* LCG News *  2005 Feast of Tabernacles Sites  * Listing of Living Church of God Congregations *Sunset Times for the U.S. *  News of Those Once Affiliated with the Global COG   * Prayer Requests * Official Living Church of God What's New? page.

Click Here for the COGwriter Home Page which has articles on various COGs and articles supporting beliefs of the Philadelphia portion of the Church of God.

01/06/06 a.m. The Journal reported the following:

AUSTIN, Texas--John Robinson, 60, died Jan. 5 in a hospital here of complications from prostate cancer.

Mr. Robinson, a longtime Church of God member, was publisher of the independent Church of God newspaper In Transition from 1995 to 1997, managing editor of The Worldwide News, published by the Worldwide Church of God, from its beginning in 1973 until it was discontinued by WCG founder Herbert Armstrong in 1978, a faculty member teaching journalism and related courses at Ambassador College and the University of Texas at Tyler through the late 1980s, and most recently CEO of Dynamic Resource Group of Berne, Ind., and Big Sandy, Texas.

Mr. Robinson, born in Glasgow, Scotland, held U.S. and British citizenship. He had earned a master's degree in journalism from Texas A&M University, Commerce.

He is survived by his wife of 38 years, the former Alice Rothery; his mother, Margaret Robinson of Tulsa, Okla.; sons John David and Stephen of Austin; a daughter, Rachel Venish, of Austin; two brothers, Mark Robinson of Plano, Texas, and Robert Robinson of Palestine, Texas; sisters Felicity Reedy of Tyler, Texas, and Mary Robinson of Tulsa; and seven grandchildren.

The Robinson family receives mail at 3517 Mocha Trail, Austin, Texas 78728, U.S.A.

Here is a photo that The Journal's site has of John Robinson:

I did not know John Robinson personally. We sent each other of few emails, and I sometimes quoted some of his writings in various articles.

Many once in WCG found In Transition to be a helpful publication. While it was somewhat helpful, I personally considered it to essentially be a United Church of God publication as most of its staff seemed to have had some affiliation with UCG. It seemed to me that the intent of In Transition was to persuade those who believed most of what the old WCG taught to consider being part of UCG, while also attempting to encourage UCG to be a bit less centralized than it became.

After John Robinson announced that he would discontinue In Transition, Dixon Cartwright announced that he would start a similar publication, which still exists, called The Journal: News of the Churches of God.

On other matters, WCG's Tom Hansen just sent me (and presumably thousands of others) that stated:

I hope all of you had a great Christmas and that your New Year is starting off well.

When he did something similar a couple of weeks ago, I suggested that those in WCG as well as any interested in learning about those two holidays should read the following articles:

What Does the Catholic Church Teach About Christmas and the Holy Days? Do you know what the Catholic Church says were the original Christian holy days? Was Christmas among them?
Is January 1st a Date for Christians Celebrate? Historical and biblical answers to this question.

The encouragement of Christmas and New Year's celebrations is clearly against the teachings and the practices of the early church.

01/05/06 a.m. The January edition of the Philadelphia Trumpet has this about Islam:

Of course not every Muslim—not even the majority of Muslims—pine for the destruction of the Western world. But a substantial slice of Muslims understand their religion to promote militant behavior, no matter how vociferously some may condemn that as a perversion of Islamic orthodoxy.

The fact is, there is no Islamic orthodoxy.

Islam—practiced by one out of every five people sprawled over the globe (only 12 percent of whom are Arab)—takes many forms. It has no centralized government, no established hierarchy, no denominations. Where Roman Catholics, for example, can look to the pope to define Catholic doctrine (as can the rest of the world), Islam has no such singular authority.

Thus, those who interpret Islam to advocate terrorism cannot simply be dismissed as misunderstanding their religion. The idea has a distinguished pedigree among dedicated Muslims.

The late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who orchestrated the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, is one of the most respected Shiite clerics in modern times. Sixteen years after his death, his picture is still prominently featured at rallies in several Middle East countries. Here is how he weighed in on the subject: “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! … Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors! There are hundreds of other [koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit on those foolish souls who make such a claim” (“Islam Is Not a Religion of Pacifists,” translation from Holy Terror by Amir Taheri).

Misunderstanding or no, Khomeini derived his religion from the Koran. The young men and women sacrificing their lives in suicide missions against Jews and other Westerners are receiving their training from mosques and madrasas. You can’t convince them they misinterpret Islam. These warriors are true believers...

Though some koranic verses advocate peace, at least 18 other verses (Khomeini found “hundreds”) oblige every Muslim to kill infidels when and where the opportunity arises. Islamic scholars resolve these scriptural contradictions with the rule of abrogation, which upholds the authority of later verses above those of earlier verses. Unfortunately, the peaceful verses mostly come early.

Historically, the Muslims, Roman Catholics, and Protestants have resorted to warfare to get their dominance in certain areas (with the Muslims and Protestants mainly claiming self-defense). This is one way that they differ from the COG which does not endorse its members being part of the military--the COG position is the subject of the article Military Service and the COGs.

At the anti-COG XCG site, the following was actually posted:

Robert Thiel’s comment today that “the COGs did not come from the Catholics, nor do we owe the New Testament to them” reminded me of something Catholic writer and apologist Mark Shea posted at his weblog back in 2004.

Shea wrote:

Ever since the Peasant Revolt, Protestantism and its heirs have had the habit of surprising themselves by giving birth to ideological children who proceed to kill and eat their parents. From Luther’s surprise at peasants who took him at his word about private judgement [and] decided raping and pillaging was a great idea, to biblical devotees who were surprised when German scholars deconstructed their Bibles just as they themselves had deconstructed Catholic theology, to atheistic rationalists who believed in nothing but the sacredness of their own brains and were surprised by postmodern irrationalists who saw nothing sacred about reason, the “progress” has always followed this basic pattern summed up by Chesterton:

“Every great heretic had always exhibited three remarkable characteristics in combination. First, he picked out some mystical idea from the Church’s bundle or balance of mystical ideas. Second, he used that one mystical idea against all the other mystical ideas. Third (and most singular), he seems generally to have had no notion that his own favorite mystical idea was a mystical idea, at least in the sense of a mysterious or dubious or dogmatic idea...

Of course a pro-Catholic writer is going to dub other groups as heretical and suggest that they descended from the Roman Catholics. But a Roman Catholic stating that does not make it so.

The historical truth is that, to some degree, all professing Christian groups descended from the true church, the Church of God.

Why?

Because that is the name of the church in the New Testament (used about a dozen times), plus it was the Church of God that preserved and essentially canonized the Bible (see articles The Old Testament Canon and The New Testament Canon - From the Bible Itself ). Thus any that use the Bible are in that sense descendants from the Church of God. However, the non-COG descendents are simply not part of the true church.

The historical truth is that Paul did visit Rome and even wrote to a Church in Rome. John did live in Asia Minor and did write to at least seven churches in Asia Minor. Thus, the idea that heretical groups professing Christ came from these areas is no surprise.

The COGs have at least two major claims to being the true church that no other non-Roman Catholic Church has. One is that the early Catholic writer Tertullian wrote:

The real question is, 'To whom does the Faith belong? Whose are the Scriptures? By whom, through whom, when and to whom has been handed down the discipline by which we are Christians? The answer is plain: Christ sent His apostles, who founded churches in each city, from which the others have borrowed the tradition of the Faith and the seed of doctrine and daily borrow in order to become churches; so that they also are Apostolic in that they are the offspring of the Apostolic churches. [Catholic Encyclopedia]

To further answer those questions, Tertullian then concluded that there were only two possibilities at the time (around 200 A.D.) as he wrote,

Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this. [Catholic Encyclopedia]

Tertullian essentially claimed no other group could prove they were the church started by the apostles. Note that he specifically mentioned the Smyrnaeans who traced themselves through John and Polycarp. And by Smyrnaeans, he specifically was referring to the Churches in Asia Minor who claimed to maintain the teachings of Christ as taught by the Apostle John and the Bishop Polycarp (those that Polycrates referred to a couple of years prior). Furthermore, even Roman Catholic scholars have acknowledged the purity of the Asia Minor church and the errors in commonly accepted Roman Catholic history (please see the article What Does Rome Teach About Early Church History?). More on the early church can be found in the article Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome.

The other major claim is doctrine.

During Tertullian's time, the churches in Asia Minor refused to accept Roman authority to change the date of Passover. This began with Polycarp and continued through Polycrates. According to Polycrates, the apostles John and Philip, the Gospel itself, and many early church leaders in Asia Minor observed the Passover on the 14th of Nisan. The COGs are the largest body I am aware of that observes Passover on the 14th of Nisan and who also claim their history comes through Polycarp and Polycrates.

And I intend to post a series of doctrines that I have been researching which show that it is the COG and not the Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc. who has remained faithful to the doctrines of the early post-New Testament church. And this is something that no other group claiming descent can do (they can of course claim it, but cannot prove it, with Passover being just one example).

01/04/06 a.m. In the current issue of Vision COGaic has an article that states:

emperor Theodosius the Great in 395...He was in fact the last emperor to rule over a united Roman Empire before the West’s demise. As John Julius Norwich notes, “from the moment of his death the Western Empire embarks on its inexorable eighty-year decline, the prey of the Germanic and other tribes that progressively tighten their grip” (Byzantium: The Early Centuries, 1988).

During his rule, Theodosius had set in motion certain religious practices that would play out in the coming centuries. It was he, for example, who introduced the term Catholic Christian into Roman Christian religious life. Although Ignatius had first used the word catholic in 110 to describe Christendom as a whole, Theodosius now made a significant distinction: in 380, he issued an edict defining a Catholic Christian as one who believed in the consubstantiality of the Trinity according to the Nicene Creed (see “Paul and Paula” ). He further anathematized any who did not, referring to them as “mad and foolish” and ordering that they “bear the ignominious name of heretics . . . to be visited first by the divine vengeance, and secondly by the stroke of our own authority, which we have received in accordance with the will of heaven.”

But he was not the only emperor to condemn and attempt to kill those who refused to accept what is now referred to as Roman Catholicism (see article Europa, Europe, and the Beast). Of course, the early church (even that which became Roman Catholic was not trinitarian and did not believe the formula on the Godhead that was not adopted until 380 A.D.) was not trinitarian. This is clearly documented in the article Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning.

On other matters, there are various posts at certain websites that suggest that legal threats are the reason that the AW site was shut down. As I do not have an independent way to properly verify this and because Gavin Rumney once before announced that he would close the site and because that is not a reason given in the short piece at The Journal, I am really not sure why the AW site was shut down. However, since AW was an anti-COG site, I consider that Gavin's decision to shut it down a postive one.

01/03/06 a.m. For those with interest, I recently updated my article Close Encounters of a 'Spirit' Kind which discusses some experiences I believe were (demon) 'spirit' related.

Regarding demons, I have gotten three different types of email responses on the UCG demon issue. The latest one from the same individual I cited yesterday stated:

From the UCG booklet What Happens After Death?

Satan, being spirit, is the one who will be tormented forever. The evil angels-the demons-will be included with Satan in his torment (Matthew 25:41).

As far as I can tell that is the UCG teaching.

And he may well be correct.

I also received one from someone who told me to not ask UCG supporters for speculation, but contact UCG directly on this matter. The reason I asked here, was to find out if a change was being preached. As far as contacting UCG directly, I have done this on several occasions. Even when I have and have posted what UCG told me in writing, there have been UCG supporters who have told me that what I posted was not what their minister teaches or believes on the subject. It is my understanding that UCG officially, only believes what is in its constitution, but that by and large it also believes most of what the pre-1986 WCG believes (other than governance, etc.).

The third type of response I received was from one who stated that just because UCG claims to believe something in one place, that does not mean that a change is not being made. And this is correct. Those who are interested in what UCG teaches and its approach to doctrine should take the time to read the article Differences between the Living Church of God and United Church of God.

For what its worth, no UCG supporter has ever been able to disprove anything in the above article (i.e., the quotes it contains are accurate), though most do not care for the implications of it.

On other matters, eX-CG keeps attempting to create its own inaccurate version of COG history. The truth is that the COGs did not come from the Catholics, nor do we owe the New Testament to them (it is only those who do not believe that they need to rely on the Bible for doctrine that teach that), nor are we Protestant/Anglican/Eastern Orthodox, etc.

These facts are documented in the following articles:

Do the Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 Matter? Most say they must, but act like they do not. This article contains some history about the Church of God (sometimes referred to as the continuation of Primitive Christianity) over the past 2000 years.
What Does Rome Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that it has an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Rome actually admits it knows about the early church.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
Some Similarities and Differences Between the Orthodox Church and the Churches of God Both groups have some amazing similarities and some major differences. Do you know what they are?
The New Testament Canon - From the Bible Itself This article, shows from the Bible, why the early Church knew which books were part of the Bible and which ones were not.

But on the NT canon, I would simply like to quote a portion of that article here:

As the longest surviving of the original apostles, John would have seen more problems with false teachers professing Christianity than possibly all the other apostles. And actually, in all of his epistles he repeatedly warns about false ones who try to influence Christians (1 John 2:4; 2:18-19; 3:10; 4:1; 2 John 7; 3 John 9-19). Hence, this is probably part of why God had John write the passage in Revelation 22.

John also wrote, "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25). This statement, combined with his writings in Revelation 22:18-19, show that only certain things needed to be written and only certain writings accepted as scripture. Thus, it is logical to conclude that he, the last of the original apostles, finalized the NT canon.

But why else would John have been the one?

John was the last of the original apostles that Jesus, while on the Earth, personally selected. And although the first proper baptisms in Ephesus were apparently done by Paul (Acts 19:1-6), it is John who was there later. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that John was in charge of the church at Ephesus, "the Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that province" (St. John the Evangelist, 1910). It is important to note that the Church of Ephesus is the first of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 1:11 as well as the first of the seven in Revelations to receive an individual letter that ends with "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches" (see chapters 2 & 3).

Since these Churches are shown to those whom Christ walks in the midst of (2:1), it is logical that the first one would have received the entire, properly canonized, NT. The one that John personally oversaw. The same John who wrote that nothing should be added or taken away from the word of prophecy. The same John whose disciple Polycarp became in charge of the Church at Smyrna (the second of the seven churches of Revelation).

Doesn't it make sense that before John died that he would pass on his knowledge of which books should be part of the New Testament canon? And does it not make sense that this would be to the one who appeared to be his most faithful disciple?

Furthermore, John even records that Jesus told him to write Revelation as a book and send it to the Churches in Asia Minor. Look what Jesus said:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea" (Revelation 1:11).

Thus it is clear that the last book of the New Testament was sent to the seven churches in Asia Minor, including Smynra!

From Outside The Bible

Polycarp of Smyrna was well known for holding fast to the teachings he received from John. And that would logically include the knowledge of the entire NT.

Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians (circa 135 A.D.) is written in the manner of one quite familiar with the New Testament as it starts out similar to some of Paul's writings.

And according to the portion of Charles Leach's book, Our Bible: How We Got It (1898) where he discusses Polycarp's epistle, "In the whole Epistle, which occupies but ten minutes to read, we find the language of Matthew, Luke, John, and the Acts of the Apostles; of the Epistle of Peter; and of Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy, and Titus. Here, then, we get a link in our chain which connects us to the actual writers of the New Testament, and assures us, beyond all possibility of doubt, that the contents of our New Testament were in the hands of the men who lived before the last of the Apostles were dead."

This clearly demonstrates that Polycarp had to have had a complete NT canon. Why? Because Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians is so short, that to actually allude to more than half of the accepted books of the NT, he really would have needed to be familiar with the entire New Testament.

In addition, Polycarp made it clear that those he wrote to had the correct Bible otherwise he would not have written:

For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted. It is declared then in these Scriptures, "Be ye angry, and sin not," and, "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." (Polycarp. Letter to the Philippians. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1as edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885).

Note that Polycarp quoted a verse that is in the New Testament, when he used the term Scriptures.

Furthermore, it was one of Polycarp's successors (Melito) who listed the books of the Old Testament around 170 A.D. Melito wrote, "I accordingly proceeded to the East, and went to the very spot where the things in question were preached and took place; and, having made myself accurately acquainted with the books of the Old Testament, I have set them down" (Reid G. Canon of the Old Testament. Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight.Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

As the scholar Wace points out, ""The expressions "the Old Books," "the Books of the O.T.," shew clearly that the church of Melito's time had a New Testament canon"".

Furthermore around 195 A.D., a successor of Melito and Polycarp, Polycrates taught:

I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture (Polycrates. Eusebius. Church History. Book V, Chapter 24).

Thus, it appears obvious that history also supports that the true Church of God knew the proper NT canon from the beginning. And that it can be traced from John (very late first century), to Polycarp (early to mid second century) to Melito (mid to late second century) to Polycrates (very late second century).

It may be of interest to note, that although the Catholics of Rome consider both Polycarp and Melito to have been important saints, neither one of them went along with the decision to abandon the Passover on the 14th of Nisan to a Sunday as the Roman Bishops did (nor did Polycrates). Hence there was a clear distinction between those who were part of the faithful Church in Asia Minor and those who went along with those in Rome (more information can be found in the article, Location of the Early Church, Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome).

The simple truth is that the Church in Asia Minor did have the canon to both the Old and the New Testaments (more information on the Old Testament can be found in the article The Old Testament Canon).

It is only those who trace the early Christian church through Rome, and not Asia Minor, who believe that it took the Roman Catholics to finalize the New Testament.

01/02/06 a.m. I got a couple of emails from a UCG supporter about yesterday's post from the United News suggesting that demons may be destroyed. Here is what this UCG supporter wrote wrote:

As a UCG member I have not heard any such teaching.

I believe the "Their final death" refers to humans and that there was some sloppy editing. I would anticipate a clarification sometime...

There have been no study papers on the subject from UCG and I have seen no reports of it coming before the doctrinal committee. I don't believe such a departure from traditional COG teaching would be introduced through an article on page 10 from a minister not at Home Office.

And this individual is probably correct, it is not likely that UCG intended to change this point--although one wonders why they would have published that article.

On the other hand, the Jan-Feb 06 edition of CGOM-UK's Outreach does teach that demons will be destroyed as shown below:

Perhaps a third of those spirits God created have aligned themselves with the Adversary, Satan. In due course they will cease to exist, for God will purify His kosmos, His Universe, restoring it to the pristine order He first created.   

Nire information on this group is contained in the article Church of God Outreach Ministries.

01/01/06 a.m. Yesterday, the Dec 05 edition of United News arrived. It had the following in an article by UCG's Robert Berendt:

There are also many other eyes observing the events that envelope mankind. Angels rejoice when one person repents and when glory is given to God (Luke 15:7, 10). They are concerned and involved in the affairs on earth (Revelation 5:11-12). They also notice the involvement of Satan and the demons in troubling humans (Job 1:7, 12; Matthew 5:1-11; 13:19).

The two thirds of the "good" angels rejoice in the justice and power of God. Just as they will see the final sentence carried out on the third of the angels who followed Lucifer's rebellion, they will witness the fair and just sentence for mankind.

Jude 6 and 13 tell of the sentencing of the fallen angels that is also necessary. God has no joy in this either, but He must follow through with it because there is no other way. He is just and the penalty for sin—whether of angels or men—must be fully paid.

Demons will be out of God's creation forever and humans who refuse salvation will also be out of the memories of all who remain. Their final death removes the memory of their existence forever (Psalm 109:15; Isaiah 26:14).

When even the memory is erased, there are none with regrets, none who mourn lost family members. There will be no more tears or sorrow (Revelation 21:4). There will be no more death.

Does anyone know if this means that UCG is teaching that the demons are destroyed? If you are in UCG and have information on this, please contact me at COGwriter@aol.com

12/31/05 p.m. Today's sermonette in Arroyo Grande is about New Years. I recently updated my article titled Is January 1st a Date for Christians Celebrate?

12/31/05 a.m. Last night, ICG's Mark Armstrong reported:

Iran’s race to obtain nuclear weapons remains a high-profile item of serious concern.  Today’s news includes an article in the Jerusalem Post telling of Iran bowing up against their Russian allies on the issue of how and where uranium enrichment will take place.  Russia has offered to supply Iran with enriched uranium for their domestic energy needs, and thereby keep tabs on it.  Iran has refused to so much as discuss such an arrangement, insisting that they will enrich their own uranium.  Now Russia is in the lurch, with a high-ranking diplomat publicly stating that a nuclear-armed Iran is not in Russia’s best interest.  Up to this point, the Russians have sided with Iran in the UN, blocking any prospect of economic sanctions. 

 

EU negotiators have tried for over two years to solve the Iranian nuclear problem diplomatically, and have accomplished nothing.  The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad claims that Iran is well along in stockpiling compounds needed to produce fissile material, and believes Tehran is now only six months away from the ability to produce a nuclear bomb.     Surely neither Israel nor the United States will stand by and allow that to happen.  The consequences would be unimaginable.

Somehow the King of the South will acquire enough military power to push at the King of the North. Iran could possibly assist its Arab neighbors in this process.

The latest (Jan-Feb 06) edition of G&S' Church of God News is now out. It is available at http://www.giveshare.org/news/news027.html.

The Jan 06 edition of the Philadelphia Trumpet has this in an article by Gerald Flurry:

Today we hear many academic voices telling people that learning history is of little or no value. This is an extremely dangerous trend that may be too entrenched ever to correct.

This educational plague is rampant among the American and British peoples. It seems that few of our leaders understand what a colossal disaster it is!

George Will wrote this in his Dec. 23, 2001, column: “When history is taught at all nowadays, often it is taught as the unfolding of inevitabilities—of vast, impersonal forces. The role of contingency in history is disparaged, so students are inoculated against the ‘undemocratic’ notion that history can be turned in its course by great individuals” (Times Union; emphasis mine throughout).

He is correct that there is a terrible lack of knowledge of history in the US (and elsewhere). However, one thing worse than not studying history is relying on historical accounts that are untrue.

Those who believe that they are Christian should ask themselves where they came from. Recall that Jesus taught that the gates of Haydes (death) would not prevail agains the true Church, hence it must have existed throughout history.

Four articles of possible interest are:

Do the Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 Matter? Most say they must, but act like they do not. This article contains some history about the Church of God (sometimes referred to as the continuation of Primitive Christianity) over the past 2000 years.
What Does Rome Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that it has an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Rome actually knows about the early church.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome
Some Similarities and Differences Between the Orthodox Church and the Churches of God

If you are Protestant, ask yourself where did your church come from? If you are Catholic or Orthodox, the historical articles related to your church should demonstrate why it is the true Church of God that has the best historical and biblical claim to being the true Church.

If you are in the COG and have not yet read the article What Does Rome Teach About Early Church History? please take the time to do so. This article clearly demonstrates that the public claims that the Roman Catholics make about early church history do not agree with the facts of the available records--and since this is Rome's primary claim to preeminence, it is a subject those in the COGs ought to be familiar with (1 Peter 3:15, "be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you").

Click here for previous news

Click here to go back to the COGwriter home page

Volume 9, issue 22

COGwriter (c) 2005/2006