and input into members’ study. That is textbook cult. At my second WCG service, and the first one with the minister present, said minister took me aside for something of an orientation. He mentioned tithing, including second (T2). So I can see that as something to benefit not just the church coffers, but also me, because I had never T2, and I would know to be saving for Tabernacles. But he also warned me that people would bring up a book called, “The True Believer,” by Eric Hoffer. It is about mass movements, and how people get caught up in them by manipulators. In a sense, it’s a how-to on cult-building. He said that people would say that that was what was going on in “the Church” (WCG). It is the answer to that accusation: “But it IS what God wants.” A book warning about dangerous tactics in building a movement was considered by him practically an instruction manual.
Your entire defense rests on the presumption that Armstrong was… something special. Elijah, an apostle, something beyond one of myriads and myriads of religious teachers. “Awesome” will be the word I will use here. You give him special credence and authority. Effectively, your presume your case, and then use that presumption to prove your case. Armstrong was awesome, therefore Armstrong was right, therefore for Armstrong was awesome. Circular reasoning.
I laid out the flaw in the Armstrong “True Church” claim: The whole idea is barely 100 years old, and you can’t show the succession, thus scripturally and logically setting the presumption against the claim. You ignore this, apparently basing your belief in it on Armstrong saying it was so, would you believe because Armstrong was awesome. But if I ask why Armstrong should be considered awesome, and not simply a minister who may have gotten a few things right, you can claim it’s because he did what he did in the context of the — you guessed it — “True Church”! Again, circular reasoning, and based on the presumption that Armstrong was awesome.
When I ask for something objective — that is, something not subject to ideological conviction or preference — to show this “True Church” claim is accurate, you have nothing. You believe, because you believe. Literally any idea could be “proven” by that approach.
Your son has used my apparent attitude or motivations as an excuse not to answer questions or respond to ideas. Think about how this looks to literally anyone on the outside, and frankly a lot of thinking people on the inside. An issue of material impact on Armstrongism is raised. Rather than try to resolve the issue, every effort is made to hide the issue from people’s attention, laugh it off, ignore it… anything but actually answer it. Pointing to the attitude of the person raising the issue is simply a means of avoiding having to answer the issue. The obvious question to a thinking person is, what do they have to hide? Yet members are expected to respect and accept this deflection. The outsiders sees a suspicious movement, hiding key facts of material importance from its own members, with the members accepting it. And the members doing so based on a belief which the hidden facts may ultimately disprove. Ma’am, when that sort of self-delusion occurs in a religious context, that is a cult.
By your son’s standards, no critic would ever be allowed an answer. Their motive would disqualify them. Frankly, ma’am, it’s worse than Kamala Harris refusing to go on Joe Rogan. The tactic worked back in Armstrong’s day. It worked with me. But today, we have the Inter-webs. Lincoln’s words are finally correct: You can’t fool all of the people all the time. People on the outside can easily know more about even PCG than they could ever have known about old WCG.
And that is why you just don’t draw “totally new” members like you used to. They read your lit, then find out what you’re about without having to go as far as I did, and write you off as a cult. A couple of weeks ago, I came across a couple of people on TruthSocial discussing Armstrong in very positive terms: “Wow! Have you read this guy’s stuff? This is really something.” They were mostly talking about Leviticus 23 and Anglo-Israelism. I chimed as a former member of his church with a few basic facts, and I linked them to that 1960 article. I included a couple of screenshots of key sections. (And don’t accuse me of cherry picking — I included plenty of context, and your son has said that cherry picking is a-OK.) It turned them both off. I remember the female of the pair saying that whenever she saw something about “the true church,” she ran the other direction. You lost a perspective-prospective member because she saw inside the cult.
I actually told them more than once I didn’t need to avoid reading your material. They just simply need aware that his movement was a cult. I even said a few of the offshoots are “relatively benign.” And I link them to JH Allen’s book. You see, I’m not really trying to attack most of your doctrine (save avoidance of Civic Duty, an area where your son, and I seem to largely agree). I just want them to know what they would be getting into if they pursued the group(s) behind it. It’s the kind of thing that explains why you could get of hits on your website literature without large, increases in new people.
In conclusion for now (I can hear you cheering😀), the flaw in your approach is that you are presuming it to be correct, and then using that presumption to defend it. 1Pet3:15 doesn’t make distinctions about the motive of the questioner. If your ideology is correct, the facts will not destroy it. If your ideology is incorrect, then no amount of obfuscating or denial or presumptive circular reasoning will make it correct.
LikeLike
Mr. Armstrong wasn’t awesome. He was human. I never called him awesome. I don’t understand the circular reasoning you are accusing me of. I don’t follow a man and never have.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
“Awesome” was cutesy shorthand for being particularly noteworthy. I explained that. (Come on, permit me a little style here!😀) You say you don’t follow a man, yet you let that man and his legacy monopolize your instruction, and then bend over backwards to excuse and deny his cult behavior. Your son wants a church holiday in his honor. He called them your “founder.” He spoke of Armstrong as having a “his gospel.” And your ACOG (like most of the rest) won’t recognize as a “true minister” anyone not tracing their ordination back to him. They won’t say it that way — they talk about the “true ‘spiritual’ Church of God” — but it’s effectively the case. Ask your son about our discussion of the ministers in Ghana. I believe he was genuinely surprised by what he learned about UCG’s treatment of them.
Your son offers many ideas for reforms in UCG (and ultimately, kindred churches). The primary reason most members wouldn’t consider them is that “Mr. Armstrong taught…” whatever. If you think your son has some good ideas, holding so tightly to the church culture he built will do nothing but keep those ideas from being implemented.
A genuine direct with your son has refused to answer, and which goes to your denial of the circular reasoning: WHY do you believe the “Armstrong faith tradition” with its ministerial succession is the “True Church”? Demonstrate you hold your belief, not based on circular reasoning or subjective opinion or intuitive feelings. Show me the rational and objective reason for excepting that exclusivity claim.
If you don’t believe that it is the “True Church,” then you believe that Armstrong was completely wrong and the basis of his authority was false, because that is what he claimed. You also must believe that UCG and almost all of the WCG splits are perpetrating a fraud. Read my writeup on the matter (you can stop at where it says “END OF PRIMARY ARTICLE”), then please answer the question.
I thank you in advance.
–
https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/03/reference-to-followers-of-armstrongism.html?m=1
LikeLike
What I do find is that the thread of the true church has been connected throughout history. I’ve read about this subject extensively. I do happen to believe that the transition from the Sardis Dugger and Dodd era to the Philadelphian era phase occurred when these leaders refused to accept the fact that holy day observance is required as well as the Sabbath. Mr. Armstrong’s being disfellowshipped for following biblical teachings sealed the fate of that dead church and opened the door to a new era, which started very slowly and small with a single tiny radio station in Oregon in January, 1934. He obeyed before he understood why, but then that knowledge became known. And he was used to convey that understanding to others; that the holy days spell out the plan of God for mankind. Truth is defined as God’s word. Those ministers who preach it exclusively are true ministers. They do not equivocate and they do not compromise.The first century church, by your definition, would have been considered a cult. They followed the scriptures exclusively and didn’t adhere to the local religious, social or cultural traditions when they came into conflict with scriptural tenet or intent. This new religion turned the world upside down. I haven’t found any other belief system that bases its doctrinal foundation squarely on the Bible. Every other faith is a syncretic construct of some kind. Is it perfect? No. God uses people to lead us to His truth, but He expects us to prove it for ourselves.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
(Sorry for length. I really wanted to address the whole matter.)
“What I do find is that the thread of the true church has been connected throughout history. I’ve read about this subject extensively.”
Ma’am, that line is why I wanted you to look at my writeup. Snippet below:
“Craig White of Australia has done decades of research in “True Church history,” and has sought to demonstrate the alleged linkage going here in North America. Whatever doctrinal commonalities the different Sabbatarian groups may have possessed (and doctrines can be transmitted or developed in the number of ways with no ordinational or organizational succession), he admits failure to find the requisite linkages.”
“ From White’s writeup, A Note on the Seventh-Day Baptist Relationship to the Church of God: ( https://www.friendsofsabbath.org/CW%20Articles,%20Notes,%20Charts/Church%20of%20God%20history/SDBs%20Relationship%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20God.pdf )”
[Photos of his “Final Renarks” not reproducible here.]
“Note Point 4:”
““[I]f there is very little linkage between them and there is no evidence of ongoing sequence of laying hands upon subsequent leadership or elders from one era to the next, how does one know it is legitimate?…”…”
“[White] acknowledges “no evidence” of the ordinational succession, and then asks the resultant question of how to evaluate the “legitima[cy]” of the Armstrongist “True Church” and ministry claim.”
I then go into the Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7 precedent pointing out the need to document such a successionary claim.
Craig White is one of the big names such research. He does believe religiously in Armstrong faith tradition as you do. His website preserves much of the late Richard Nichols’ work, and has a lot of old Herman Hoeh stuff. He is the man when it comes to this. If you look at the article in the link, though, you will find him critical of Hoeh’s work in a lot of places. He doesn’t want to admit it, but he has found a lot of the same fails in it that I did when trying to use it for college papers back in the 1990s. Hoeh, whose work is largely what you are referring to when you talk about your having “read about this subject extensively,” includes a lot of claims that is simply not documented. In some cases, they are demonstrably false in misleading (White has the integrity to include where Hoeh was called out by SDB historians, and admitted his mistakes — mistakes with great material impact on his claims.) And you read above a core part of his conclusions.
The next sentence from White after the one I quoted above says. “Or does God Himself place His name or blessing on a given leader of a Church which is evidenced by fruits?” What he is suggesting there is a possibility that your “True Church” is actually disconnected over history — that there is no continuous succession. Having failed to document, the long-believed succession, he is trying to hang on to the identity with a theory completely at odds with what you have read.
Hoeh, Igor Fletcher, Nichols, and others cherry-picked what would support their religious conviction, filled in the gaps with speculation or broad undocumented assertions, and covered up frankly the affirmative “alternative facts” (things that argued against the belief).
* This goes to what I meant before when I talked about how your view was influenced. You read ONLY (or at least vastly disproportionately) WCG and kindred material, all of which aimed at the same religiously-held conclusion. White to his credit looked at actual sources and sought to fill in the gaps in the linkage, only to find those gaps were real. *
I should note that your son actually agreed that “the thread of the true church” did NOT connect down through history. In response to my initial contact with you all, having looked at my writeup, he responded:
“Thanks for your comments. I read your account and agree that the work involved with services requires looking at the levitical precedent. As far as succession goes an honest record would indicate that there was no sort of unbroken chain from one group of believers to others. I would also add that we have seen in other parts of the world situations where groups of people and congregations came to basically every independent discovery and obedience to biblical doctrines and such people are respected for their obedience even without having a formal relationship or historical bond to the Church of God.” ( https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2025/04/28/white-paper-proposals-for-educating-young-people-in-the-united-church-of-god-about-herbert-w-armstrongs-importance-to-church-beliefs-and-practices/#comment-94256 )
Note: “As far as succession goes an honest record would indicate that there was no sort of unbroken chain from one group of believers to others.”
I started this in my own life way back in 2000. I learned about Rachel Oaks Preston and her role in the 1840s. Yet Hoeh, Fletcher, and even Nichols at times ignored her or glossed over her actions. It’s because her actions offered an explanation for the growth of Sabbatarianism among the Millerites that did not involve the supposed mass movement of supposedly “True Church” ministry in members from the SDB orbit, and into the Millerite orbit. Preston is regaled as a heroine in SDA and SDB circles, yet is rarely discussed in Armstrongist works on the subject. (I give credit to the LCG booklet linked to in my writeup for mentioning her.) That alone should make you think about the quality and integrity of your “extensive reading.”
It’s a circle: You believe the religion, so you believe your minister Hoeh and others are uber-credible, so you believe what they promote, and partly as a result of that, you believe the religion. Frankly, it’s like someone believing Mormonism because the Book of Mormon documents its claims, and because their church president — believed as a point of doctrine to be a prophet — says it’s true.
I want you to read White’s work linked to above. I want you to see him lay out gaps and mistakes. I want you to see him try to resolve them. And I want you to see (as a document in photographs on my writeup) his conclusion and questioning. I mean it when I say here not to believe me, but believe the sources. It’s just that you have to look at ALL the sources, not just the approved ones.
I get that you will believe what you will believe. Nothing I say or point out even from those who agree with you religiously will likely change your mind. So I will leave you on this topic with this simple question that breaks the succession claim: Who ordained Herbert Armstrong? Without that information, your documentable ordinational succession only goes back to 1931, less than a century ago. And that’s about a century of 19-year time cycles short of the claim.
LikeLike
“ I haven’t found any other belief system that bases its doctrinal foundation squarely on the Bible. Every other faith is a syncretic construct of some kind.”
I thank you for answering why you follow Armstrongism. That said, your reason simply means that Armstrongism agrees with you doctrinally, in contrast by your judgment to other traditions of what you have knowledge. You effectively reject other traditions (and presumably their adherents) and tie yourself to this tradition based on your own personal conclusions. That puts the lot on your own judgment.
Plus, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That’s why in my succession discussion I point to the burden of proof. Anything is possible, yet extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I respect your right to your conclusion. I would urge you, though, to examine it in the light of objective facts.
LikeLike
One last point: I should include this link to something your son wrote way back in 2012: “ On The Follies Of Apostolic Succession”
“If one is ever in need of a laugh at misguided scholarly intentions, Bob Thiel’s Cogwriter website is always filled with good humor. One of the most ridiculous doctrines on display here is his defense of apostolic succession. It is ridiculous for a variety of reasons, some of which are highly relevant to any discussion on the fragility of truth and the difficulties in ensuring that one’s principles pass along after one is dead. In contrast to the mindset of apostolic succession which views leadership in a monarchical way, what we find in the Bible and in history is that the truth is constantly being neglected and corrupted and that it periodically has to be revived because it never seems to be passed down faithfully more than one or two generations.”
Thiel has been even more of an activist trying to demonstrate the supposed linkages than Craig White, only without the objectivity. He even took White and yours truly by name to task when my writeup appeared on another blog discussing Armstrongism. Back in 2012, your son knew they were problems with the idea of a connected “True Church” thread.
LikeLike
Regarding claim first-century church would have been considered a cult:
2 Cor 1:24 — Contrary to the 1979 article. — “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.” (KJV)
Phil 1:15-18 — Contrary to the 1960 article. — “It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.” (NIV)
Not the whole story, but interesting.
LikeLike
Sorry for screwing up the formatting on the last message.
LikeLike