Sunday, May 18, 2025

Shocking COG News Out Of Romania!

The Worldwide Church of God site

Europe and especially Romania are trembling in their shoes right now after they discovered a "WCG member" visited their countries. Samuel Kitchen has been on a European/Middle East tour spreading his message about Aaron Dean, the revival of the Worldwide Church of God, and the two witless witnesses he predicts will soon be walking the streets of Jerusalem proclaiming the words of Herbert Armstrong.

Who will those witnesses be?
 
Samuel and Tim Kitchen?
Aaron Dean and Samuel Kitchen?
Bob Thiel and Aaron Dean?
Dave Pack and Gerald Flurry?
Aaron Dean and Joe Tkach Jr?
Dennis Diehl and Gary Leonard?

Inquiring minds want to know!



 



Dave Pack's Common Con


 

David C. Pack’s Common Con

“Common” is a high-pressure financial doctrine that Pastor General David C. Pack of The Restored Church of God concocted that coerces members into “selling all that you have” based on his perpetual misunderstanding of dozens of New Testament verses.

David C. Pack first seeded this concept during the “Clarion Call—The Time is Now” sermon on November 3, 2007. It later budded on July 9, 2011, beginning the four-part sermon series, “Christ’s Sayings—One Great Theme.”

Common is taught as a direct command from God, weighted with eternal consequences for disobedience. This financial teaching is exclusive to The Restored Church of God because all the other weak, fake churches were not allowed to discover this amazing, game-changing Bible secret.

David C. Pack vacillates over whether it is required for salvation with the Lake of Fire being a potential outcome, or if members will just miss out on doing God's end-time Work as “the first who go last,” thus surrendering potential eternal rewards. It is better for brethren to just pay and “play it safe.”

There is no mention of the Common Doctrine on the public rcg.org website, with good reason. New members are enticed to join with only a fractional understanding of what The Restored Church of God actually teaches financially and prophetically. You will not find this in a World to Come, new people.

If God’s commands to observe the Sabbath and attend the Holy Days can be easily found on rcg.org, and Common is also a command of God, why does David C. Pack hide this information from public view?

Because he knows it would reveal a spirit of greed and manipulation veiled as righteous theology that saturates his 501(c)(3) nonprofit religious organization. For current members invited behind the iron curtain of Member Services, there are tons of resources explaining why they need to pay Common, and they need to pay it now.

Brethren are subjected to an initial eight hours of focused sermons, followed by mentions of Common for the rest of RCG’s future. The most recent Common-centric sermon was “The Greatest Untold Story! (Part 536)” on September 18, 2024. For the brave of heart, you can follow along with my timestamped notes.

The “sell all that you have” doctrine is David C. Pack's Common Con, which is another biblical fraud perpetuated by The Restored Church of God.



Where is Common in the Bible?

Enabled with spectacularly world-class piss-poor reading comprehension skills, motivated by a simple lust for mammon, and combined with “because I say so” theology, David C. Pack’s Common Con has two central verses.

Luke 18:22
Now when Jesus heard these things, He said unto him, Yet lack you one thing: sell all that you have, and distribute unto the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me.

Acts 2:44-45
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Dave spent hours explaining away these verses and many others by pressing them through the twisted Play-Doh shape of his fraudulent thinking: RCG is the poor. RCG has need. Presto chango. The solution is magic, folks. Get that money.

Notice that the certain ruler in Luke 18 had to deny his passion for wealth BEFORE walking with Jesus Christ. They were not walking halfway to the next town when he was told, “Hey, now that you’ve joined us, we need your money.” No, that is David C. Pack’s way.

Careful reading counters the Common Con. Humor me for one more example of how easy it is to disprove Common for those who activate their critical thinking.

Act 4:34-35
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Common was distributed to the BRETHREN who needed it. To each other. If David C. Pack were honest about Common, the financially struggling brethren in the church would not need to fill out invasive forms for third tithe assistance or a loan. They would receive Common.

Former member Jessica Brown explained this in detail to Dawn Blue in Part 8 of her series on WCTV in Wadsworth, Ohio.

The poor in the church received Common when it was first founded. It was not for David C. Pack’s 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization established in 1999 as an offshoot of The Global Church of God, so he could build a Headquarters Campus for defunct prophetic reasons. Trees and horses do not preach the Gospel.

2 Peter 2:3  
And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you.

David C. Pack’s personal opinions can be dissolved with careful reading and critical thinking.



Obeying Common Has Dire Consequences

Since 2011, David C. Pack regularly re-twisted the Common knife with smooth, shouty words to keep it in our collective conscience.

As a new member of The Restored Church of God in 2012, I was filled with a renewed “first love,” and feeling privileged to have found God’s Church after attending the Laodicean United Church of God for three years. I eagerly cashed out my retirement accounts and sold some stocks.

I foolishly allowed religious euphoria to override my logic. After all, I was personally chosen by God and placed into His One True Church, and called at the eleventh hour to be trained at His Headquarters to assist His Work at the culmination of His 6,000-year plan. I refused to be Lot’s wife. It was the opportunity of a lifetime, and giving tens of thousands of dollars to RCG was a small price to pay. At the time.

I was told I was one of the very few “church Navy Seals” who would be directly responsible for teaching billions of people Bible truths once God’s plan came to fruition through the guidance of His assigned leaders, with David C. Pack leading the charge. The new Common-funded World Headquarters Campus would become the focus of world attention, shifting the epicenter of God’s Work from Jerusalem, Israel, to Wadsworth, Ohio.

Epic fail.

Like many in RCG, my blind religious intoxication overpowered my critical thinking. Those poor financial decisions have lifelong repercussions. Thankfully, in my heart, I gave my money to God. Not to David C. Pack. That is why I hold no bitterness about it.

After you leave and your heads get screwed back on straight, it is incredible what you can see.

Current and former members of The Restored Church of God suffer TODAY because they obeyed David C. Pack's Common Con. But David C. Pack and his enablers at Headquarters are laughing all the way to the bank now that the Campus is debt-free. Well, corporately debt-free.

Twenty-three Headquarters congregation members are now enjoying the $3.1 million in asset liabilities that RCG once held, so it can move forward, quietly preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Two of those new owners, who are paying their mortgages with the employment raises David C. Pack gave them, are widows. David C. Pack said, “Get that money!” from widows and dead members because he sees them as viable revenue streams and has no conscience about extracting their financial resources.

Adherence to the Common doctrine has damaged families, marriages, and businesses. It distresses members who wrestle with the mental strain of putting themselves in financial peril for the sake of more gardens on the Headquarters Campus.

I already reported on the heartbreaking account of Manon Chaisson, who sold her children's winter clothes to give the money to The Restored Church of God because Jesus Christ was about to return. Well, Jesus Christ did not come, but winter sure did. She later got kicked out of RCG for “misspending third tithe assistance.” She was a lovely lady, and her daughters were delightful. Just before Manon died of cancer, a sympathetic field minister lobbied Headquarters and got her reinstated.

David C. Pack has counseled members to get reverse mortgages, use their credit cards, apply for bank loans, and divorce their unbelieving spouses to “get their half.”

Just as any loving shepherd who cares for his sheep would do.

The most tragic realization about Common is that some members of The Restored Church of God know David C. Pack is a blaspheming, hypocritical false prophet, false apostle, and biblical fraud. Still, they continue to follow him and pay him to lie to them anyway.



Common Creativity

The Headquarters Enablers and Field Mollusks are happy to assist the faithfully naïve in parting with their personal assets. Helpful resources are available to invited members to grace them with understanding the consequences and rationale of Common.

Two private RCG articles supply deep dives into doctrinal purity. The 10-page Those Who Forsook Alland the 24-page Paying One Portion of Christ’s Price" are eye-opening bangers.

Starting on page 16, the “Ways to Give” section offers brethren creative ideas for how they can willfully bleed more money to feed RCG’s insatiable appetites.

Your Home: If you built up a significant equity in your home, banks will usually permit you to take out a loan against existing equity. This is called a home-equity loan. For those whose home is owned outright, another option is a reverse mortgage, which turns a home’s equity into an income stream.

Other Real Estate: If you have more than one home, ask yourself, “Do I really need the other(s)?” The answer is virtually always “no.” The same applies if you own more than one piece of land.

Investments: Some have their money sitting in various investments, for example, stocks (including employee stock ownership plans), bonds, term deposits, gold and silver. Would you not rather earn a larger return on your investment by putting some of those funds into the Work—and thus show God where your heart is (Matt. 6:21)?

Retirement Plans: Some enter the “golden years” with significant sums in retirement plans. As we know, retiring is not something able-bodied Christians do. Thus, these funds can help the Work surge forward!

Inheritances: If you have an inheritance coming, perhaps from a grandparent, parent, aunt, uncle, cousin or friend, all the principles regarding Common discussed in this article, and in Mr. Pack’s sermons, come to bear.

Wills: Some people have told Headquarters that when they die, certain assets will go to the Work of God. In some cases (this has been happening for decades), they named the Church in their will and sent us a copy. The challenge facing the Work is that it needs funding today, not years from now. In addition, wills can take a long time to settle, especially if tied up in legal matters. It shows much more faith in God to send the funds now rather than later.

Collector’s Items: Over the years, some have acquired valuable collections through hobbies, inheritances, or by just being in the right place at the right time. These include art, antiques, classic cars, ornaments, gems, sports memorabilia, and other collector’s items. If this is you, do you need these things? Or could you sell them and donate most or all of the proceeds?

Old Belongings: Some people are “packrats”—they keep everything they have ever owned. Over the years they have accumulated old clothes, furniture and other items they no longer use, which sit gathering dust. If you have things you no longer need, a sale is a great way to raise funds.

Brethren in the Restored Church of God allow themselves to be conditioned into believing a false idea based on how often and how much of it is taught. This is called illusory truth and is the core of the Common Con despite what David C. Pack says.



Coercion or Undue Influence?

Can the “sell all that you have” Common doctrine be considered coercion, or is it undue influence?

Merriam-Webster “coerce”
1: to compel to an act or choice; 2: to achieve by force or threat; 3: to restrain or dominate by force

Merriam-Webster “undue influence”
improper influence that deprives a person of freedom of choice or substitutes another's choice or desire for the person's own. Compare: coercion, duress, necessity

The legal definitions and implications are what Carl Houk and the enablers at Headquarters should be more concerned about whether a person is giving Common now or leaving it in their will.

Investopedia
“Undue influence occurs when an individual is able to persuade another's decisions due to the relationship between the two parties. Often, one of the parties is in a position of power over the other due to elevated status, higher education, or emotional ties. The more powerful individual uses this advantage to coerce the other individual into making decisions that might not be in their long-term best interest.

Legalmatch Undue Influence
“…undue influence is an equitable doctrine that involves one party taking advantage of another more vulnerable party for financial gain. ...In contract law, when one party of a contract (the “wrongdoer”) exerts power over another party (the “victim”) to the extent that the free will of the other party is called into question, courts may declare the contract to be unenforceable and voidable by the victim party...”

Legalmatch Contract Coercion
“Coercion in the law of contracts is the act of using force or intimidation to induce someone to enter into a contract. This can occur when one party to the contract uses threats, violence, or other forms of coercion to force the other party to agree to the terms of the contract.
 Contract coercion is generally considered to be a form of duress… If a party to a contract can prove that they were coerced into entering into the contract, the contract may be deemed void or unenforceable.

So, does David C. Pack’s Common Doctrine teaching approach utilize coercion or undue influence?

David C. Pack’s Common is Both

Undue Influence: David C. Pack claims to hold God's direct authority as an apostle, and members are compelled to agree and obey his teachings or are ejected from God's church and excluded from participating in God’s plan for salvation.

Coercion: David C. Pack threatens members with the risk of death, torture, or loss of eternal rewards when they withhold Common.

The fear of eternal death or suffering torture in the Tribulation can be strong motivators for RCG brethren when they consider what they can pay now or what they can leave behind after they die. RCG's official position is relatively simple: Pay us your Common, or it could be the Lake of Fire for you.

It is probably too late for Mario Furtado’s sister to contest the $700,000 he left to Carl Houk of The Restored Church of God. However, for other family members in similar circumstances, you can file an “undue influence” lawsuit with the many law firms available to assist you.

AllLaw: What Constitutes Undue Influence

A relative who suspects undue influence must contest the will in probate court after the will-maker's death. Laws vary from state to state, but generally, to win a lawsuit charging that a will was written under undue influence, the person bringing the lawsuit must usually prove that:

•  The will left property in a way that was not what would be expected—in other words, close family members did not inherit.
•  There was a "confidential relationship" between the will-maker and the person who exerted influence.
•  The will-maker was susceptible to undue influence. (Often, allegations of undue influence go hand in hand with charges that the person lacked the mental capacity to make a valid will.)
•  The influencer took advantage of the will-maker and benefited from the will through improper means.



Too Much, Too Late

When I resigned from RCG in March 2021, I had already given too much, and it was too late to do anything about it. But it might not be too late for some of you reading this. New members and prospective members, please take heed and exercise wisdom.

Many who obeyed the Common doctrine while attending the Restored Church of God are still reeling from the adverse long-term effects and the challenges of rehabilitating financial security. Rebuilding surrendered retirement accounts takes time. Saving enough to invest in property and stocks takes time. Healing from the spiritual wounds caused by David C. Pack and his enablers inside The Restored Church of God takes time.

But it can and IS being done.

People who leave RCG behind always do better. It is not an easy process at first, but even the field minister who recently resigned will discover that life goes on and it is much better without David C. Pack.

Those who voted with their feet that David C. Pack is a false prophet, false apostle, and false teacher eventually find comfort, peace, and clarity. The devil is not the one to greet us. Reason, stability, and sanity do.

Pastor General David C. Pack is a man operating without accountability. Without conscience. Without consequence. He will continue to syphon money out of anyone foolish enough to let him.

The Campus debt may be gone, but the Common Con is not.


Marc Cebrian

The Epistemological Conditions for Salvation

 

The Transmission of Knowledge (Fair Use)

 

The Epistemological Conditions for Salvation

By Scout

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32

“The Bible simply cannot be read like any other book.  It is a mystery because it is a coded book.”  

HWA, MOA, p. 5


Epistemology is the study of all aspects of knowledge.  The question I wish to pose here is whether some requisite level of knowledge of orthodox Christian dogmatics, among other graces, is required for salvation to happen.  A case in point is the Thief on the Cross. 

 The Thief was a member of the Elect, called and chosen from the foundation of the Cosmos (Ephesians 1:4), had very little knowledge of theology that we know of, yet at the moment of death he expressed belief in Jesus (Luke 23:42).  On the other hand, his knowledge was acquired under circumstances more intense than what we can conceive of.  He shared in the passion of Jesus.  It is fair to say that the Thief had great trust but not much knowledge.  At the other end of the spectrum from the Thief, there are people who believe that the correct knowledge of doctrine is extraordinarily important for salvation, to the point of being Gnostic.  Gnostics believed that “the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the hidden divinity, attained via mystical or esoteric insight (Wikipedia).” But, in spite of the varied issues concerning knowledge, I believe there is an epistemological requirement for salvation.

Angular Trajectory

What if someone read the Bible, misunderstood it, and was 180 degrees out in belief from what it actually said?  Is it plausible that a person with this state of knowledge could be classed as a Christian, and could we expect that person to receive salvation?  I don’t think we can reasonably expect that.  What if the person were not 180 degrees out but was instead 90 degrees out?  Would that be enough salvific knowledge?   How about 5 degrees out?   Most of us could only dream of being just 5 degrees out. 

Let me add that in my little analogy above, that zero degrees out is perfect understanding, and I believe such a state of knowledge may exist, but I don’t believe we as humans will ever attain it in this lifetime.  Our salvation is in faith and not in certainty.  So, for each of us, our departure from perfect knowledge is some angular measure greater than zero.  I am not concerned about the unattainable perfect state of knowledge but about what degree of knowledge is required for salvation. 

The reason why I know none of us have perfect Biblical knowledge, not even HWA, is because Paul, one of the great Apostles, said that we see through a glass darkly and he did not exempt himself or anyone else from this limitation.  But we need to think about his statement a little more.  While Paul attests that there are things we just do not understand and will not in this lifetime, there are things that we do understand.  We do see something on the other side of the “glass.”  The glass is not opaque.  There is an essential body of knowledge, though partial, that can be understood and applied.

Jesus also said that the elect would not be deceived (Matt. 24:24).  This means that those elected to salvation during this age would have tenacious command of a certain body of knowledge.  And even a tsunami of false prophets could not dislodge that body of knowledge from the grasp of the elect.   So, there is a body of knowledge, bestowed in grace, that is associated with election to salvation. The act of knowledge acquisition itself may be classed with works as opposed to faith, but the actual and effective comprehension of salvific knowledge is a miraculous act of grace. 

Knowledge Leading to Salvation?

Now the waters get choppy.  What is that body of knowledge?  The Thief on the Cross is nowhere characterized as having been a Christian who had heard the preaching of Jesus sometime before misfortune befell him.  This makes it seem as if the knowledge level for salvation is indeed low.  On the other hand, Paul upbraids the Galatians for being taken in by the Circumcision Party on the nuanced topic of the Law of Moses as a path to salvation.  Paul is expecting the Galatians to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of the complex topic of faith versus works. 

And, of course, centuries later, we find the church engaging with very complex topics which seem to me to be conjectural.  Michael Servetus was a famous scientist in the Sixteenth Century.  But he did not believe in the Nicene formulation of the Trinity, along with some other unorthodox beliefs.  So, he was denounced by John Calvin and was burned alive on a stack of his own books in Geneva in 1553 by the city council. Precious Calvin did have the magnanimity to ask that Servetus be beheaded instead of burnt at the stake.  (Sorry, I think Calvin was a blatant heretic.) So, the specter of correct knowledge was turned into a devouring monster. 

Armstrongism cornered the market on salvific knowledge.  Armstrongists church history claims that salvific knowledge went underground eighteen and a half centuries ago and only re-emerged through HWA at the end-time. So, salvific knowledge is inaccessible except through HWA’s little booklet theology.  This essentially invalidates all of mainstream Christianity as a source of saving knowledge.   This special knowledge is solely an Armstrongist asset that can be obtained only through fealty to their denomination.  While this view seems like an odd backwater religion, in fact, it is quite public.  I got this from Google AI:

“Herbert W. Armstrong believed that he was God's messenger who restored the original truth of the Bible, which he claimed traditional Christianity had misinterpreted since the first century. He positioned himself as the only source of understanding the true gospel, stating that God had revealed the answers to him in the "end time". He used the Bible as a "coded book" that was only deciphered by him.”

So, there are many cases that we can look at that seem to prescribe different levels of salvific knowledge.  Creeds, I think, were an attempt to identify a slice of knowledge that is essential to salvation.  But in the final analysis, my argument fades to ambiguity.  I believe there is some knowledge that you must believe in as a Christian, but I don’t know what it is.  I could make a conjectural list, but my list is going to be different from the lists of others.  But, perhaps, there is a consensus to be found here.  I am prepared to accept the fact that a consensus list, the intersection of different views, might be smaller than I think.  

Summation

God is the judge.  Maybe salvific knowledge is different for different people living in different times and places.  Maybe it is the growth in knowledge and not some fixed level.  Maybe there are some genuine Christians stuck in Armstrongist denominations, seeing things through a glass way more darkly than most, but still adjudged to be Christians.  Maybe knowledge is a test of character – those who are proud of their special knowledge will trip over their pride.  What I do not believe is that the Bible, the book of salvation, is a coded book that was misunderstood for eighteen and a half centuries, and now only HWA can decode it for you.  The death of Michael Servetus was a tragedy, and Calvinists should perform liturgies of penance each Sunday for his death. Finally, I still believe there is a level of knowledge required for salvation.   While I can blithely make the simple assertion, I must admit that what that body of knowledge is remains elusive.