(Meridian CG7 Facebook page photo)
COGwriter
Received an email this week from someone who attached a booklet from the Meridian Church of God Seventh Day.
The reader attached an undated booklet titled WHY STRAIN AT A GNAT AND SWALLOW A CAMEL? Is The Unclean Law For Today? from the CG7 Meridian on its position on unclean meat consumption.
It starts out with:
The purpose of this work is to present a study of the “UNCLEAN LAW” and its relationship with mankind as found in the Bible. During the last two or three generations, especially among Sabbath-keepers, there has arisen a new school of thought. This school holds the view that the law which forbade the Israelites the use of certain meats is still valid, and should be observed today. We have endeavored herein to explain the other school of thought …
The claim that it was only in the last two or three generations that Sabbath-keepers should not consume unclean meats is false.
Now notice something that happened in Jerusalem c. 135 A.D.:
(71a) ‘After him’, his disciples (axhab) were with the Jews and the Children of Israel in the latter’s synagogues and observed the prayers and the feasts of (the Jews) in the same place as the latter. (However) there was a disagreement between them and the Jews with regard to Christ.
The Romans (al-Rum) reigned over them. The Christians (used to) complain to the Romans about the Jews, showed them their own weakness and appealed to their pity. And the Romans did pity them. This (used) to happen frequently. And the Romans said to the Christians: “Between us and the Jews there is a pact which (obliges us) not to change their religious laws (adyan). But if you would abandon their laws and separate yourselves from them, praying as we do (while facing) the East, eating (the things) we eat, and regarding as permissible that which we consider as such, we should help you and make you powerful, and the Jews would find no way (to harm you). On the contrary, you would be more powerful than they.”
The Christians answered:”We will do this.”
(And the Romans) said: “Go, fetch your companions, and bring your Book (kitab).” (The Christians) went to their companions, informed them of (what had taken place) between them and the Romans and said to them: “Bring the Gospel (al-injil), and stand up so that we should go to them.”
But these (companions) said to them: “You have done ill. We are not permitted (to let) the Romans pollute the Gospel. In giving a favourable answer to the Romans, you have accordingly departed from the religion. We are (therefore) no longer permitted to associate with you; on the contrary, we are obliged to declare that there is nothing in common between us and you;” and they prevented their (taking possession of) the Gospel or gaining access to it. In consequence a violent quarrel (broke out) between (the two groups). Those (mentioned in the first place) went back to the Romans and said to them: “Help us against these companions of ours before (helping us) against the Jews, and take away from them on our behalf our Book (kitab).” Thereupon (the companions of whom they had spoken) fled the country. And the Romans wrote concerning them to their governors in the districts of Mosul and in the Jazirat al-‘Arab. Accordingly, a search was made for them; some (qawm) were caught and burned, others (qawm) were killed.
(As for) those who had given a favorable answer to the Romans they came together and took counsel as to how to replace the Gospel, seeing it was lost to them. (Thus) the opinion that a Gospel should be composed (yunshi`u) was established among them…a certain number of Gospels were written. (Pines S. The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Volume II, No.13; 1966. Jerusalem, pp. 14-15).
The above would seem to have taken place in the second century (which is consistent with Shlomo Pines’ beliefs). It is interesting for a number of reasons. It shows that there were two group that professed Christ then. One improperly called “Christians” above, and the other (the faithful ones) called “companions.” The fact that the companions, who were the ones who kept to keeping the Sabbath, would no longer associate with the compromisers, and had to flee, showed that in whatever area the above occurred in, there were definitely two groups.
So, understand that in order to be allowed back into Jerusalem after the Jewish Bar Kochba revolt (c. 135), Roman soldiers said that the professors of Christ needed to eat unclean animals like they did (Pines S. The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Volume II, No.13; 1966. Jerusalem, pp. 14-15). The compromisers, who followed the lead of ‘Bishop Marcus’ of Jerusalem, did so in order to be able to live in Jerusalem. The faithful did not—they fled to places like Pella and Edessa (see Early Christianity in Edessa and the Church of the East) and did not eat unclean meat. The writings of the anti-Sabbath heretic Justin (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 10 & 20), though, seems to suggest he supported unclean meat consumption near the same time.
Now, here is something from the Sabbath-keeping Church of God leader Theophilus of Antioch perhaps written about 180 A.D.:
Consider, therefore, whether those who teach such things can possibly live indifferently, and be commingled in unlawful intercourse, or, most impious of all, eat human flesh, (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book III, Chapter XV. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition)
So, true Christians did not believe that they could eat human flesh–human flesh was also unclean to eat.
In the third century, Sabbath-keeping Church of God leader Pionius of Smyrna refused to eat unclean meat.
In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine commanded that Christians in Jerusalem who would not eat pork were to be killed (Bagatti, Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene Hoade. The Church from the Circumcision. Nihil obstat: Marcus Adinolfi, 13 Maii 1970. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari, 14 Junii 1970. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 26 Junii 1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, 1971, pp. 13-14). These were Judeo-Christians, Sabbath-keepers.
Eating unclean animals was certainly not an original part of the Christian faith. Those who claim to believe the New Testament should consider the following:
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 3-4)
Those called Nazarenes by 4th and 5th century Greco-Roman writers were Sabbath-keepers who avoided unclean meat. Here is a confirmatory report related to the Nazarenes:
Manichean Faustus, {in} the fourth century … complained. “Such people practice circumcision, keep the Sabbath, then shun swine’s meat and other things like that, all according to the Law. And yet they still claim to be Christians” (Frederickson P. When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation. Yale University Press, 2018 p. 100)
Here is a report from the Lutheran historian Johann Moshein concerning a Sabbatarian group in the 12th century and two of their tenets:
the denomination of the Pasaginians … The first was a notion, that the observance of the law of Moses, in everything except the offering of sacrifices, was obligatory upon Christians; in consequence of which they circumcised their followers, abstained from those meats, the use of which was prohibited under the Mosaic economy, and celebrated the Jewish sabbath. The second tenet that distinguished this sect was advanced in opposition to the doctrine of three persons in the divine nature. (Mosheim JL, Coote C, Gleig G. An Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern: In which the Rise, Progress, and Variations of Church Power, are Considered in Their Connexion with the State of Learning and Philosophy, and the Political History of Europe During that Period, Volume 1. Translated by Archibald Maclaine. Plaskitt & Cugle, 1840 Original from Ohio State University, Digitized Aug 8, 2013, p. 333)
So, they kept the Sabbath, abstained from unclean meats, and were opposed to the trinitarian view. While not all the views that Mosheim had about the Pasaginians were Church of God views, apparently some called by that name were Church of God Christians.
In 1402, Sabbatarian John Seygno stated that swine were unclean to eat (Ball B. Seventh Day Men: Sabbatarians and Sabbatarianism in England and Wales, 1600-1800, 2nd edition. James Clark & Co., 2009, p.33).
Notice also:
About 1600, there was compiled ‘the old hymn-book of the Sabbatarians,’ … They kept, of course, only the festivals enjoined in the Pentateuch … But even the Mosaic laws they did not observe in their entirety, for they kept the dietary laws only up to a certain limit [probably ate meat and milk together] (Bacher W. The Sabbatarians of Hungary. The Jewish Quarterly Review, Volume 2. Macmillan, 1890, Original from the University of Michigan, Digitized Nov 10, 2008, p. 473)
John Traske kept something on Passover as the Days of Unleavened Bread, plus did not eat biblically unclean meat, according to the Roman Catholic priest Falconer while using 1618 English:
Iohn Traske … By reading in Eusebius history lib. 1. cap. 22. how Saint Policarpe and other holy Bishops of Asia observed the Iewes time of keeping Easter, he and his disciples are lately therein resolued to imitate them. …
IOHN Traske seemeth falsely to suppose, and Maister Cra. his Aduersary as lightly to graunt, that a Sabaoth, or seauenth daie of rest from bodily labour was from the beginning of mans Creation … Christians are expressely forbidden to play the Iewes, and to be idle on the Sabaoth, and willed with all to obserue and prefer our Lords day be∣fore it …
IOHN Traske … the 14. of March-moone, wherin the Iewes were commaunded by God to celebrate their Passouer. And vpon his late reading in Eusebius lib 5. hist. cap. 22. Policrates epistle di∣rected to Victor Bishop of Rome concerning the Asian custome of keeping easter with the Iews, … he will arrogantly presume to call Victor that holy Bishop & Mar∣tyr, famously mentioned in ancient histories, a proud Prelate, … he hath ob∣serued the feast of Azimes, … the ancient Bishop of Ephesus in a preposterous zeale of obseruing the yearly me∣mory of our Sauiours resurrection, as S. Policarpe and other great Saintes had done before him in those partes of Asia, wrote very ernestly in the defence of that Quartadeciman Custome. Whose authority hath, as it should seeme, much moued Iohn Traske … IOHN Traske and his disciples hold the Legall difference of meates mentioned Leuit. 11. Deutron. 10. to be so morall in it selfe (Falconer J. A briefe refutation of Iohn Traskes iudaical and nouel fancyes Stiling himselfe Minister of Gods Word, imprisoned for the lawes eternall perfection, or God’s lawes perfect eternity. English College Press, 1618, pp. 3,17,21,43,57-58,60 65)
So John Traske (an “i” was often used then for a “j” in the 17th century; the “u” above often should be a “v”) kept the seventh-day Sabbath (and said it was established in the Book of Genesis), would not keep Sunday, kept Passover on the 14th, cited church history, kept the Days of Unleavened Bread (called “the feast of Azimes” above), cited the practices of Polycarp and Polycrates, and avoided eating biblically unclean animals. Those are Church of God doctrines. For Traske doing so, a Roman Catholic priest objected, referred to Passover as Easter, and called original Christian practices preposterous.
Church of God Sabbatarians in England, who also kept Passover on the 14th, taught against eating biblically unclean meats in the 17th and 18th centuries (Ball B. Seventh Day Men: Sabbatarians and Sabbatarianism in England and Wales, 1600-1800, 2nd edition. James Clark & Co., 2009, pp. 9-10,15,49).
In the 19th century to present, those of the Seventh-day Adventist church taught against unclean meat consumption.
In in the July 7, 1885 issue of the Advent and Sabbath Advocate, Jacob Brinkerhoff confirmed the wisdom of avoiding unclean meat.
In 1933, Church of God, Seventh Day formally denounced any who claimed that it was fine for Christians to eat unclean meat (Nickels R. History of the Seventh Day Church of God. Giving & Sharing, 1988, pp. 147-180)–it was NOT a new doctrine then–instead they brought this out because some wanted it changed to be allowed. In AN Dugger and C. Dodd’s A History of the True Church, they also referred to a Sabbatarian group in the late fourth century that did not eat unclean meats as part of their true church when as they cited a work stating “And they observed their Sabbaths, and used distinction of their meats, clean and unclean.”
Sabbatarians avoiding unclean meats has been the historical position of the faithful. The Meridian teaching is in flat-out, historical error. It does make a difference what Sabbatarian church one is part of.
Now, here another excerpt from WHY STRAIN AT A GNAT AND SWALLOW A CAMEL? Is The Unclean Law For Today?:
The reasons for this rather comprehensive examination are several; (p. 4)
Notice that the Meridian church is calling its examination of the unclean meat matter “comprehensive,” yet it, for one example, ignored the historical realities of this doctrine.
Now its booklet does mention things related to sacrifices, and it is true that the New Testament shows that they were done away and no longer necessary, in places like Hebrews 8-10. But that has nothing to do with Christians eating biblically unclean animals.
There is NOT ONE INSTANCE IN THE BIBLE WHERE A FOLLOWER OF GOD ATE UNCLEAN ANIMALS.
Here a another excerpt from WHY STRAIN AT A GNAT AND SWALLOW A CAMEL? Is The Unclean Law For Today?:
the unclean law was a type, applying only to the nation of Israel, and not a moral law for all men as the Ten Commandments. (p. 9)
That is consistent with what the allegorists of Alexandria taught.
The following is from an early second century document falsely titled The Epistle of Barnabas (it is ‘falsely’ titled because the biblical Barnabas did not write it) and it is not accepted as scripture by Protestant, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Church of God followers:
But in that Moses said, Thou shalt not eat the swine, nor the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the crow, nor any fish that hath not scales in itself, he had in his mind three doctrines. For in the end he saith unto them in Deuteronomy, And I will arrange before this people my ordinances. The commandment of God is not, therefore, that they should not eat; but Moses spake in a spiritual sense. He spake of the swine with this meaning: Thou shalt not cleave, he meaneth, unto men of this sort, who are like unto swine, for when they become wanton they forget their Lord, but when they are in want they think upon the Lord; even as the swine when it eateth knoweth not its lord, but when it is hungry it crieth, and when it hath received it is again silent (Apostolic Fathers, Epistle of Barnabas, 10:1-3, 1885 translation by Charles H. Hoole).
The above is certainly not in the Bible. God told Moses to write statements such as:
8 Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses (Deuteronomy 14:8).
And while some may wish to speculate as to why God made such an ordinance, it is certainly wrong to conclude, as the so-called Epistle of Barnabas does, that God did not command that swine are not to be eaten.
It may be of interest to note that Alexandria appears to have been the original home of allegorists amongst those that professed Christ, as well as the home of various Gnostic and semi-gnostic leaders. Do Christians wish to base their faith on those who do not believe what the Bible says?
The booklet also mentions Peter’s vision in Acts 10 (p. 9-10). However, Peter DID NOT CONCLUDE HE COULD EAT UNCLEAN MEAT AFTER THAT VISION. He concluded:
28 God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (Acts 10:28)
Let me add that the Meridian group claims unclean animals are food. Well, nowhere in the Bible are they referred to that way and NO EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO EAT THEM.
The Meridian booklet also went into detail about what it calls dispensations and why scriptures in Isaiah 66 are not supposed to count (pp. 13-20)–but early Christians did not accept those type of arguments. When biblical literalists read the following prophecy in the word of God, they do not want to be condemned by God:
3 A people who provoke Me to anger continually to My face; Who sacrifice in gardens, And burn incense on altars of brick; 4 Who sit among the graves, And spend the night in the tombs; Who eat swine’s flesh, And the broth of abominable things is in their vessels; (Isaiah 65:3-4)
3 “He who kills a bull is as if he slays a man; He who sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog’s neck; He who offers a grain offering, as if he offers swine’s blood; He who burns incense, as if he blesses an idol. Just as they have chosen their own ways, And their soul delights in their abominations, 4 So will I choose their delusions, And bring their fears on them; Because, when I called, no one answered, When I spoke they did not hear; But they did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight.” (Isaiah 66:3-4)
17 “Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the Lord. (Isaiah 66:17)
While many foolishly think any Sabbatarian Church of God group is acceptable, that is not the case as Meridian’s position on unclean meat consumption is unbiblical and is NOT how faithful Christians have understood it throughout history.
As far as when and how Greco-Roman Catholics, Protestants, and others who do not accept the original faith adopted unclean animal consumption, basically it was after the allegorists pushed it.
The writings of the heretic Justin (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 10 & 20) seem to suggest he supported unclean meat consumption near the same time the falsely titled Epistle of Barnabas was written.
Even though the various heretics seemingly advocated eating unclean meats, even as late as around 180 A.D., it appears that even Greco-Roman Catholic leaders still considered certain animals to be clean, with others unclean, as Irenaeus’ account below suggests:
Now the law has figuratively predicted all these, delineating man by the [various] animals: whatsoever of these, says [the Scripture], have a double hoof and ruminate, it proclaims as clean; but whatsoever of them do not possess one or other of these [properties], it sets aside by themselves as unclean…The unclean, however, are those which do neither divide the hoof nor ruminate…But as to those animals which do indeed chew the cud, but have not the double hoof, and are themselves unclean…the Lord says, “Why call ye Me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say to you?” For men of this stamp do indeed say that they believe in the Father and the Son, but they never meditate as they should upon the things of God, neither are they adorned with works of righteousness; but, as I have already observed, they have adopted the lives of swine and of dogs, giving themselves over to filthiness, to gluttony, and recklessness of all sorts. Justly, therefore, did the apostle call all such “carnal” (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book V, Chapter 8 , Verse 4. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).
Notice that Irenaeus, in the late second century, specifically taught that certain animals are unclean–Irenaeus also claimed to know Polycarp and perhaps he learned this from him (Polycarp knew the Apostle John). And while Irenaeus is also describing how humans can be clean or unclean, he never suggests that one should eat anything that is unclean–especially since he condemns gluttony and adopting the lives of swine and dogs (both of whom eat unclean meats).
So since early Christians did not eat unclean animals, how come consumption of unclean meat became common?
Well in addition to the Gnostic writings (which were generally in conflict with the Bible), the answer could be revealed in a Roman Catholic document titled Liber Pontificalis.
According to the Liber Pontificalis, this was changed by Bishop Eleutherius shortly after the time the above was written:
He also decreed that no kind of food in common use should be rejected especially by the Christian faithful, inasmuch as God created it; provided it was a rational food and fit for human kind (Book of the Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis) 2nd edition. Translation by Raymond Davis. Liverpool University Press – Translated Texts for Historians, Liverpool, 2001, p.17).
The Catholic Encyclopedia states:
The “Liber Pontificalis” ascribes to Pope Eleutherius a decree that no kind of food should be despised by Christians (Et hoc iterum firmavit ut nulla esca a Christians repudiaretur, maxime fidelibus, quod Deus creavit, quæ tamen rationalis et humana est).
It should be noted that Roman bishops were not called Popes that early (that did not happen until the late fourth century). Anyway, according to Lopes book The Popes, Eleutherius was bishop of Rome from 175-189 AD. This book (which I purchased at the Vatican itself) states this about Eleutherius:
He dispensed with the obligations of Christians to follow dietary laws of Judaic origin (page 5).
The above book should have said the obligations of biblical origin as the dietary restrictions began with God and not Jews (the distinction between clean and unclean animals was known by at least Noah’s time, since God so declared in Genesis 7:2-3). Perhaps it needs to be stated that no one called of God in the Old Testament is ever shown to have consumed unclean meat. Hence the Roman Catholics (and the Protestants that follow this edict) are relying on a possible pronouncement of a bishop of Rome for justification of eating unclean meats more than they may realize. And this alleged decree did not happen until about 150 years after Jesus was resurrected.
Now, I should add that the Liber Pontificalis was composed in the fifth/sixth centuries and has a reputation, even amongst Roman Catholic scholars, for arbitrarily assigning events with certain “popes” (some of this is documented in the article What Does Rome Actually Teach About Early Church History?). It would seem, however, that this could not have been assigned any earlier than 175 A.D. because of Irenaeus’ writings. Hence, it is clear that well into the second century, the laws concerning clean and unclean meats were considered to have been in force for Christians in general (exceptions including the apostates in Alexandria). And that it is due to a later Roman Catholic tradition that unclean animals became food for Roman supporters.
The Rome Emperor Constantine apparently liked unclean food so much that he persecuted those who would not eat it. Here is a report from a source with Middle East ties:
Constantine called a gathering of Christian monks with a view to the formulation of obligatory religious beliefs. However, some of them disagreed with this text. There was a scission and the symbol of faith which had been formulated was not regarded as valid.
Thereupon, three hundred and eighteen men gathered in Nicaea and formulated a symbol of faith, which was accepted and made obligatory by Constantine. People who dissented from it were killed and professions of faith differing from it suppressed.
In this way people who professed the religion of Christ came to do all that is reprehensible; they worshipped the cross, observed the Roman religious rites and ate pork. Those who did not eat it were killed (Pines S. The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Volume II, No.13; 1966. Jerusalem, pp. 31-32)
There were true and faithful Christians, and there were those that were not. This has been the case since close to the beginning of the start of the church age, and through its history.
Here is a report from a Roman Catholic scholar about matters in Jerusalem that Emperor Constantine commanded the death penalty for Christians who would not eat pork:
That there existed strife between the different branches of the faithful can easily be gathered from the expression of the anonymous pilgrim of Bordeaux in 333, who says that the three basilicas were erected by the gentile Christians “at the command of Constantine”, that is by force, and from the late account of Eutychius (PG 111,1012-1013) that, just at this time, the faithful while they were leaving the church on Easter day, were forced to eat pork under the pain of death. We know how the Judaeo-Christians refused this in order not to transgress the Mosaic law to which they held there were bound (Bagatti, Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene Hoade. The Church from the Circumcision. Nihil obstat: Marcus Adinolfi, 13 Maii 1970. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari, 14 Junii 1970. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 26 Junii 1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, 1971, pp. 13-14).
And this was probably why the following is reported about the Greco-Roman Cyril of Jerusalem:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, or as some believe, his successor John II…the saint…adds “…Keep away from all sabbathical observances, and do not call some foods clean and unclean because they are all indifferent”. (ibid, p. 89)
Anyway, over a millennium after allergoristic Greco-Roman confederation formed, the Protestant Reformation occurred.
However, instead of contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3), they decided to not rock the boat of the traditions they accepted from the Church of Rome. Since they could not refer to papal decrees, they later came up with their own views on scriptures to be in favor of eating unclean meat.
Yet, the fact remains that the Bible never shows that any of God’s people voluntarily consumed unclean animals. Clever sounding arguments that twist the meaning of scriptures should never get in the way of facts. The fact is that original early Christians avoided unclean animals. And the faithful have always avoided them–but most professors of Jesus do not realize that.
Of course, in the 20th century, groups like CG7, the Radio COG, and then the Worldwide Church of God avoided the consumption of unclean meats.
UPDATE 05/04/25: We just uploaded the following related video:
14:41
Here is a link to our video: Unclean Meat and True Christianity.
In the 21st century, like our spiritual ancestors, we in the Continuing Church of God have continued to keep the Sabbath, we avoid the consumption of unclean meats, and we contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints as the New Testament instructs us to do per Jude 3.
Some items of related interest may include:
The New Testament Church, History, and Unclean Meats Are foods considered to have been unclean in the Old Testament considered to be food in the New Testament? This article discusses this from the perspective of the New Testament. It also has a list of clean and unclean animals. It also answers the question, is pork healthy or is pork dangerous? There is also a sermon-length video on this: Christians and Unclean Meats; four short videos are also available: Did Jesus declare all animal flesh food?, Should Christians Eat Insects? and COVID, Pandemics, and Unclean Meat, and Unclean Meat and True Christianity.
MCGSD: Meridian Church of God Seventh Day A group that was a split from the old Stanberry COG.
CG7.ORG This is a website for those interested in the Sabbath and churches that observe the seventh day Sabbath.
CG7-D: Church of God, (Seventh Day): History and Teachings Nearly all COG’s I am aware of trace part of their history through some affiliation with this group. Loren Stacy is the president of the largest CG7 USA group (Denver). Do you know much about them?
CG7-S: Church of God 7th Day, Salem (West Virginia) This group formed by A.N. Dugger in 1933 when he split from the CG7 group he was once president of.
Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession? Did the original “catholic church” have doctrines held by the Continuing Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term “catholic church” to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons: Original Catholic Church of God?, Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover, What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?, Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy, Early Heresies and Heretics, Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats, Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more, Saturday or Sunday?, The Godhead, Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession, Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List, Holy Mother Church and Heresies, and Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language: Creencias de la iglesia Católica original.
Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism The CCOG is NOT Protestant. This free online book explains how the real Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants. Several sermons related to the free book are also available: Protestant, Baptist, and CCOG History; The First Protestant, God’s Command, Grace, & Character; The New Testament, Martin Luther, and the Canon; Eucharist, Passover, and Easter; Views of Jews, Lost Tribes, Warfare, & Baptism; Scripture vs. Tradition, Sabbath vs. Sunday; Church Services, Sunday, Heaven, and God’s Plan; Seventh Day Baptists/Adventists/Messianics: Protestant or COG?; Millennial Kingdom of God and God’s Plan of Salvation; Crosses, Trees, Tithes, and Unclean Meats; The Godhead and the Trinity; Fleeing or Rapture?; and Ecumenism, Rome, and CCOG Differences.
5. The Sardis Church Era was predominant circa 1600 A.D. to circa 1933 A.D. Discusses some early history of the Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, CG7-Salem, Jerusalem 7DCG, and COG-7th Day-Denver. Here are two historical sermons: Sardis Church Era: Beginnings, Doctrines, and Leaders and Sardis: SDBs, SDAs, & CG7s.
6. The Philadelphia Church Era was predominant circa 1933 A.D. to 1986 A.D. The old Radio Church of God and old Worldwide Church of God, now the remnant of that era is basically the most faithful in the Church of God, like who hold to the beliefs and practices of the Continuing Church of God.
7. The Laodicean Church Era has been predominant circa 1986 A.D. to present. The Laodiceans are non-Philadelphians who mainly descended from the old WCG or its offshoots. They do not properly understand the work or biblical prophecies and will face the Great Tribulation if they do not repent. One video of related interest is 17 Laodicean Errors in Prophecy. See also Do You Hold to Any of These Laodicean Prophetic Errors?
Laying on of Hands Succession and List Does the Church of God have laying on of hands succession? Does the Continuing Church of God have a list of leaders from the time of the apostles?
