THE FALSE CHURCH - A WARNING:
The introduction is followed up by a Bible Study on the subject
Click Here For, "The Evil Church"
Click Here For, The Evil Church Part 2
Introduction
The Philadelphia Church of God, headquartered in Edmond, Oklahoma, presents itself as the one faithful continuation of God’s true Church. It claims exclusive spiritual authority and teaches that loyalty to its leadership and organization is inseparable from loyalty to God.
This Bible study examines one of the most damaging results of that teaching: the use of Scripture to justify disfellowshipping, compulsory shunning, and the separation of families.
Passages such as 2 Thessalonians 3:6–15, Matthew 10:34–38, and Luke 14:26 are taken beyond their context and applied as though God commands members to cut off parents, children, siblings, and former members who no longer submit to the organization.
But these passages do not give a religious organization unlimited authority to divide families.
Paul addressed particular conduct—idleness, irresponsibility, and meddling—and specifically commanded believers:
“Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”
— 2 Thessalonians 3:15
Likewise, Yeshua warned that following Him could result in opposition from one’s family. He did not command His disciples—or a church hierarchy—to create that division.
There is a vital difference between suffering division because we faithfully follow Yeshua and deliberately dividing a family because an organization demands it.
Yeshua said:
“Come unto me.”
— Matthew 11:28
He did not say, “Submit unconditionally to a human organization—or lose your family.”
This study will examine these passages in their full context and demonstrate how Scripture can be transformed from a source of truth and restoration into an instrument of fear, isolation, and organizational control.
A Serious Warning
Anyone who comes into contact with the Philadelphia Church of God should proceed with great caution.
Do not be persuaded merely by confident preaching, impressive publications, biblical terminology, claims of special revelation, or declarations that this is “Yahweh’s only true Church.” Every doctrine—and every demand for obedience—must be tested carefully against the complete Word of Yahweh.
Watch for these warning signs:
Claims that one organization or leader possesses exclusive access to spiritual truth.
Teaching that loyalty to the organization is equivalent to loyalty to Yahweh.
Suggestions that questioning a minister is rebellion against Yahweh.
Pressure to accept the organization’s interpretation without examining the full biblical context.
Attempts to control whom members may visit, speak with, marry, or consider friends.
Instructions to avoid former members or people belonging to other congregations.
Pressure to sever contact with parents, children, siblings, or other relatives.
Labeling those who leave as rebellious, deceived, bitter, dangerous, or “Laodicean.”
Using fear of the Tribulation, loss of salvation, or loss of Yahweh’s protection to compel obedience.
Treating sincere questions as evidence of a wrong attitude.
Making members feel guilty for showing normal affection toward excluded relatives.
Teaching that leaving the organization means leaving Yahweh.
Placing the words of a human leader on the same practical level as Scripture.
Healthy spiritual leadership does not demand unquestioning loyalty. It does not isolate people from those who love them. It does not require parents to abandon their children or children to reject their parents. It does not frighten members into submission by claiming that disagreement with a minister is disagreement with Yahweh.
A faithful teacher points people toward Yahweh and Yeshua—not toward himself or an institution.
Before attending, donating money, accepting literature, beginning counseling, or agreeing to baptism, carefully investigate the organization’s teachings concerning government, disfellowshipping, former members, family contact, and obedience to ministers.
Ask direct questions:
What happens if I disagree with a minister?
Am I free to examine teachings using independent biblical and historical sources?
May I maintain contact with relatives who leave the organization?
Would I ever be commanded to stop speaking to my children or parents?
Does the organization teach that salvation or protection depends upon remaining under its authority?
Can leaders be openly questioned and held accountable when they are wrong?
Is loyalty ultimately directed toward Yeshua—or toward the organization and its human leadership?
Do not surrender your conscience, your judgment, or your family relationships to any religious organization.
Yeshua warned about leaders who exercise authority by dominating others:
“Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them… But it shall not be so among you.”
— Matthew 20:25–26
The people of Yahweh are instructed to prove all things, hold fast to what is good, and search the Scriptures. Truth does not fear careful examination. A sound teaching does not need intimidation, isolation, or threats to preserve it.
If an organization tells you that following Yeshua requires unquestioning submission to its human leadership—or that you must abandon your family to prove your loyalty—stop and examine that demand in the light of the entire Bible.
Yeshua may have warned that truth would sometimes divide families, but He never authorized a religious hierarchy to manufacture that division for the sake of organizational control.
--------------------------
Here is the Bible Study on the subject:
The Philadelphia Church of God in Edmond Oklahoma uses the meaning of “withdraw yourself from every brother that walks disorderly” in 2 Thes. 3:6 and “note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed” in 2 Thes. 3:14 is MISUSED. It has been taken out of context to justify casting out a non-compliant members.
Here is the true meaning of this Scripture and why the Philadelphia church of God is wrong.
Here is a strong contextual case that 2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 3:14 are being stretched far beyond Paul's actual subject when they are used as a blanket justification for cutting off family members or treating anyone outside a particular church organization as “disfellowshipped.”
I checked the actual passage in context, as well as material documenting how Gerald Flurry/PCG has applied these verses.
1. Start with the context—not verse 6 by itself
The crucial point is that Paul does not introduce a general rule saying:
“Anyone who does not comply with the church leadership must be avoided.”
He identifies a specific behavioral problem.
Look at the progression:
2 Thessalonians 3:6
“Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received from us.”
Then Paul immediately explains what he means by “disorderly”:
Verse 7
Paul says the Thessalonians know how they ought to follow the apostles' example.
Verse 8
Paul reminds them that the apostles worked for their own support rather than becoming a burden on the congregation.
Verse 10
“If any would not work, neither should he eat.”
Then comes the critical definition:
Verse 11
“For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.”
And Paul gives the remedy:
Verse 12
“Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.”
This is extraordinarily important.
Paul himself tells us what the “disorderly” conduct consisted of:
They weren't working. They were meddling in other people's affairs. They were living disorderly lives.
The Greek word translated “disorderly” is ataktōs, a term associated with being out of order or behaving improperly, and verse 11 specifically identifies the behavior involved: “working not at all, but are busybodies.”
A Cambridge commentary likewise observes that the problem involved people refusing to work, becoming busybodies, and meddling in the affairs of others.
So we have to ask a very simple exegetical question:
Where in 2 Thessalonians 3 does Paul redefine “disorderly” as “someone who leaves our church organization”?
He doesn't.
Where does Paul say “disorderly” means “someone who disagrees with our minister”?
He doesn't.
Where does Paul say that members of another church organization are automatically “disorderly”?
He doesn't.
2. Verse 14 cannot be separated from verses 6–13
This is where the PCG application becomes particularly problematic.
Paul says:
“And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.”
If you isolate verse 14, it can sound like:
“If somebody doesn't obey what we say, cut them off.”
But that's not what Paul is saying.
What “our word by this epistle” refers to must be determined by what Paul has actually commanded in the epistle.
And what has Paul commanded?
- Stop living disorderly.
- Work.
- Don't be idle.
- Don't be a burden on others.
- Don't meddle in other people's affairs.
- Work quietly.
- Eat your own bread.
- Don't become weary in doing good.
Then, if someone refuses to obey those instructions, the congregation is to take disciplinary action.
The Cambridge commentary specifically recognizes this connection: verse 14 returns to the same people who have refused Paul's instructions concerning their disorderly conduct.
So the passage is not:
“Obey the church hierarchy or lose your family.”
It is:
“If a person persists in the disorderly behavior Paul has just described, after receiving correction, don't continue normal fellowship with that person.”
That's a radically different proposition.
3. And verse 15 is absolutely essential
PCG's interpretation cannot be fairly evaluated without including the very next verse.
2 Thessalonians 3:15:
“Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”
Think about what Paul just said.
Verse 14:
Have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
Verse 15:
Don't regard him as an enemy.
Admonish him as a brother.
That places a fundamental limitation on the discipline.
The purpose is correction, not destruction of the relationship.
The objective is that the person becomes ashamed of the wrong behavior and changes.
It is corrective discipline—not a declaration that the person has become an enemy.
4. Compare Paul's treatment with the PCG “Laodicean” application
This is where there is particularly strong evidence against this false teaching.
In a December 10, 2005 Pastor General's Report, Gerald Flurry explicitly invoked 2 Thessalonians 3:6 in discussing PCG's policy toward people he regarded as Laodiceans.
The document says:
“Certainly all the Laodicean groups are walking disorderly.”
It then applies the passage by saying those groups should be regarded as disfellowshipped and that PCG members should not fellowship with them—even going to restaurants with them.
That is a much broader definition of “disorderly” than Paul gives in 2 Thessalonians 3.
Paul says:
“working not at all, but are busybodies.”
Flurry's application effectively becomes:
“They aren't following our church, therefore they are walking disorderly.”
Those are not equivalent statements.
5. Paul does not say “according to the organization”
Notice the wording of verse 6:
“not according to the tradition which he received from us.”
The “us” is Paul and his fellow apostolic workers.
The immediate context demonstrates what that apostolic teaching involved.
Paul points to his own conduct:
“For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us...” (verse 7)
And:
“Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day...” (verse 8)
Paul's argument is essentially:
“We taught you to live responsibly, and we demonstrated that teaching by our own conduct. Some among you aren't following that teaching.”
It isn't:
“We established an organization, and anyone who doesn't remain under that organization is disorderly.”
That distinction is crucial.
6. The first letter confirms the meaning
Paul had already addressed this problem in 1 Thessalonians 4:11–12:
He told them to:
- study to be quiet,
- do their own business,
- work with their hands,
- walk honestly toward those outside,
- and not be dependent upon others.
Then in 1 Thessalonians 5:14, he tells the congregation:
“warn them that are unruly.”
That fits perfectly with 2 Thessalonians.
There was an actual problem in Thessalonica involving idleness, irresponsibility and meddling.
The second letter intensifies the correction because the problem had continued.
One scholarly treatment likewise notes that the “disorderly” people were characterized not merely by inactivity but by meddling and disrupting the community.
7. “That he may be ashamed” does not mean “destroy his family relationships”
This phrase is also important.
The purpose of withdrawing fellowship was:
“that he may be ashamed.”
In other words, the person should recognize:
“My behavior is wrong, and the congregation will not participate in or enable it.”
The desired result is repentance and restoration.
And verse 15 makes that unmistakable:
“count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”
That is difficult to reconcile with using this passage as authorization to tell parents:
“You cannot speak to your adult child.”
Or husbands and wives:
“You must sever your family relationship.”
Or parents:
“Your son or daughter is now an enemy because they no longer submit to the organization.”
Paul never says that in this passage.
8. There is another major problem: Paul says “brother”
The passage concerns someone within the Christian community who is persistently behaving in the particular disorderly manner Paul has described.
It isn't a mechanism for declaring that everybody outside one's organization is automatically under church discipline.
This distinction becomes especially important when PCG's policy is expanded to people belonging to other Church of God groups.
Flurry's 2005 document explicitly states that “all the Laodicean groups” are walking disorderly and therefore should be treated as disfellowshipped.
But that's an additional theological conclusion imposed upon the text.
Paul never says:
“Any Christian who belongs to another congregation is walking disorderly.”
Paul never says:
“If someone doesn't accept your particular church administration, withdraw from him.”
Paul never says:
“A person who leaves your organization is to be considered disfellowshipped.”
Those conclusions have to come from somewhere other than this passage.
9. The purpose of church discipline is not organizational control
There is a legitimate biblical principle here:
Christians should not knowingly participate in destructive, sinful behavior.
Paul teaches discipline elsewhere too.
But biblical discipline has a purpose.
It is intended to:
confront → correct → produce repentance → restore.
It is not:
control → isolate → intimidate → destroy family relationships.
That difference is enormous.
And Paul's final instruction in this very passage establishes the attitude:
“Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”
If someone's interpretation of verse 14 produces a situation in which the disciplined person is treated as an enemy, Paul's next verse has effectively been ignored.
10. The strongest argument against the PCG interpretation
I would put the issue this way:
Paul defines “disorderly” for us.
He doesn't leave us guessing.
2 Thessalonians 3:11
“working not at all, but are busybodies.”
Therefore, any interpretation of verses 6 and 14 that changes “disorderly” into:
“not sufficiently loyal to our organization”
has moved beyond Paul's definition.
And when that interpretation is then used to require people to sever relationships with parents, children, siblings or other Christians simply because they no longer belong to the organization, the application becomes substantially broader than the text itself.
The evidence that PCG has actually made this application is unusually clear: Flurry's 2005 report explicitly connects 2 Thessalonians 3:6 with treating other Church of God groups as “disfellowshipped” and instructs members not to fellowship with them.
PCG material today also continues to cite 2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 3:14 as commands to avoid people who don't obey its instructions.
The context in one sentence
2 Thessalonians 3:6–15 is about correcting Christians who were persistently living disorderly lives—refusing to work, burdening others and meddling in other people's affairs—not about giving a church organization unlimited authority to define disagreement, departure from the organization, or non-compliance with its leadership as “disorderly.”
And verse 15 provides the safeguard that must never be forgotten:
“Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”
So I would not simply argue that “2 Thessalonians 3:6 does not permit any form of withdrawal.” The text clearly does permit disciplinary withdrawal in the particular situation Paul addresses.
The much stronger—and more defensible—argument is:
PCG takes a legitimate biblical principle of discipline and expands its definition beyond Paul's stated subject, using “disorderly” as a label for people who do not submit to PCG's organizational authority or who leave the organization. That is not what Paul defines as the disorder in 2 Thessalonians 3:6–15.
That distinction is important because it lets the argument rest on the entire passage rather than simply replacing one extreme interpretation with another.
———————————————
HERE IS A BIBLE STUDY ON THE SUBJECT
The Philadelphia Church of God uses Matthew 10 as an excuse to divide families. This scripture has been completely lifted out of context of the entire chapter to justify casting out a non-compliant member.
Referring to Matthew 10:34–38, there is a strong contextual argument that using that passage as a command for a church to order members to sever contact with non-compliant family members goes far beyond what Jesus is saying.
The important distinction is this:
Jesus warned that following Him could cause family division. He did not command His disciples to create family division.
And the context makes that distinction quite clear.
1. Read the entire section, not just verses 34–38
Matthew 10 begins with Jesus commissioning the apostles. He sends them out to preach, heal, and proclaim the Kingdom. He warns them that they will encounter persecution, rejection, hatred, and even death.
Then comes the passage about family division:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”
— Matthew 10:34
The next verses explain what He means:
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...”
— Matthew 10:35
Why would this happen?
Because some people would accept Christ and others would reject Him.
Jesus then says:
“And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”
— Matthew 10:36
And then:
“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me...”
— Matthew 10:37
The subject is therefore the cost of personally following Christ when other people—including family members—oppose that decision.
It is not an instruction saying:
“If your father, mother, son, daughter, or spouse does not follow your church organization, cut them off.”
That command simply isn't in the passage.
2. The PCG itself acknowledges the passage is about something that happens—not an instruction to cause it
This is particularly important because the Philadelphia Church of God itself quotes Matthew 10:34–38 in an article discussing religious differences within families. But immediately afterward, the article says that if a religious difference already exists between husband and wife, the believer should not make matters worse, should not nag the mate, and should allow the mate “complete religious latitude and freedom.”
That is actually much closer to the context of Matthew 10.
Christ says division will occur.
He doesn't say:
“Go create the division.”
3. Compare Matthew 10 with Luke 14
The same principle appears in Luke 14:25–35.
Luke 14:26 says:
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters... he cannot be my disciple.”
Taken by itself, that could sound like Jesus is commanding hatred of one's family.
But look at the verses immediately surrounding it.
Jesus then talks about:
- carrying your own cross — verse 27
- counting the cost before building a tower — verses 28–30
- a king counting the cost before going to war — verses 31–32
- giving up your own possessions — verse 33
The entire section is about the cost of discipleship.
Even the PCG acknowledges this interpretation. One PCG article says that “hate” in Luke 14:26 means to love less by comparison, and says God's Work must come before physical family.
So Luke 14 isn't teaching:
“Hate your family.”
It is teaching:
Nothing—not even your family—is to become more important than your loyalty to Christ.
That's an enormous difference.
4. There is an even bigger problem with applying Matthew 10 to church discipline
Suppose a member refuses to accept a particular ministerial ruling.
Matthew 10 does not say:
“Therefore, the church must order his parents, wife, children, brothers and sisters to have no contact with him.”
The passage doesn't discuss church discipline at all.
There is no instruction concerning:
- disfellowshipping a family member,
- mandatory family shunning,
- ordering parents to reject their children,
- ordering children to reject parents,
- refusing family contact,
- or treating disagreement with church leadership as rebellion against God.
Those are additional conclusions being imposed upon the text.
And that is precisely where the context becomes critical.
5. Compare that with Paul's instructions concerning actual church discipline
When Paul actually addresses the subject of removing someone from the congregation, he gives specific instructions.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul deals with a man involved in serious sexual immorality. Paul tells the congregation not to fellowship with a person who is “called a brother” and is practicing certain serious sins.
But notice the important distinction.
Paul specifically says:
“Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world...”
— 1 Corinthians 5:10
Why?
Because Christians cannot withdraw from everyone outside the congregation. Otherwise, Paul says, they would have to leave the world.
And even more importantly, Paul's instruction concerns the congregation's fellowship, not a command to destroy someone's family relationships.
Interestingly, the PCG's own historical statement on its disfellowship policy explicitly cites 1 Corinthians 5:9–11 as the basis it uses for restricting contact with disfellowshipped people.
That gives you a much stronger place to examine the doctrine: 1 Corinthians 5 must be studied in its entirety rather than using Matthew 10 as a justification for family separation.
6. Matthew 10 actually says something quite different
Look at what Jesus tells the disciples immediately before the family section.
He says:
“And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake...”
— Matthew 10:22
And:
“The disciple is not above his master...”
— Matthew 10:24
And:
“Fear them not therefore...”
— Matthew 10:26
And:
“Fear not them which kill the body...”
— Matthew 10:28
The entire chapter is preparing disciples for persecution because they follow Christ.
Then Jesus says that even one's own household may become hostile.
In other words:
The division is the consequence of the message—not the mission of the disciple.
7. Jesus actually commanded love—even toward enemies
This creates another major problem with using Matthew 10 as a justification for institutional family shunning.
Jesus said:
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you...”
— Matthew 5:44
Paul likewise says:
“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”
— Romans 12:18
And:
“If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink.”
— Romans 12:20
So if a person is commanded to love an enemy, it requires a very strong biblical case before anyone can claim that God commands him to completely sever ordinary family contact with a son, daughter, parent, or sibling.
8. The most revealing part
There is actually an important statement in a 2026 PCG article by Gerald Flurry.
It says that when someone is baptized, they supposedly agreed to be willing to “give up your family” and even your life, citing Luke 14:26 and 33. The article then applies that principle to being willing to give up the church itself.
That demonstrates that Luke 14:26 is being applied as a principle of institutional loyalty.
But notice what Jesus actually says:
“Come to ME.”
Not:
“Submit to this particular human organization.”
Not:
“Submit to a particular minister.”
Not:
“Cut off anyone who disagrees with the organization.”
The object of the disciple's ultimate loyalty is Christ.
The central argument
I would frame the argument this way:
Matthew 10:34–38 does not authorize a church organization to divide families. Jesus was warning His followers that loyalty to Him could result in division because some family members would accept Him and others would reject Him. The passage describes the cost of discipleship; it does not establish a church policy of compulsory family separation.
Likewise, Luke 14:26 is not a command to hate one's family or abandon family relationships. It is hyperbolic language emphasizing that Christ must occupy first place. The surrounding verses explicitly identify the subject as counting the cost of one's own discipleship.
And there is a particularly significant contrast:
Christ says, “Follow Me.”
A human organization says, in effect:
“Follow us—or lose your family.”
Those are not automatically the same command.
That distinction is where the biblical examination needs to begin.
Click Here For, "The Evil Church"
No comments:
Post a Comment