The Rise of a Counterfeit Christianity

The Church Jesus Built ^ | Various | United Church of God

[DouglasKC]

I do not have a dog in this specific fight. I am enjoying the (rare on this board) contention between SS believers.

I'm trying very hard NOT to be contentious and Matthew 7:6 keeps cropping up in my head! :-)

[Springfield Reformer]

Douglas, I did some fact checking, and I would have drawn and did draw the same conclusion as carm. I have theological training, and am a fair reader of the written word. In all honesty, I don’t see how you can equate the “God family” concept of Armstrong to any traditional; notion of divinity held by traditional Christians. Yet you are effectively accusing anyone who disagrees with your premise of lying. I assure you. It isn’t true. Not for me, and most likely not for carm. I look at Binitarian doctrine and I see a conundrum.

On the one hand, if you share exactly the same definition of the divine nature as Trinitarians, one being, multiple persons, Nicene essence, the whole nine yards, then what is your objection to Trinitarianism, other than the numbers?

But if you reject Trinitarian belief because you feel it somehow violates Scriptural ideas on the nature of God, divinity, then how can you not see we would disagree on what sort of divinity Jesus had?

So no, at least you must concede the disagreement is honest, and we should resort to Scripture, and not accusations against character to resolve it. If you cannot agree to that, I will respect your right to believe what you will, but I will abandon the conversation. If you accuse carm, you accuse me, because I am on the same page as they are. Your choice. And no hard feelings. I know how these things go. But I do have minimal prerequisites to serious debate, and this is one of them.

As for Trinity itself as a matter of Biblical truth, for me the case is easily closed upon many and sufficient proofs. You certainly cannot expect either myself or carm to grant you your premise without putting up at least a fair fight. An amicable one, to be sure, but not rigged in advance in your favor. Or mine. But as the Scripture teaches.

[don-o]

I would give you full points for the tone of your comments.

By contention I merely mean differing views.

[DouglasKC]

In all honesty, I don’t see how you can equate the “God family” concept of Armstrong to any traditional; notion of divinity held by traditional Christians.

That wasn't what I was arguing and that wasn't my objection. Go back to post 64 to see my argument...

[Springfield Reformer]

Then I have no idea what you are talking about. I went back to 64 and there are several arguments, and if I picked up on one thing and you think I should be picking up on something else, well, I don’t know where we’re at. I’m responding to your statement concerning carm’s position on the divinity of Christ. You did make other points, but this point seemed illustrative of the opinion versus lie problem, and that is why I responded as I did. We could clear this right up if you would restate what you think the problem is.

[DouglasKC]

I’m responding to your statement concerning carm’s position on the divinity of Christ.

Exactly..CARM's claim is that UCG does not recognize the true divinity of Christ. That's not accurate. The official statement of belief of UCG about Christ is:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who is the Word and who has eternally existed. We believe that He is the Messiah, the Christ, the divine Son of the living God, conceived of the Holy Spirit, born in human flesh of the virgin Mary. We believe that it is by Him that God created all things, and that without Him was not anything made that was made.

This is an orthodox view of the divinity of Christ. How it can be honestly construed as anything less is a mystery to me.

[wafflehouse]

he celebrated passover in the bible. what verse is it that mentions easter?

[wafflehouse]

From passover, Exodus 12, changed in light of the Last Supper,

ok, then..

1. Who changed it?
2. why was it changed from passover?

3. who had the authority to change a feast that God said was forever?

[caww]

I disagree...Jesus often took extra care with children and in fact corrected the deciples from keeping children from him....He understood their limitations of understanding beyond question..... Engaging them is significant.

.....as mentioned, Children not only “play” the game of Santa over Christmas but they role play the manger scene as well.....And It is important to understand Christ remains central to Christmas in Christian homes regardless of other “trimmings” associated with it...they “all point to Christ”.

I say again... false religions always center on side issues to distract from the core truth being addressed in order to create doubt and question and “soften” their targets.

False religions/cults must discredit, misrepresent, and malign as once feelings of mistrust are in place, the individual will open his mind to “other alternatives of false and/or cultist beliefs and practices.... (Examples again of Jehovah Witness, Mormonism, Scientology, as well many off branches of Christianity using Christian language and doctrine, often legalistically, to seduce people.

As for Christmas.... The "Truth" of Christmas is well know, and in fact worldwide by unbelievers as well as believers, they know it is a Christian Celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ the Christian Savior..... That IS the Truth...and Truth sets us free from legalistic claims of false teachers and their religions. BTW Christianity is a "reasonable" religion.

[narses]

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem;
Creatorem caeli et terrae.

Et in Jesum Christum,
Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum;
qui conceptus est
de Spiritu Sancto,
natus ex Maria virgine;
passus sub Pontio Pilato,
crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus;
descendit ad inferos;
tertia die resurrexit a mortuis;
ascendit ad caelos;
sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis;
inde venturus est
iudicare vivos et mortuos.

Credo in Spiritum Sanctum;
sanctam ecclesiam catholicam;
sanctorum communionem;
remissionem peccatorum;
carnis resurrectionem;
vitam aeternam. Amen.

In English:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived
by the power of the Holy Spirit,
and born of the Virgin Mary,
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
he will come again
to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen

[D-fendr]

Matthew 28:9 Easter in Latin: Pascha; in Greek Πάσχα Paskha.

[Springfield Reformer]

This is an orthodox view of the divinity of Christ. How it can be honestly construed as anything less is a mystery to me.

Well, then it's a mystery to you. But not to me. No, I'm not saying I fully understand the Godhead. But I do understand how people develop genuinely different views of things and can never get on the same page because they reflexively think the other person should see it the way they do. It just doesn't advance the conversation.

Anyway, the point is, the Armstrong/ucog view of God and his nature is quite different from traditional Christianity. We can find nothing in Scripture which suggests the Godhead is an open set to which may be added new members. Other things, but related, like the belief that when Jesus died he temporarily ceased to exist, and the Godhead was briefly down to one member, suggest an altogether different and diminished kind of divinity. These things fly in the face of the Christian understanding of the structure and scope of God's being. It really does lend itself to a kind of polytheism.

Now you may complain that the statement of belief you gave doesn't contain any of that, but the theology of any given group may or may not be confined to a single confession. We know, for example, that the original denomination under Armstrong believed these things about the extensible Godhead (see here: http://www.cog-pkg.org/publications/truths.aspx), and we know the splinter group of which you are a part exists in part to retain the original Armstrongisms, in rejection of the effort of the original denomination to adopt real Trinitarianism.

So try to put yourself in our shoes for a minute. To us, this looks like massive confusion about what it means to even be God. That's a big deal, and it renders terms like "divinity" almost meaningless. Absolutely fundamental to both Biblical and patristic thought on the nature of God, is the idea that God is Creator and we are created and apart from Jesus Christ that divide is impassible. None of us will ever be true God, as Armstrong taught. To suggest that we will be creates an entirely false and alien meaning for the term "divinity." We cannot subscribe to it.

And this is what I was getting at way back at the beginning. One of the big problems communicating theology between two groups with divergent theologies but shared vocabularies, is what I call substance-shifting words. They look the same on paper to each of us, but when we process them, they convey wildly different meanings.

I know this happens, because I've lived a long time and I've seen it repeatedly. The difference is sincere, and very real, and warrants an effort to bridge the divide, not to blow the bridge up by maligning character right out of the gate. Which is why I have chosen not to go there. I've seen too much of this. It is a heartache and a grief to me. If it is the road you choose, you are welcome to it, but I will not join you on it.

But I will leave the light on for you, should you decide to carry this forward on a more purely analytical basis. I'd be fine with that. Just let me know.

Peace,

SR

[don-o]

Well, after I myself wrote all of that and thought on it, I realized there was no point in the exchange.

That because my one and only point has not been effectively engaged or refuted. What I believe is not the point (my profile shows MY affiliation - does yours?)

You claim to have refuted the OP is duly noted. I don't know if he has accepted defeat. To repeat myself, again, I find the differences in conclusions from the same sola scriptura basis to be fascinating.

There should be much more of this in the RF. Breathe some new air into the place. Why don't the Calvinists and Arminians go at each other like their namesakes did?

[DouglasKC]

I disagree...Jesus often took extra care with children and in fact corrected the deciples from keeping children from him....He understood their limitations of understanding beyond question..... Engaging them is significant.

The one has nothing to do with the other. I'm not advocating that we turn children away from Christ. I'm not advocating that we don't engage children.

.....as mentioned, Children not only “play” the game of Santa over Christmas but they role play the manger scene as well.....

Children don't "play" the game of Christmas. Parents do. I won't use nice words here...we DECEIVE our children. We teach our children that it's okay that we LIE to them over a myth.

Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them to Him and said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luk 18:17 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it."

A little child TRUSTS completely. We take our very youngest children, the ones most trusting, and we shatter that trust by building up their hopes and expectations over a 20th century custom.

After that it's a miracle that they trust us over anything, much less in religion.

And in fact as the popularity of Christmas has grown, the number of Christians has shrunk.

Only a lawless society, only a counterfeit religion, would teach that it's perfectly acceptable to violate the 9th commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ and bear false witness to our children.

I say again... false religions always center on side issues to distract from the core truth being addressed in order to create doubt and question and “soften” their targets.

False religion is false religion because it disregards truth. False religion is false religion because it turns from the things of the Lord for answers and turns to the things of world.

With the counterfeit Christianity we have today Christmas is not a "side issue". It IS the biggest, most visible aspect of traditional Christianity. Pointing out that it's a myth and a fable is something that we NEED to do as Christians:

1Ti 4:6 If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.
1Ti 4:7 But reject profane and old wives' fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness.

"Profane" is something that is outside of religious worship...that of the common society, that of an ungodly society. Santa Claus, reindeer, etc. all ARE fables from outside of Christianity.

Scripture says reject them. Traditional Christianity says embrace them.

Scripture says don't bear false witness. Traditional Christianity says bear false witness to your children.

This isn't a difficult choice to make... :-)

[DouglasKC]

Well, then it's a mystery to you. But not to me. No, I'm not saying I fully understand the Godhead. But I do understand how people develop genuinely different views of things and can never get on the same page because they reflexively think the other person should see it the way they do. It just doesn't advance the conversation.

While I appreciate your tone and tenor I still believe you're not getting it. Or you're unwilling to concede the main point I'm trying to make.

That point was that CARM's portrayal of the beliefs of UCG sets up a completely false picture of what the actual beliefs are. It's does this by using pejorative terms, half truths, and outright lies. I'm TELLING you this because it's true.

Clearly you agree with these tactics although you attempt to justify them by adding thoughts, words, and intentions that are not present on the website and that the authors may or may not hold.

I take it by the "reformer" in your screen name that you are protestant. I would think then that you would also agree with the CARM's "analysis" of the Roman Catholic church. However I'm sure every Catholic in the world with disagree with the characterizations and arguments they're putting forth.

I have no problem with debate. I have no problem with analytical discussion. But the information on CARM isn't analytical. It's a biased statement made by someone who doesn't agree.

From CARM:

Also, find a good church to go to. Here are some to avoid: the Roman Catholic Church, the Easter Orthodox, the Mormons, The Jehovah's Witnesses, United Presbyterian, United Methodist, United Pentecostal, and United Apostolic.
We recommend you find a local Baptist Church, the Presbyterian Church in America, Evangelical Free, and Calvary Chapel.

Now I don't fault the guy for promoting his beliefs, but I do fault you for thinking that this is some type of fair and unbiased place to get information about United Church of God.

[DouglasKC]

You claim to have refuted the OP is duly noted. I don't know if he has accepted defeat. To repeat myself, again, I find the differences in conclusions from the same sola scriptura basis to be fascinating.

I'm assuming I'm OP here.

GPH and I have practically become best friends...why would I want to argue with him?? :-)

[don-o]

I'm assuming I'm OP here.

Yes. I assumed you were reading and did not ping you to my posts that mentioned you.

[Natural Law]

"Children don't "play" the game of Christmas. Parents do. I won't use nice words here...we DECEIVE our children. We teach our children that it's okay that we LIE to them over a myth."

You are missing the point. What can a small child understand about the fall of man, a virgin birth or the pascal sacrifice? Very little, but what they can understand, and what we must help them to understand is that the birth of Jesus, His death and Resurrection is and was the greatest, most joyous gift they can imagine. It established a foundation upon which greater knowledge can later be built.

Peace be with you

[DouglasKC]

You are missing the point.

I'm not missing the point at all. I just totally disagree with the point.

What can a small child understand about the fall of man, a virgin birth or the pascal sacrifice? Very little, but what they can understand, and what we must help them to understand is that the birth of Jesus, His death and Resurrection is and was the greatest, most joyous gift they can imagine. It established a foundation upon which greater knowledge can later be built.

God intended that we teach our children, but not with lies. Not with myths. Not with fables. Not with deception.

Deu 4:9 Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren,
Deu 4:10 especially concerning the day you stood before the LORD your God in Horeb, when the LORD said to me, 'Gather the people to Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.'

God says nothing about teaching lies. But teaching the truth.

Pro_12:17 He who speaks truth declares righteousness, But a false witness, deceit.

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
2Ti 3:14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
2Ti 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

In no way, shape or form does Jesus Christ condone, recommend, encourage, or otherwise sanction lying to our children. Especially, especially, in context of Christianity where it makes a mockery of the commandments of the Lord.

[D-fendr]

Tooth Fairy bad also?