Sheryl Meredith Has Passed

In case anyone hasn't heard - Sheryl Meredith, wife of Rod Meredith, passed away November 29th.

We might write in disagreement with Armstrongist doctrines, but it's not personal. Our common humanity is a tie that ought to bind all of us here on this planet. It is good to set aside our differences for a time, out of respect.

Our deepest sympathies go out to Mr. Rod Meredith and family for their loss.

Now, this from Penny:

"It is with sadness that I have learned of the passing of Sheryl Meredith.
She was the loving wife of Roderick Meredith, who calls himself the presiding evangelist
of The Living Church of God. All of us take no pleasure in the sufferings of any person
associated with Armstrogism. We pray for the Comforter to visit Mr Meredith during this
time of loss, and trust that our Almighty God will show His mercy to Mrs Meredith. May
God bring peace to the members of that group as well, as they accept her loss.
In particular, events such as this tend to stir up fears of the end being close, and we
pray that God calms their troubled hearts. Rest in God's loving, peaceful arms Mrs Meredith."

http://www.lcg.org/memoriam_smeredith.shtml

We Were Right By Default

I was having a rather interesting conversation with some friends recently, and we were recalling back to when we were active, believing Armstrongists. We were recalling what our attitudes were like, and in what way we reacted when someone wasn't in agreement with us.
I wanted to talk about that a bit today.

We all seem to recall two general things, really: fear and pride.
These two words pretty well sum up what our attitudes were like before we found out how specious the teachings of Herbert Armstrong actually were.

I recall the sensation that I would get when someone would present me with anything not already within my belief system. I would feel fear and pride. Anything that didn't come to me from the pulpit, or church literature, or a trusted church member, was already wrong to begin with. We were right by default.

I was so prideful that I actually felt pity for anyone who didn't agree with me. Didn't matter what they were saying. Poor deceived souls. I was elect and they were not. I had the Holy Spirit and they had none. They would eventually learn how right I was ...in the second resurrection, that is. No matter what the topic, they were deceived and I was not, and it was only a matter of time until that was visible to everyone.
Even if the facts were nigh entirely on their side. Even if I had no response. I trusted that Herbert Armstrong [or you can substitute your favorite church leader] was an Apostle, a prophet, and directly inspired by God. If I was caught off guard, at least such pillars of "the truth" would never be as weak as I am. Would they ever agree with what I was being presented with? No. So what reason was there for me giving anyone a fair hearing?

Our hearts were so filled with pride! I say this to my own shame.
But don't forget the fear.

See, this pridefulness was all just a defense mechanism.
I recall that sickening, sinking tinge of fear that accompanied anything new. I couldn't ever help but wonder in my heart of hearts - what if I have no answer? What if they are right? What if this is a test and I don't have the wherewithal to pass it? Then one thing leads to another, one thought to another thought, down the slippery slope to the ultimate conclusion - what if I lose my crown?

Oh my! What fear! I had invested so much. I had sacrificed so much. I left friends for this church. I separated from family. I lost jobs. I passed up careers. I tithed too much. I preached too much. Everything I did and everything I was hung in the balance. The truth HAD to be that I was right and they were wrong. It had to! The alternative was simply too much for my heart to bear. Too much is at stake; I can't be wrong. We HAD to be right by default!

What did we do?

Enter the pride response, which answers all my problems by shutting down any possibility of us being wrong. Armstrong was right by default, and so was I, and that is that.

Now, I just let my cleverness come up with some pithy response and we'll seal that deal.
Any response. No matter how unworkable, no matter how impractical, no matter how irrelevant, no matter how it contradicts other things I believed. A quote from a church leader. A proof-text. A reference to some obscure point which was proven false 100 years ago. Any response at all would do.
If there is still no response, then there is always the nuclear option -- revert to ad hominem attacks.
Call the person a deceived pagan, perhaps a Nimrod worshiper, and dehumanize them. If they do not have any value themselves, then what value can their words have? We were the called and elect. They were only ever going to be second best anyway.

You can always read about how right we are in this church literature. Send away for it; it's free. I'll be going now!

Oh, dear reader, that is how most of us were, deep down inside. I don't mean just myself and my friends, I mean the whole of Armstrongism. These are the fruits of legalism - false pride and frustrated failure. But I want to warn you about this whole mess. These mechanisms cannot simply be turned on and off like with a switch. Once your heart learns to puff itself up as a defense against fear, then you will always react that way; even towards the ones you fellowship with.

Here is a typical scenario:
I didn't keep the Sabbath well enough. Is God angry with me? I'll plead for forgiveness! I'll promise to do better! Why isn't my guilt assuaged? Did God hear me? Will God ever forgive me again? After all, was it really all that bad what I did? It's not like I'm as bad as that other person I know from church. That person is worse than me. What I did is really small compared to what this other person from church does all the time. Compared to them, I'm looking really good. I feel better now, actually. Come to think of it, I'm better than this second person I know from church. They can't control their children. And just a few weeks ago I knew more about Deuteronomy than person #3 from church. You know, I'm not so bad after all. I'm actually kinda good, all things considered. I'm no Armstrong, but I'll be there in time. God must really think I'm special.

Do you see how fear becomes pride becomes judgment? It's circular. Beware of this!
The failures you point out in people outside of your church today, to prop your ego up, will become the failures you will point out in people inside your church tomorrow, to prop your ego up. Until you are a church of one. The only person in creation who can meet your own standards; intimately frustrated because inside you know that you can't meet your own standards.
Being right by default is a snare of the Devil and it does not please God! How much less does does it please Him to lash out in fear and pride against another, for whom Jesus died, dehumanizing and demonizing them simply so we can win an argument.

The truth is that the truth can handle itself. The truth is true. It is reality. Anything else is simply not reality. If it isn't true, then it doesn't really exist. That is why Satan has no real power. He is a liar and the father of it. Though he has the power to kill our bodies temporarily, he can do us no eternal harm. His lies are simply not true. They don't actually exist. But Jesus Christ is the truth! Trust in Him, not in yourself.
We can insist we have the truth, but if we in fact are wrong, then we in fact do not have the truth and we insist a lie. It doesn't matter how desperately we want something to be true. If it isn't, then it isn't. For you and for me as well! Insisting we and we alone have God's truth, when our words are little more than empty, prideful, self-serving rejoinders, is the very definition of delusion.
I implore you to always give someone a fair hearing. Judge rightly (JON. 7: 24)! If something is true, then it is true. Let it be what it is. Stop worrying about always being right and saving your own skin, which you cannot save anyway, and let go of that illusion of control. Give it all to God and He will sort it out.

I ask you, honored reader, to give us a fair hearing. What we here at As Bereans Did have presented you with may be contrary to what you have heard. What we present may be a bit scary. What we present may make you angry with us. But we plead with you - at least hear us out. We have tested what we write, and presented you not only with our opinions but with many explanations of why we no longer believe as we once did. Should we actually be right, then you won't want to miss out. If we really can demonstrate a point, for example that British-Israelism is demonstrably false and there are better explanations for those prophecies, then you would do well to take that to heart and pray about it. If still you must go away in disagreement, then go freely in peace.

Believe me, we know what it's like; we were there once too. Once we set ourselves aside and stepped into the New Covenant in faith, all that fear melted away. Don't take our word for it; try it for yourself and see!

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; ) Acts 17:11
************

Pack's Proofs on Peter's Pontificate

Today, I want to talk about Dave Pack's "Ten Proofs Peter Was Not the 'Pope' at Rome".

After completing my review of Herman Hoeh's "True History of the True Church", and finding it remarkably flawed, I wanted to see if the Church of God groups had progressed since 1959. Finding that the COGWA had made several false claims about their roots did not fill me with optimism.
Completely at random, I chose a more recent attempt at documenting the history of Armstrongism. I chose "Where Is The True Church? And Its Incredible History!" (2009 version) by Mr. David Pack, which is currently downloadable in PDF format from the Restored Church of God website.
I wanted to see how the claims had changed over the years, and whether or not the scholarship had improved.

After reading a few pages and checking sources, I can tell you that my pessimism is justified. I am not impressed. Not only had Mr. Pack not improved upon Mr. Hoeh's earlier work, in my opinion things had gotten worse.
Today's post is not going to go over the entire book. I'm still working on that. The booklet is 223 pages! I almost expect it to come in hard-cover form. Rather, today I am just going to sample one small area which is easy to bite off and chew, and which is representative of the rest of the work.

On pages 90-91, Mr. Pack sets out a list of 10 reasons why Peter was not the Pope at Rome. Some of these points try to demonstrate that Peter was never in Rome, and some of them try to demonstrate that even if he was in Rome he still wasn't the first Pope. I want to go over just that section in today's post. Unless otherwise stated, all of my quotes are from those two pages.

What I'm going to do is quote the ten points straight from the booklet, one at a time. Then I'm going to give my summary of what that quote means, just to make it easier to understand. Then I'm going to give my response.

You might say that you don't believe Peter was in Rome, and you certainly don't believe Peter was the first Pope, so what's the problem? I don't necessarily agree with the Catholic Church's claims in this arena either. But that's entirely beside the point.
Whether one agrees with a claim is secondary to whether or not the claim is intellectually honest and well formed. This is fundamental to the pursuit of truth. I can agree that George Washington, the United States' first president, was an important historical figure. But if I believe that because I rely on silly evidences such as "he chopped down a cherry tree and admitted it to his father", an event that never actually happened, then really I'm just a chattering mouth making noises devoid of substance. He is a great historical figure; but not because of silly folk tales. Or, I can disagree that Peter was the first Pope. But if I do that because I rely on empty conspiracy theories and fiction authored by pseudo-scholars, then I'm really just a misinformed gossip and a tale-bearer.
Mr. Pack spends a good deal of time talking about truth in his book. Well, do we really value truth, or are we tickling in the ears - only interested in what upholds our preconceptions?

Let's get started, shall we?

Point #1

"(1) Rome is in Italy. This means that Gentile Italians live there. The apostle Paul was ordained to be the apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter. Paul wrote this to the Gentile Romans: “That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable…” (15:16). He also described himself to the Galatians as having the gospel of the “uncircumcision”— the Gentiles—committed to him (2:7)."

My summary: Peter did not reside in Rome because Rome is Gentile and Paul was sent to the Gentiles.

This is simply not feasible even by Mr. Pack's own standards.
Peter wasn't forbidden to go to the Gentiles. Who was the first Apostle to go to the first Gentile convert? Peter. He was sent to Cornelius.
In many places throughout the book, Mr. Pack makes definite claims that Peter was sent to Israelites and Paul was sent to Gentiles. That is the root claim that point #1 relies upon. However, in many places throughout the book, Mr. Pack tells us where Peter supposedly went during his life. Britain, Babylon, Galatia, Antioch, the regions around the Black Sea, and every other area outside of Palestine that Peter supposedly went to, were also Gentile. Whether or not we believe Peter went to all of those areas (which I do not), that those areas are Gentile is beyond doubt.

 
In order for Mr. Pack to get Peter out of Rome and in to Britain and other areas, he had to fall back on British-Israelism which claims Israelites were there somewhere. (We are supposedly forbidden from knowing exactly where they were.) We won't get into it here, but British-Israelism (aka. Anglo-Israelism) is a blatant lie, whose origin is known, and has been entirely disproven by many things not the least of which is DNA evidence. Truth? No. If Peter and Paul both supposedly went to Britain, then why can't both go to Rome? Well, Jews are Israelites after all. We know from the Bible as well as from history that a large population of Jews and Jewish converts to Christianity were in Rome. Aquila and Priscila were Jews in Rome. Even British-Israelism claims Israelites ended up in Italy.
Therefore, point #1 is simply not feasible.

Ask yourself, if Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles only, and Peter the Apostle to the Israelites only, then why was Peter in Babylon and Paul in the synagogue?

Point #2

"(2) The Emperor Claudius had banished all Jews from Rome in AD 50. Acts 8:1 describes the “great persecution against the Church” and that “they were all scattered abroad” as a result."

My summary: Emperor Claudius banished all Jews from Rome, so there were no Jews for Peter to go to.

Mr. Pack is anticipating the obvious response to point #1. Here is his reason for why Peter could not go to Jews in Rome.
This expulsion most likely happened in 49 AD. This is long before Peter's death. St. Peter supposedly died in 67 AD. Jews were not permanently expelled. This wasn't the first time they were expelled, either; the most recent was under Emperor Tiberius. They always came back. This time there were so many Jews that Claudius was worried of rioting.
Claudius died in 54 AD. The ban could not have lasted beyond then. We know from history that it didn't even last until that point. Either way, the expulsion could not have lasted 5 years.
Rome made no distinction between Christians and Jews until later in the first century. The Christians and Jews knew the difference, but Rome didn't, and that's what counts in 49 AD. If the Jews were expelled, the Christians were also. Hence, why Priscilla and Aquilla - being Jews by heritage but Christian by religion - had left Italy. If any Christians went back to Rome, and we know they did or there would be no epistle to the Romans in 57 AD, then the Jews were also allowed back in.
Therefore, what Mr. Pack is trying to establish - that there were no Jews in Rome for Peter to go to - is simply not tenable.

Ask yourself, does having no Jews in Rome between for the 5 years between 49 and 54 AD mean Peter could not possibly have gone to Rome during the 13 years between 54 and 67 AD?

Point #3

"(3) Peter wrote his first general epistle from the city of “Babylon” (5:13). Many have assumed that this is Rome, when it is actually the Babylon of Mesopotamia. It is interesting to note that historians generally confuse—switch—scriptural references to Babylon by applying those that do apply to Rome as though they apply to Babylon, and vice-versa—in other words, those that do not apply to Rome are assigned Roman designation."

My summary: Peter wrote from literal Babylon, not the figurative Babylon of Rome.

This point is neither here nor there. Peter wrote an epistle from Babylon. So what?
If the claim is "Peter wrote from Babylon, therefore he couldn't be in Rome" then he also wrote from Babylon therefore he couldn't be in Britain or any of the other areas Mr. Pack said he went to either.
If the claim is that "Peter wrote from Babylon, not Rome, because Babylon isn't Rome" then this contradicts far too many of his other doctrines. The entire claim that the Catholic Church is Babylon the Great rests on the assertion that Babylon absolutely is Rome. You can't have it both ways. You can't both insist Babylon is always Rome in Revelation, and insist Babylon never Rome at all so we know it isn't Rome in Peter's epistle.
The only other option is that Mr. Pack means to say that, taken on a case-by-case basis, this one instance Babylon is not symbolic and does not symbolize Rome. OK. Now, where's the proof for that? Mr. Pack gives us nothing but his good word. Well, we know Rome was called "Babylon" in the middle and late first century. So it could have been Rome. But no matter what interpretation you side with, the claim is weak.
Either way, that is really neither here nor there. All this talk about "Peter didn't mean Rome" is nothing but a distraction. Symbolically Rome or literally Babylon, either way the claim is weak. Mr. Pack is trying to demolish the weakest possible evidence and then claim absolute victory. What he cannot do is demolish the strong evidence we have from historians who prove Rome was called Babylon, or the witness of names like Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Ignatius, and etc who say Peter was in Rome. I would have you know, Mr. Pack cites some of the names I just mentioned as reliable source material in other areas of his book. So, are they reliable or aren't they? In one place he says they are reliable. What other conclusion can we reach other than he is saying in this place they are completely unreliable? If he doesn't believe his own sources, then all he ever does is quote mine them; taking what he wants and disregarding the rest. Then what's the value of any of it?
Therefore, this claim is beyond weak and contradicts his own evidence in other areas of the book.

Ask yourself, is it good to quote sources as reliable for one thing, then ignore those same sources in other things?

Point #4

"(4) Paul told the Romans, “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation” (15:20). Paul’s assertion would make no sense had Peter been resident at Rome, having established this congregation."

My summary: Paul only preached where no one else had.

This point is demonstrably false.
Paul strove to preach in areas where Christ was unknown; this much is clear. However, this doesn't by any means indicate that he always preached where Christ was unknown and never preached where Christ was known.
On pages 60-64, Mr. Pack claims Paul preached in Britain, along with Peter, James, Simon the Zealot, Joseph of Arimathea, and Aristobulus. Now, he uses some pretty shaky sources to make this claim. I'm not concerned about the accuracy of the claim at this point, only that he made the claim. The question is, how can Mr. Pack both claim that all of these people were in Britain, and claim that Paul never preached where others preached first? At some point he's going to have to become consistent.
What's more, it is undeniable that Paul did preach in Rome. It is clear that Priscilla and Aquilla were Christians before they met Paul, and they had only met Paul because they were expelled from Rome for being of Jewish descent. Someone had preached Christ in Rome long before Paul got there. Paul did not plant the first congregation at Rome, even though all the oldest records include him as one of the founders. The reason he mentioned he didn't like building on another man's foundation was because he felt guilty he was about to visit and do exactly that! He also built on someone else's foundation in Damascus after he was first converted (ACT. 9: 19-22), and then in Jerusalem (ACT. 9: 28-29), and again in Antioch (ACT. 11: 19-26). Acts 11: 19 tells us Christians were scattered to Phoenicia and Cyprus where they preached; Paul went to both of these places to preach (ACT. 13: 4-5; 15: 3).
Therefore, this claim is demonstrably false as well as inconsistent.

Ask yourself, is it just to use something as evidence if that thing is shown to be false?

Point #5

"(5) Then, in light of the previous point, why would Paul offer the following salutation to the Roman congregation, also if Peter had been there for years?: “For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end that you may be established” (1:11). Think how insulting this expression would have been to “Pope Peter,” had he been in Rome."

My summary: Paul wanted to impart a spiritual gift to the Romans to establish them, so that means Peter did not impart a spiritual gift.

Note that point #5 relies on point #4. Point #4 is false. Therefore point #5 builds on a false premise. As Herbert W Armstrong was fond of saying, if the starting point is false then the conclusions will be false.
Can one person impart a spiritual gift after someone else already has? Think about this a moment. Mr. Pack's book is meant to impart a spiritual gift to establish you. Therefore, by his own reasoning, this book is an insult to all of the others in his church and everyone who came before him. So we should learn the lesson -- don't impart any spiritual gifts.
I jest, because the claim is ridiculous on its face.
Paul was writing to whom? No one? No. He was writing to a congregation. Was this a non-congregation, un-established and void? No. Let's ask Romans 1: 8 if they were un-established: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world". The what? The un-established church, where no one had yet preached, was so faithful they were spoken of throughout the world. It's a miracle!!
This claim depends on there being no one in Rome, but if there was no one in Rome then there could be no epistle to the church in Rome. Luckily, there were many Jews in Rome (in Acts 28, Paul preaches to them) and Christians of both Jewish and Gentile background (in Romans, Paul writes to both). I was certain point #1 said that never happened.

Therefore, this point, as with the previous point upon which it relies, is demonstrably false.

Point #6

"(6) Paul concludes the Roman letter in chapter 16 with separate greetings to 30 different people in Rome—Mary, Andronicus, Junia—(these last two were probably apostles; Rom. 16:7)—Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles and 23 others— with no reference to the one who was supposedly the Pope, guiding the congregation and the entire New Testament Church from that city. No reasonable person could believe that Paul would so insult his own spiritual superior!"

My summary: Paul never mentions a leader, so there must not have been one.

I thought there was no one in Rome? How do we have no less than 30 Christians if Paul was the first to preach there?
Now, because a thing wasn't mentioned is not proof that it didn't exist. This is basic logic. He's arguing from silence. By this same reasoning, neither the book of Esther nor Song of Songs ever mention God; therefore He must not have been anywhere in the Middle East!
Anyone who reads the New Testament will know that one of the primary concerns of the Apostles was establishing Elders. But Mr. Pack's claim is that Paul established the church in Rome. This only makes things worse for his claim as Paul would never establish a church without appointing an Elder (ACT. 14: 3; TIT. 1: 5). How could there be a world-renowned group, thirty of whom Paul greets by name, but there is no church and no Elder? It's a nonsensical claim to make.
Therefore this claim is not tenable.

Ask yourself, if something is not mentioned does that prove it is not there?

Point #7

"(7) Galatians 1:18-19 and 2:7 demonstrate that Peter was based at Jerusalem, from where he periodically traveled to places like Bithynia, Northern Galatia and Babylon, and other places where Israelites (also see #9) had migrated, from AD 38 to AD 49—the dates of these events described in Galatians."

My summary: Galatians 1: 18-19 and 2: 7 demonstrates that Peter was based in Jerusalem from 38-49 AD, so he couldn't have been based in Rome.

First off, Galatians 1: 18-19 are the the only verses mentioned here that show Peter was based in Jerusalem. Galatians 2: 7 does absolutely nothing for his point.
Second, the Epistle to the Galatians was written around 49 AD, but the timing of Galatians 1: 18-19 is not 38-49 AD at all. The timing of verses 18-19 was more like 35-36 AD.
Those verses are very early on in Paul's ministry, immediately after he became a Christian, before the word was preached to the Gentiles at all, and before Acts 15. Of course Peter was going to be in Jerusalem at that time. Citing these verses does absolutely nothing for his point.
That means nothing he cited does anything for his point.
Mr. Pack, in many places in his booklet, relies on Peter being away from Jerusalem. Remember when Pack insisted Peter was in Babylon? In fact, in Galatians 2: 11-12 Peter is in Antioch, acting like a Gentile, with the Gentiles (I thought point #1 said that never happened). So, Mr. Pack has to contradict himself in order to make this point.
Therefore this point is anachronistic at best, and contradicts his own evidence in other areas of the book.

Ask yourself, if Peter was in one place at the start of his ministry, does that prove he stayed there for the rest of his life?

Point #8

"(8) Luke 22:24 states, “And there was a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.” Here is why this passage is important. This debate took place after Christ, in Matthew 16:17-19, had supposedly designated Peter as the one who would become the first Pope. While not directly involving Rome, this provides its own proof that Christ never conferred, at least from the other apostles’ perspective, the office of “Pope” to Peter."

My summary: The striving over who would be the greatest in Luke 22: 24 happened after Christ designated Peter as the rock in Matthew 16: 17-19. Therefore Peter could not be the Pope.

It's a good point to bring up, except for two incredibly important things:
1) Several times in his book Mr. Pack admits that Peter was the lead Apostle, thus negating this point entirely, and 2) this does absolutely nothing to prove Peter wasn't in Rome.
You might think it odd that Mr. Pack would affirm the Primacy of Peter doctrine. Well, let's review a few quotes:

"As coordinator, Peter traveled to many more areas where the Israelites were located than did any of the other apostles." p.63
"John Replaces Peter. After Peter’s death, John was eventually directed to return to the eastern Mediterranean area to oversee the Church." p.72
"Simon Peter (chief apostle under Christ)" p.74

Just look at those quotes! What you, the reader, should immediately take away from this is that Mr. Pack claims Peter was the Coordinator and Chief Apostle. In other words, Mr. Pack admits the Primacy of Peter doctrine! So, if you, esteemed and astute reader, wanted to hang me for defending the Primacy of Peter doctrine, please hold! I'm not the one defending it. I neither defend it nor deny it; I only write this post to point out Mr. Pack's inconsistencies and the unreliable nature of his claims. He is the one who defends the Primacy of Peter!
Most Armstrongists would find this to be scandalous, but it isn't so odd; Herbert Armstrong did the same. Pack is just copying Armstrong.
This is terribly close to trying to have your cake and eat it too. In one place, his claims rely on the Primacy of Peter, so they negate this point. However, here where it's convenient, his point relies on there being no Primacy of Peter, thus negating his earlier claims.
Therefore, this point is exceedingly weak and contradicts his own evidence in other areas of the book.

Ask yourself, can Peter both be the "chief apostle under Christ" -and- not be the "chief apostle under Christ" at the same time?

Point #9

"(9) This point proves the other side of point 1. Already referenced, notice how Paul, who first describes himself, concludes his statement in Galatians 2:7, with this about Peter: 'But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision [Gentiles] was committed unto me [Paul], as the gospel of the circumcision [Jews and the other tribes of Israel, referenced in #7] was unto Peter…'"

My summary: The Apostles squabbling and Paul being sent to the Gentiles proves that Peter was not over the whole work.

Just like point #5 relied on #4, and both were false, point #9 relies on #8 and both are false.

Were there Jews in Rome? Yes. That is undeniable! Could Peter have gone to convert them? Yes. Pack admits there were, even though he said they had left - which we demonstrated wasn't permanent. Were some converted? Yes. Aquila and Priscilla for two. So, if there were Jews in Rome, then why does Peter being the Apostle to the Jews prevent him from going to the Jews in Rome? Peter wasn't the Apostle to Judea. 

Now, Pack's insistence is going to work against him. If Peter has to go only to Jews (which we know wasn't the case) and if Paul had to only go to Gentiles (which we know wasn't the case) then who converted those Jews in Rome to Christianity?
Therefore, this claim is useless and contradicts his own evidence in other areas of the book.

Point #10

"(10) In II Timothy 4:11, Paul, commonly understood to be writing this epistle from Rome, states, “Only Luke is with me.” Further, in verse 10, he describes how one named Demas had “forsaken” him and gone back to the “world,” with Crescens and Titus having also transferred to other places of duty. None of this makes sense if the “Pope”—Peter—had been present."

My summary: In II Timothy 4: 11 Paul tells Timothy that only Luke was with him. This doesn't make sense if Peter was there.

By that same reasoning, it doesn't make sense if any Christian was in Rome. Either this applies to all, or it only applies to the people Paul specifically mentioned; it cannot be narrowed to just Peter.
If Mr. Pack is correct, and Paul means to say out of all Christians on earth only Luke was with him, then there were no other Christians in Rome. The fatal flaw is, this cannot only refer to Peter. Mr. Pack's "proof" tries to prove too much. Rome wasn't empty, and that's a fact.
Earlier he tries to show that there was no church in Rome, when we can demonstrate there certainly was. Now again he accidentally shows that there was no church in Rome, when we can demonstrate there certainly was.
Obviously, that there were no Christians in Rome was never Paul's point. II Timothy 4: 9-16 are very sad verses. I don't want to distract from the abandonment Paul certainly felt. But that all Christians in Rome had utterly abandoned him and only Luke remained was not his point. He was really only referring to his formerly trusted travelling companions, most of whom he mentioned by name. In one sense, perhaps none of the Christians in Rome stood with Paul either. But even in that sense, it does exceedingly little as evidence for his claim that Peter was not there.

Of all the points, this one is the only one that bears any load at all for his claim. Yet, it bears so little. I would generously call this point "evidence". I would not agree that it is "proof". Given the rest of the points, and the rest of his book, I find this "evidence" unconvincing.

Conclusion

Some of his "proofs" are fallacious; some are moot; most are contradictory; some are demonstrably false. These are supposed to be the pinnacle! The apex! The zenith! These are his ten very best "proofs"! But they are empty.
There is no hope that this list of 10 "Proofs" in any way prove that Peter was not in Rome. They are good to prove ideological bias, shoddy scholarship, Biblical ignorance, and intellectual dishonesty! They have convinced me that he didn't think through what he was saying. But they are not good to prove Peter wasn't in Rome.

As I said at the start, this list is representative of the entire booklet.

Please don't think I write this article to prove Peter was the Pope at Rome. I mean neither to prove nor disprove that. I am merely reviewing Pack here. However, if you want to demonstrate that Peter was not the first Pope, or if you want to demonstrate that he was the first Pope, take my advice and do not rely on "Pack's proofs".

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; ) Acts 17:11
************

There Is No Spoon

In the early days and weeks after I left the Church of God I attended, I experienced horrifying guilt for having promoted that belief system. It is a monumental collapse of reality when the weight of what you have involved yourself in is shown in the light that is God.  

The friends I made in the church had become like family to me. I had begun speaking about their doctrine openly with my now grown child. He had even contacted a minister in his area at my encouragement, and downloaded every sermon on iTunes at my direction. He was relying on his trust in me, and following my lead. He believed me because I was his Mother.

Upon my exit, I felt an overwrought sense of responsibility for dragging the people I loved into all that.

A friend, who was very insecure about the teachings and shy of committing, would come to me for comfort. I would overload her senses with COG doctrines; not aware what I was really doing. I had become one of the deceivers. When I left, I felt keenly the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:13-14.
Later, this same friend confided that her true motive for coming to Sabbath services was to see me.  

Other women I spoke with shared this in common.
Another friend called me, asking if I was leaving “The Church”. “Yes. I’m leaving," I replied anxiously, "I’m sorry for hiding that, and if that has hurt you. It was the only way I could keep myself safe.”

It seems that without my having any idea of it (I was ever plagued by feelings of inadequacy, always striving to be a good example and someone the people could lean on) the other women felt they wanted to be like me. They felt I was the one they wanted to model themselves after. I thought this was the craziest thing I had ever heard!

I make mention of it to point out a few things: that you can fool yourself and others about who you are quite effectively, and to emphasize just how committed I was to the church transforming me.

When I left, I was petrified that God was going to hold me responsible for what I had done, and those "I had ensnared".  I felt their blood on my hands. So, for a while, I was caught in a cycle of pseudo-penance, trying to atone for what I had done, and working to break the chains that enslaved others in every opportunity I saw.

I lost much sleep talking with Church of God followers, studying, and trying to win arguments with current members. It gave me some small sense of relief to know that at least God saw me trying. He could see my guilt, my regret, because I was now soldiering on for grace in Christ! Yes, God was witnessing my conversion!

Was that really true?

No it wasn’t. 

I used those people to hone my skills in defending the lies and false claims that they believed. I wanted them to come out of it, of course, but there was definitely an element of using them to better my degree of penance. If I could just perfect my reasoning, then I can defend the truth, and God can use me to free them! The very fact that I can argue the truth more effectively is proof of how ashamed I am of what I did, and how God is converting me, in a similar fashion as the Apostle Paul.  (Galatians 1:13-14)

Except that one day I realized that penance was not grace.

Freeing them, no matter how unbearable for me, was not my job (Philippians 1:6)! The only thing I could actually do was to proclaim the truth, express the fruits, be a light, and live in the freedom He died so horrifically to give me.

The best things I can do are step out of the way of God's work, and earnestly contend for the faith once delivered. That is the work being wrought in me; trust, faith, and hope in Him, for Him and in all things.

I realized that I was still performing. Trapped doing works to please God. The same coin, only the other side.

I now focus on my own trust issues with God, and my faith. I pray for the people still in Armstrongism, but leave it in God’s hands. He will always do a much better job than I could anyway.

When I rest in Jesus, I have to be both my weakest and strongest. I have to be brutal in my honesty with Him about who and what I really am, and leave myself vulnerable to Him in a way that perfectly speaks to striving.  In doing so, real change can come about.

It's about Him, not me. His perfection, not my inadequacies. His triumph, not my penance. So then I set down those works, and instead walk toward Him; knowing for the first time, "there is no spoon".

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; ) Acts 17:11
************

The Hardness of Our Hearts

Alone. I felt totally alone. 

Sure, technically there was a baby in the room with me. But, contrary to what the fairy tales say, a baby doesn't always fill a raw, gaping hole in your heart. 

The first few weeks of motherhood are rough for many women, and I was no exception - nursing problems, healing stitches and broken sleep. Going from a bustling office to a silent house was the hardest part for me. I felt so isolated. Sure, I didn't really expect my co-workers to check in on me. But what about my brethren? Where were all the women who ooh-ed and ahh-ed with me over tiny pairs of shoes at my baby shower? Who rejoiced that another child would soon be added congregation?

Over time, I realized I was suffering from post-partum depression. My hormones gradually stabilized, and after three months, I finally was able to discuss my feelings with one woman at church without crying.

"I'm so glad to hear that!" she said. "I could tell something was wrong with you."

Her response was unsettling. She knew something was wrong with me and said nothing? For weeks? Unfortunately, she was not the only one. I had the same conversation with about a dozen other women over the next few Sabbaths.

Across town, a Protestant friend of mine was heartbroken when her baby was born with a chromosomal disorder. Her Bible study partners guessed something was wrong when newborn pictures didn't appear on Facebook. They arrived at the hospital within hours to lift her up in prayer and to take some pictures for the baby book. Mom was too shell-shocked to think long-term, but they were not going to let these fleeting newborn moments slip away forever.

The contrast baffled me. Why did these "false Christians" spring into action to support their sister when my brethren in the "true church" ignored a problem they admittedly saw for weeks on end? 

To be fair, there were a handful of women who tried to support me, and I will always be grateful for their efforts. Still, most conversations focused on whether I had tried this or that herb for my milk supply problems. Or, if I couldn't breastfeed, where I might find fresh goat's milk for my baby. Even those kinder hearts who reached out couldn't look beyond determining the "right" thing to do and address the bigger problem - that their sister in Christ was hurting. 

Sisters, I sincerely hope your experiences in the Churches of God have been different from mine. I hope you worship with warm, vibrant women who rejoice with you in good times and who lift you up when you are suffering. If you do, you are blessed, and I am happy for you. But, if you do, I suspect your experience in the splintered, scattered COGs is the exception, not the rule. In contrast, if you feel alone and wonder why, please keep reading.

Few in the COGs claim that Christians are saved by their works. Instead, we mix the New Covenant with bits and pieces of the Sinai Covenant, claiming we can't qualify for the free gift of eternal life if we do not observe certain pre-requisite Hebrew practices. The bad news, ladies, is that if we are either doing or not doing something to maintain our salvation, then our salvation is still dependent upon our works.  And our salvation is not linked to works, according to passages like Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 3:27-30. (A note to all of you who are now waving Romans 3:31 at me - please step back and consider the context. Paul just said we are justified apart from law, and Chapter 4 goes on to discuss Abraham's justification through faith. This post is not meant to be an exegesis of this single verse. Suffice it to say that, logically, verse 31 cannot explicitly contradict the verses that come directly before and after it).

Even if the belief in "pre-requisites" wasn't clearly outlined in COG literature (don't worry, it is!), the works-based focus of our church culture reveals what's in our hearts. Let's consider some of the issues we have allowed to damage relationships and, in some cases, divide churches. White flour vs. wheat flour. Honey vs. sugar. Epidural vs. natural birth (let's not even mention c-sections!). No makeup vs. eyeshadow. Formula vs. breastfeeding. The correct form of church government. Kosher marshmallows. Head coverings during prayer. Yoga. Restaurants on the Sabbath. Need I continue? Please explain to me again how I was not trying to establish my own righteousness?

If we really, truly believe that our physical works have no bearing on our salvation, then why have we been hurting one another and splintering our churches over them for decades?

Hold on just a minute, you say. James taught that works were important. You're right, James discusses works - as fruit of our saving faith, not as a pre-requisite. I'd love to discuss that connection in another post. For now, let's take a look at the works James addresses. Being quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger. Controlling the tongue. Caring for widows and orphans. Not showing favoritism. Loving your neighbor as yourself. Clothing the naked. Feeding the hungry. Being a peacemaker. Praying for your brethren instead of criticizing them. Where are the the Sabbath, Holy Days and food laws? I'm sure they're in there somewhere. Maybe in James 6?

God intended the Sinai Covenant for a specific purpose, nation, geographical location and time period. Trying to intuit how to follow portions of it outside those parameters results in disagreement and division - the fruit that we see in the COGs today. Furthermore, it seems that the unnecessary focus on physical observances takes our focus off the one thing our Savior clearly instructed us to do: love one another.

But wait! Doesn't I John 5:3 say we have to keep the 10 Commandments? By now, you're probably not surprised to hear I believe that the 10 Commandments were the cornerstone of the Sinai Covenant (Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13 and 9:9,11,15), which Paul tells us to reject (Galatians 4:21-31). So what is John talking about? Look back just a few verses to I John 4:21 and you will find your answer: love your brother. If you want more context, start in verse 7. Even the book of James, which works-focused COG ministers tout, supports this conclusion. Or go to the source - John 13:34, where Jesus commanded his disciples to love one another as He loved us. The COGs characterize this view as hollow and simplistic. I ask you, which is harder - to stay out of restaurants for 24 consecutive hours or to show others the same kind of love as the One who died for them?

Notice the contrast in Mark 3:1-6, when Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath. Verse 5 reveals that Jesus was grieved by the hardness of the Pharisees' hearts. They didn't rejoice that a handicapped man was healed. They were angry that He had broken the rules and plotted to destroy Him. Are we much different today? I know I wasn't.

Trying to obey the law didn't change the Israelites' hearts, and it won't change ours, either. The difference is that Israel was commanded to do so and we are not. Our sincere, but misguided, focus on physical works has hardened our hearts. It has created a bumper crop of Marthas, busily working within earshot of our Teacher but tuning out His words.

Sisters, please know I am not throwing stones here. I didn't choose the name Martha because it's so trendy. If I lived in Bethany the day that Jesus stopped in, I would have been in the one in the kitchen, complaining bitterly that my sister wasn't helping me chop dates. It is only through the grace of God that I can see how a lifetime of focusing on the law and my works was hardening my heart. 

I was born a Martha, raised to be a Martha and lived in a sea of Marthas. I will probably always be a Martha at heart, at least until He changes it. But now I am earnestly seeking the better part. And He promises great things to those who seek Him (Matthew 7:7-11). Please join me. You won't regret it.  

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; ) Acts 17:11

************

The Virtuous Woman

In the time I spent indoctrinated by teachings in the Churches of God, there were plenty of articles and sermons on virtuous biblical women.  The oft quoted Proverbs 31 wife was a thing to be reached, an achievement that was bound to garner you a godly husband (works). In contrast, the atmosphere was of women today having become rebellious, rejecting their God given purpose and divine role. Feminism was called a clever ploy by Satan to attack the family, which was always followed by a stern “tsk-tsk” that it was working. Women had been fooled, much as Eve had in the Garden of Eden. “Feminism” was the lie of carefree lifestyles, having no responsibility to the children, home or husband. It was a license for a woman to be selfish, and without the constraints of male leadership, she was wont to do so (as a child in need of discipline).
They willfully ignore the fact that feminism was born out of a world where women were legally abused and considered chattel. Equality was actually about equality, not misandry. In the Churches of God, it was an evil satanic desire to believe in that. As was continually stressed, this displeased God.

Many a sermon told us how women were more easily deceived than men, like our example Eve. It was Eve who was deceived after all, not Adam. This idea was used as proof of the weak and gullible nature of women. God had intentionally equipped us poorly for managing our lives, and we needed to achieve that Proverbs 31 attitude of submission to our husbands, who would take care of us instead.  The elusively meek, quiet, submissive, ever gentle, always happy, never arguing woman who appreciated that her husband was “over” her.

At the last Feast of Tabernacles I attended, there was a Bible study that first Friday night. The topic was family. That seems harmless and lovely, doesn’t it?
I sat there, listening to the gentle introduction about love, unity and all that warm fuzzy stuff. I felt so wistful for what I had always longed for, and could never seem to have. A sole parent, I left my marriage when my child was a toddler to escape abuse. Though I had no choice under the circumstances, it has been a regret of mine that my child had to miss out. I was nostalgic for something I had never known, the sacred beauty found in that commitment of marriage. In that room full of people, I felt alone and deprived.
That would have been enough right there, but this was just the easy introduction to let down my defenses for the real message.

The sermon moved on to juxtaposing the beauty and perfection of “the good old days” of godly families (back during things like slavery, and open woman abuse), to the debauchery and destruction that is today’s family. The minister spoke of “worldly” families, and how the women’s movement altered the fabric of society, simply because we decided we weren’t satisfied to stay at home (being weak, selfish and child-like). He condemned children raised by their mothers alone, as statistical nightmares of drug addiction, alcoholism and criminal endeavors. Additionally, they were often victims to high rates of self-harm, suicide, and homelessness. Having tied this in with feminism, he had effectively blamed women for destroying their own children.

As I sat in that darkened conference room, I held my breath. I was sobbing on the inside, my ability to hide it precarious. The detail he went into about these horrors was more than my heart could stand. Tears silently rolled down my face, and in shame I tried to feign anything other than wiping away tears. I lowered my head, and hid my face behind my hair. I felt so degraded and worthless in that moment, as every single fear a mother could have became sermon fodder.
...I had cursed my child in raising them alone.

The heaviness in my heart grew great so that I could not speak. I had failed God in such a spectacular way; ruining not only my life, but my innocent child’s. God disapproved of the less than virtuous woman I was. That feeling of God’s rejection was agonizing.

I glanced over at my friend sitting next to me and she too had been hiding her tears. She uttered "I feel so bad, I wish I could have done better with my son."

Worst of all, I was feeling very far from God. I was too ashamed to approach Him in prayer (a stumbling block). This has been an ongoing difficulty with me even after having left that system. Too ashamed to approach God, I feel anger, confusion, and eventually a return to His arms of Grace.

Can they ever know the damage that they do when their sermons are about failure of the self, and not victory in Jesus?

The great thing is that I now know, in the very core of my being, that He can handle my issues. He is bigger than all of them - my life, my weakness, and my lack. God is the one who is faithful, and it is because of this that I remain under His grace. Not my faithfulness, but His! Just like I wouldn't let my child go, He does not let His children go.
I see now that a marriage filled with love and grace is one of the greatest gifts that God has given to us. The beauty of two genuine hearts choosing to love each other with all their human foibles is a greater love, not one based on assimilation and conformity to a set of rules and laws. We cannot truly love if we are living in a false pretense of legalistic performance. We love because He first loved us, and we were sinners!

In the riches of the New Covenant, I have also come to understand just how much more wonderful God thinks of women, regardless of the role they espouse.
Upon the resurrection of Jesus, it was not one but two women (witnesses!) that Jesus chose to appear to first. It was a woman who was given the honor of washing the feet of God prior to His giving life for His beloved children, and a woman that Jesus publicly defended when she had been dragged into His presence, accused of adultery. He spoke to a woman at the well, and not just any woman, but a Samaritan woman! Greatest of all (even though Mary was taboo to speak about) God entered the world through the womb of a woman. Without a woman, we would not have a Savior.
Other important events took place throughout the Bible, such as Rahab the Harlot and Esther the Queen. Clear messages to us on the true value of a woman! It is not in her ability to suitably submit to her husband, or keep her children in line through Sabbath services, or wear the perfect length of hair or dress or skirt. It is not in what she does, but who she is – God’s redeemed daughter.

Can you see the healing that comes when the message is about victory in Jesus, and not failure of the self?

God loves you, women in the Churches of God. Are you weary of conforming to the Churches of God standard of “most approved women”? Never doing quite enough, never deferring well enough, and never appreciating the “man God sent to lead you”. Remember dear woman, that there is only one mediator between us and God, and that is Jesus Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. We are all one in the Lord. Take comfort that God, who knows the very hairs on your head, also knows the very personality He endowed you with. Let the love of the Holy Spirit lead you in everything. When we let the Holy Spirit lead us through His love, we are exactly what He intends us to be - women! Strong, resilient, faithful, loyal, kind, caring, loving, and the expression of the fruits of the Spirit. We are no longer failures, but victors in Jesus Christ! Let no one deceive you regarding God’s gifts to you (Acts 2:17). You have a mind and heart of great strength, able to contribute your God given intelligence and compassion in ways that should not be silent. Let’s rejoice in the freedom that God has given.

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; ) Acts 17:11
************