When you want to find the difference between COG Brand X and COG Brand Y, where do you go? Well, I almost always go to COGWriter, where one can find the major splinters and other selected organizations diligently 
compared to the same rigorous standards, “we in the LCG CCOG” and quotations from HWA – particularly, his 18 Restored Truths (or as an Australian friend said, “strewths”.
While one may find such comparisons as priority of spreading the word as opposed to caring for the flock down to birthdays, voting and what falling away means, there is no mention as to which covenant a group claims to be under. But, HWA claimed this (“Old” or “New” Covenant) to be “one of the most important doctrines” (Good News, Dec 18, 1978). Wouldn’t that be a worthy category for COG disection and classification?
Most non-COG churches would claim the “New Covenant”, started with the bread and wine of the Last Supper (which was most likely the fourth cup and bread of the Passover Seder, but that’s another story.) HWA uses the “marriage” analogy to show that Jesus’ death cancelled the “Old” Covenant with Israel (at Sinai, the plains of Moab, or both?) but leaves us to assume the covenants with Noah, Abraham, David, remained intact. HWA gives us a situation that the WCG was under the “conditions” of the “New” Covenant but it hasn’t actually started yet, or at least hasn’t formally started. From WCG doctrine, it seems the conditions of the pending New Covenant are a selective subset of the Old.
Of course, HWA did his usual fancy footwork to come to his conclusion. For starters, using Noah Webster to distinguish between “testament” and “covenant”, rather than explain term “testament” was adopted from Jerome’s Vulgate as a translation of “covenant”. And some COGs do a soft-shoe shuffle as well: making statements about being “under the New Covenant”, with no explanation at all given for their assertion.
GTA once remarked in a sermon he sees where there will be a new covenant 
with the “House of Israel” and the “House of Judah”, not with “The Church”. And of course there could be complications to explain a covenant with the “House of Israel” under the Anglo-Israel teaching that still permeates many COGs.
Back in Dr T’s LCG days, he said we are “truly under the New Covenant”. I once wrote to him to say, not looking for an argument but to state a fact, HWA never taught that. Perhaps that is why “covenant” is not used as a comparison between COGs, as LCG and CCOG have deviated from HWA’s teaching. It would nice to see a major splinter leader actually claim “HWA was wrong”.
The New Covenant is acually the “old” covenant. The original was a promise between God and Abraham, and was quite simple: all those born as isaac was born(Galatians 4:28) are those “children of God”. Paul des crinbes it perfectly. They are foreknown, as Isaac was, predestined, as isaac was, and later called, as Isaac was. God selects them according to his terms as he selected isaac, by the same promise, and there is nothing men can do to alter it. That means, quite simply, that all religions are wrong.
The problem is that Herbert Armstrong never progressed beyond adolescence and had the child’s view of ethics: Rule based; do’s and don’ts. As a result, his religion was based on purely the physical and never progressed to Level 3 Post Conventional ethics of social contract orientation and universal ethical principles.
It seems clear that his brain was stunted and he was stultified in early development of the “How can I avoid punishment” and “What’s in it for me”. He was totally immature and had no inkling of anything anyone could describe as “spiritual”. This was the mindset of the Laws of Moses for a people who could only understand physical blessing and cursings and the physical formula benefits of “you do this and this happens” — explicitly outlined in a fixed framework where every little detail has to be policed.
It seems that Jesus taught that we are free to make our own decisions and it is those choices that determine what sort of person we are. Matthew 5, 6 and 7 go far beyond “Thou shalt not…” to “Don’t even think about it”. Doing good to your neighbor and forgiveness go far beyond “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal” about the only two Commandments he sort of understood and broke the rest (although he broke those two as well).
Think of his “two trees”. This was a stupid idea that supposedly he could use to explain the Kingdom of God to world leaders. It amounts to “Thou shalt not steal” and little else. It does nothing to address the mature Christian view at all.
And that is why there was such emphasis on the Feasts and Tithing. These things were entirely physical in nature — something even he could understand.
The real problem is that Herbert Armstrong never much progressed beyond the 9th grade or much beyond the age of nine. He could never understand the “New Covenant”. The only thing he could understand was a small portion of the “Old Covenant” and he even screwed that up by muddling into chaos with a mix and match mentality.
This is a legacy Herbert Armstrong brought to all the ministers who follow in his path who have no understanding of anything but rudimentary beginning phases of ethics and why there are so many problems.
“How can I avoid punishment” and “What’s in it for me” make a very good summary of HWA’s approach. It had much better marketing potential than Saul’s “What would you have me to do?”
Of course once you’re hooked on the “What’s in it for me”, avoiding punishment is the key to keep doing what you’re told to do!
Very few people understand the New Covenant, even those who profess to be christian leaders. In fact, there is no a bility to choose to be part of that new Covena nt at this time. Either you are, or you’re not, and only God makes the decision.If you could earn it by any method of “works”, you could eliminate all unnecessary relgious ideas, and you could program it into your computer, so there would be no necessity of “spiritual” understanding.
Law as presented in the Old Testament has a dual application which the Puritans understood, but didn’t practice completely. Jesus told us he came to fulfill e very jot and tittle of the law, but what most christians don;t understand is that the law is to be uised in our individual defense. For example, in any accusation, there had to be two witnesses to confirm the accusation. The accused was to face and challenge his a ccuser(Isaiah 50:8), and he had the protection of God in his defense(Is aiah 54:17). As a consequence, Jesus used this as defense at his own trial, as we see in John 18:20-23. He refused to speak in hios own defense without the right to face his accusers. He also protested “police brutality(verse 23)”. What most people miss in this simple account is that Jesus expected to g=face his accusers, and demanded the right to remain sient until accusers stepped forward. A s such, he protested forcible interrogation by his captors without face to fae confrontation of his accusers. You will notice also that he declared that he never taught in the synagogue or temple, but spoke openly to the people, and therefore expected open trial for the people to judge. Conasequently, in all law, the accused has every “jot and tittle” of law at his defense, and there must be legitimate accusers(at least two) to confirm such accusation. Obviously, with the “purges’ beginning in 1974, HWA never grasped this basic concept of law. In the simple account of John 18:2-23, we see the principle that all doctri ne and teaching was to be open and judged by the people , not by secret chambers. That was the origin of our court system as well, with English Chief Justice Edward Coke declaring that open courts decided by free juries was the true path to justice.