Posted on 12/01/2002 2:33:40 PM PST by fishtank
I know you keep saying this, but the bottom line is that use the word "cult" as you and the experts you quote have defined it. There's nothing wrong with that. If that's what you want to define it as that's fine with me. Although you claim not to use the word in a "pejorative sense" or in a "capricious manner" you surely realize that when "cult" is applied to a religious group it carries exteme negative connotations. You must know that "cult" is associated with such groups as the Branch Davidians, and Jim Jones. You know the connotations and you full well choose to apply it equally to any other group whom you think it should apply to. Maybe you don't see that though.
and myself, derive our doctrinal content from a careful, rigorous exegesis of Scripture utilizing a grammatical-historical heremeneutic.
This isn't unique to you. United has a doctrinal committee that applies the exact same standards when it comes to developing doctrine.
Ethan: I know as an objective fact based upon a careful exegesis of Scripture that Armstrongism is completely non-christian in its basic, central doctrines. I am not a casual student of the movement, but I am, in fact, an expert on Armstrongism, its doctrines, its history, etc.
Great! Nice to have an expert on board. What is your faith?
About the term Christian. The dictionary definition is:
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
I don't see anything about the definition that gives you exclusive right to the word "Chrisitan" merely because you believe. I also don't see anything about my beliefs or of United Church of God that is "non-Christian" in it's basic central doctrines.
I--and the serious Christian scholars you offered false witness against--
I did?? I never doubted they were "serious Christian scholars". I made the true statement that these serious Christian scholars believe pretty much the same thing and decided that anything that doesn't agree with that assessment should be labeled a cult. Isn't that really what it boils down to? It's not like faith is a science. Faith is a wholly personal belief.
do not consider Armstrongism--regardless which of the multiple hundreds of splinter groups one wishes to identify with--a cult for any capricious reason or because of the very weak cop-out for saying, essentially, despite advanced Biblical training and serious exegetical work, we (and therefore, the entire body of Christ for the past 2,000 years...) really don't understand the Bible, and really don't even care! We merely follow the "traditions of the Roman church" (though none of us are Roman Catholics).
I was referring to the church at Rome, not the Roman Catholic church as it is today. The point was that your beliefs are based on the traditions developed by the early Roman church.
Ethan: Really, just more ad hominem. Sir, I do not "label" any group as a "cult" simply because it disagrees with a "tradition." The use of the term cult in a theological research context is carefully defined and utilized, and proper, well-established definitions were provided, with formal citations.
Sure ya do Ethan. Would you give me any credence at all if I were to quote ministers and experts who adhere to "adventism" or "armstrongism". I find that doubtful.
Moreover, and really to the point, Armstrongism--whichever particular splinter group one wishes to identify with--is not in harmony with Scripture in its basic doctrinal assertions, and is, in point of fact, quite aggressively anti-christ in numerous areas.
Granted it's probably not in harmony with your basic doctrinal assertions. But I think labeling it "anti-Christ" is just a little over the top. On what specifically do you base that charge?
From the primary materials it was established that Armstrongism teaches numerous, and serious, heretical doctrines. And on that note, as previously documented, if one chafes at the term cult the alternatives are "heretical groups" and "spiritual counterfeits"--neither of which will probably be embraced with open arms by adherents of a cult group.
Hey, if it makes you feel better, or gives you more faith, go for it! Maybe you could just combine all the terms and call us "anti-Christian heretical spiritual counterfeits".
Dr. Gomes addresses this well-established term and, like all responsible Christian scholars that study the cults, does so on the basis of theological doctrinal content, not simply because of "traditions" we like or don't like. In short, the Bible, in a normal grammatical-historical exegesis, in its normal historic context, is the basis for making such evaluations.
So from a purely grammatical exegesis is there anyhing wrong with the verse you quoted below?:
"So don't let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new-moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules were only shadows of the real thing, Christ himself" (Col. 2:16-17, New Living Translation).
The use of non-specialized dictionaries to derive the meaning of terms used in specific professional disciplines (such as theology) really won't provide a precise definition. For example, I am aware of no serious cult researcher--Christian or secular--that uses the term "cult" to refer to any religion that they consider "false" and for no other reason.
Nuts. Looks like any reference I use that you don't approve of is out of bounds. You win.
Armstrong--from whom the UCG derives its major doctrines--claimed that the Bible was a "coded book" (Herbert Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages. Pasadena: Ambassador Press, 1985, p. 4), and no one really understood the Bible for 1,900 years--that really is an incredible claim to make. No one understood the Bible properly until the "code" was "revealed" to one man in the 1930s. Guess who?
This would probably be a lot more fun for you if I worshipped Armstrong as a God. As it is I don't really care how you interpet his claims. I think most of the doctrine he espoused was biblically sound. I accept United's doctrine wholly. If you feel United's doctrine is in error here's your chance to pull me out their clutches by convincing me of the error.
It is a group that claims to be Christian yet denies central doctrines of the Christian faith as found in the Holy Bible.
Can you give me one central doctrine of the Christian faith as found in the Holy Bible that United denies?
So, while lip service was made that the Worldwide Church of God (and United Church of God) "followed the Bible and only the Bible," this was a complete sham and deception. This is the modus operandi of all the cults.
So, it is conclusive that Armstrongism--including the United Church of God incarnation of it--is not based upon the Bible but what the high-school drop-out Herbert W. Armstrong said the Bible taught.
So much for not being pejorative huh? :-)
Ethan, that's all you're doing. Your posts are entire sarcastic, venonmous diatribes about how stupid and manipulative Armstrong was, how decieved Armstong and his "followers" were and how nothing good or true came from them. And like it or not, it's because his understanding of scripture differs from your understanding.
In fact even though Armstrong strongly believed that most of traditional Christianty was false, he didn't exhibit the same type of hatred toward individuals in his writing as you do toward him. You know full well why...because he believed that most people *were* deceived and would eventually be offered, and accept salvation. It's pretty hard to work up a hatred toward someone if you believe you're going to have to spend eternity with them... :-)
It's taking an enormous amount of prayer and asking for wisdom from Christ to not take personal offense to your posts. If I seem to have done so, I apologize, but when you say stuff like:
The entire foundation and purpose of the United Church of God is the perpetuation of the false teachings of the heretic, Herbert Armstrong.
I have to weigh what you are saying against the evidence that I see daily. That evidence is the miracle of Christs presence in me, converting me from the pompous, selfish, arrogant, egostical ass that I am into a man who is being healed through Christ's awesome power. I see the evidence in my wife and my kids. You won't understand this, but I really know *how* to hug my daughters now. A year ago I didn't. I see the evidence in the people I fellowship with. Most are former members of Worldwide. They don't talk about other people behind their back. They aren't bitter, or angry, but they have every right to be. Their entire spiritual life was nearly ripped from them when Worldwide changed it's doctrine.
Was this all because of the organization called "United Church of God"? Of course not, the glory is Christ, but the job of the organization is to assist us, to disciple us, disciples of Christ and his gospel. They are staying true to the Christ I know.
So you see it's not as cut and dried as you might think. The organization and people you are describing are nothing like the reality I experience. I would urge you perhaps to attend a United service sometime to balance your perspective.
Moreover and more importantly, and herein lies the difference in comparing a Martin Luther and a Herbert Armstrong--Martin Luther never claimed to be the only man in 1,900 years to be "humble enough" to be used of God and the only man to have preached the Gospel in 1,900 years (Herbert Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages. p. 4). Futhermore, Martin Luther--with all of his shortcomings--didn't castigate historic Biblical truth and call it false, nor did he fight against the Gospel, as did the heretic, Herbert Armstrong.
I will bet that the Roman Catholics of Luthers time considered him a bigger heretic than you consider Armstrong to be. I will bet that they considered him against the gospel. I will also bet that there are Roman Catholics today who consider him a heretic and say that he fought against the gospel.
The same charges in defending the false teachings and practices of Armstrong were attempted by the WCG, by attacking Martin Luther in order to provide a red herring and take attention away from Armstrong's serious heresies and outrageous claims. Ditzel's comments are quite salient:
The purpose is to put your position in perspective. You claim to have the truth, just as the Catholic Church claimed it. The comparision is valid because it shows that "heretical" is a label applied by those who think they have the truth, to those who they think do not.
Your response is on the order of someone that is against the evils of Marxism being told that "Marx is dead" as if that somehow lessens the evils of Marxism. It is a low-level diversion, nothing else. Armstrong's claims do not allow the courtesy of simply dismissing his errors as those of a sincere but imperfect "bible teacher." He made massive claims that must be made known, from the primary sources. He taught heresy; he attacked historic Biblical Christianity with arrogance and venom.
Nice comparasion between Armstrong and Marx. I'm a little disappointed you didn't whip out the Hitler card. :-)
Let's make this easier. I'll grant you that everything that Armstrong said and taught was wrong, 100% off, he was a crazy meglomaniac high school drop out conman huckster who didn't know the bible from a hole in the ground. I'll concede every statement you want to make about him.
In return, I'll link you to United's statement of belief. You tell me what you disagree with and we'll discuss it. I'll tell you what I see in scripture to support it, you show me what you see to disagree with it. Deal?
Really? So then the other nine commandments were also fulfilled and superceded by Christ and we are free to break them too? Freedom in Christ indeed... :-)
The Sabbath rest for those under the New Covenant is the rest from the bondage and penalty of sin which is entered into through faith in Jesus Christ.
Well...yes and no. Certainly letting Chirst take up our burdens by living our lives is a type of rest, but the sabbath also is a shadow of the coming kingdom of God, the gospel of Christ. Since that kingdom has not arrived yet then it's certainly not been fully fullfilled. In addtion it's original purpose as a reminder of the true God is certainly not superceded.
"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ" (Col. 2:16-17).
The New Living Translation expresses it, "So don't let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new-moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules were only shadows of the real thing, Christ himself" (Col. 2:16-17, New Living Translation).
I found it slightly amusing that you happened to pick out these two translations. I asked you on the other post, but do you see anything glaringly wrong with them?
Good points all. I was thinking more along the lines of Matthew quitting his job as a tax collector, render unto Caeser what is Caesers and Pauls admonishment not to participate in matters of law against other Christians. I'm kind of a believer that things happen in government because they're part of God's plan.
You're right, I didn't think about that.
How does this statement in Mark 12 support your point. Please explain in context.
It really doesn't, you're right again.:-)
You can certainly be a government official in manifold capacities without ever engaging in any lawsuit, much less a personal law suit against a brother in Christ (which is percisely Paul's restriction).
Interesting that drstevej, the Calvinist, is advocating activism.
The point I was attempting to make (badly) wasn't that you couldn't have a government job, but that the general theme in scripture seems to be that they stay away from attemping to influence government. Activism is a good word.
Government for Christians is really a perhipheral, incidental neccesity. A Christian is a Christian no matter what type of goverment we happen to live under. To attempt to change our government, or the policies of that government through activism isn't part of the commission given to the disciples of Christ. Ultimately too much focus on this becomes a false God...or at least it was for me.
"Doug, Could you give me a yes or no on some things?
Do you believe in:
(1) The Trinity?
(2) The deity of Jesus Christ?
(3) That you can become a god?
Thanks."
Ethan: These were good questions, and you did receive responses. Not "yes or no" as you requested, but responses.
I'd like to take the opportunity to explain the meanings behind the responses in the context of Armstrongism. It seems you already may be familiar with the heresies of Armstrongism based on the specific questions you asked, but I'd like to elaborate on them for the sake of those reading that are not familiar with the religion put together by Herbert Armstrong.
The first question and the response:
(See 48 posted on 12/03/2002 6:29 PM PST by DouglasKC)
"(1) The Trinity?
As it was codified in the the Council at Constantinople in the year 381 AD, no."
Ethan: The United Church of God considers the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as false. Not simply as it was "codified" in any particular council, but in and of itself, false.
"God is not merely one Person, nor even limited to a 'Trinity,' but God is FAMILY. The doctrine of the Trinity is false" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Missing Dimension In Sex. Ambassador Press), p. 37.
This is the exact belief of the UCG; the word "God" is redefined apart from its historic, Biblical context, and given the meaning that it is a "family name," with the family comprised of multiple, separate beings--this is polytheism.
The Trinity is a theological term that expresses the New Testament teaching that there is one God, and only one God, and within the undivided being of the one God there exists three Persons, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. It is a Biblical doctrine, and it is a foundational, central teaching of the faith. To deny the Triune God is to deny the God of the New Testament.
Much of the semantic confusion offered by the cults is the confusion of the terms being and person. The historic, Biblical, Christian doctrine is that there is one being of God--there are not multiple God "beings" (that is polytheism), or three (or two) god beings that are "one" in the sense of "being in harmony" with each other. Again, that is polytheism, or at the least, "tritheism" (or an open "bitheism" in the case of Armstrongism). These are heresies from a Biblical basis, and the Christian faith, the faith once for delivered to the saints (Jude 3), has always rejected such teachings as false and heretical.
This denial of the Triunity of God by Armstrongism (and therefore, the UCG) opened the door for their aberrant theology and defective Christology. The UCG does not believe in one God--monotheism--in the normal, Biblical context that Christians have always believed in since the days of the apostles to the present; rather, the UCG believes in one God family--a pantheon of different beings with God the Father being in charge, and Jesus--a separate being--being "one" in the sense of "family harmony."
"Christ, one of the beings in the Godhead, had now been changed into flesh" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Nov. 1963), p. 1.
This is a pantheon, and it is polytheistic. It is heretical from a biblical perspective and blasphemous; it is not a minor error. In this alone, Armstrongism departs from Biblical theology.
fishtank asked and was answered:
"(2) The deity of Jesus Christ?
Of course. He was God in the flesh."
Ethan: Again, since the theology proper of Armstrongism is false, their Christology is defective. When you ask, "do you believe in the deity of Jesus Christ" the answer will not be in the context of the terms as they are normally used in their historic, Biblical context. It needs to be fleshed out.
Their position is that Jesus was "God", but a separate being, from the Father. Again, they redefine the word "God" to mean a "family name" that the pantheon of God-beings all share. They do not believe that Jesus Christ is God Himself incarnate in the fullest, unique sense. Moreover, while He retained His "self-understanding" of who He 'was' prior to the Incarnation, they do not believe that He was--in His essence of being--actually God Himself as God Incarnate as a Man. In other words, Jesus, while retaining the self-consciousness of His identity, did in fact cease to be Deity in an ontological sense according to Armstrongism.
He not only was just a man in the Incarnation, according to Armstrongism He was a man with a sinful nature, a man that needed "extra help" to not sin, not a sinless nature as the Second Adam, the perfect Man.
"Yes, Jesus had sinful flesh--human nature" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Nov. 1963, pp. 11-12. emphasis in the original).
The only difference between Jesus and any other human is that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Nov. 1963, p. 11. emphasis in the original).
fishtank asked and was answered:
"(3) That you can become a god?
"Not a god, but part of the Godhead."
Ethan: "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD , "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).
The teachings of Armstrongism--and the UCG--is not simply that those that submit to the teachings of Armstrongism, pay their tithes, etc., will become "a god" but that they will become God.
"Why should it seem strange that you will someday be the spirit-composed child of your heavenly Father? You will be what He is - God" (Good News Nov./Dec. 1988, p. 5).
This is the very same teaching of the UCG.
DouglasKC further responded to fishtank:
"According to scripture our ultimate fate as sons of God is to be like God and see him as he is.
Ethan: Or put more directly, "God's PURPOSE in having created humanity - in having caused YOU to be born - is to reproduce Himself" (Herbert W. Armstrong, Just what do you mean Conversion?, p. 18. emphasis in the original).
Actually, the Bible teaches we are to be "like Christ," not in His Deity, for God is utterly unique and there is only one God (Isa. 43:10-11; 44:6-8), and no other God or Gods have been or ever will be formed (Isa. 43:10; 46:9), but to see Him, Jesus Christ, in His glorified, Resurrected state, and be like Him in His perfect, gloried humanity.
DouglasKC responded to fishtank: "We are to be joint heirs with Christ."
Ethan: Of course. Jesus Christ, in His humanity, the Son of Man, receives all the promises of glory; this does not mean that finite creatures are to "become" God. We, Christians, will be joint heirs with Christ as resurrected, glorified men, with the Son of Man, Jesus Christ. The cults get confused in that their Christology is not Biblical--Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man, the two natures in the one Person. The Resurrected saints will be like Jesus, glorified and perfected by God; we will be like the glorified Son of Man--we are not to "become God." That is unbiblical and it is blasphemous.
The attributes of the God of the Bible in His nature of being, by definition, are not communicable. God is eternal. By definition creatures are not. God is infinite. By definition, creatures are finite. God is perfect and therefore does not change (any change from perfection would be to imperfection by definition). Creatures change.
There is only one God; the Biblical faith is monotheistic (Isaiah 45:5).
DouglasKC responded to fishtank: "We will one day manifest in glory as spiritual creations,"
Ethan: The hope of the Christian is the resurrection of the body to a gloried, immortal state. Reincarnation into "spirit-composed" God-beings is not a Biblical doctrine.
DouglasKC responded to fishtank: "members of God's family with Christ as our older brother and God as our father. We will one day participate in the divine nature."
Ethan: Those that are Christ's will be resurrected and glorified, raised with immortal bodies, bodies that are patterned after the Resurrection body of Jesus Christ--a body of flesh and bone (Luke 24:37-39). The saved are God's sons by adoption (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5); Jesus Christ is the Son of God by nature and is the unique monogenes of God (John 1:14), the unique Son of the Father (John 20:17; cf. John 1:18; 3:16-18; 1 John 4:9).
Moreover, while the Resurrection of the body is of course future, persons that have faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and God do not have to wait to "become" sons of God, for you are now already sons of God by the adoption through faith.
Regarding being children of God, it was well expressed by Robert Bowman in the Christian Research Journal:
"But we do know what it means [being adopted as God's children], as well as what it does not mean. It does mean eternal life with Christ-like holiness and love, in which the full potential of human beings as the image of God is realized. But it does not mean that we shall cease to be creatures, or that "human potential" is infinite, or that men shall be gods" (Robert Bowman, "Ye Are Gods? Orthodox and Heretical Views on the Deification of Man," Christian Research Journal Winter/Spring 1987, pp. 18-22).
Actually Ethan I, and I presume UCG, agree very closely with the Nicean creed of 325 A.D. which states about the holy spirit:
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and Son is worshipped together and glorified together,
This is exactly my understanding. The holy spirit emenates from the father and son. The church did not formally declare the Holy Spririt as a seperate "person" in the Godhead until Constantinople, some 56 years later. Since you believe this to be anti-Christian than you are in the unfortunate position of believing that every member of the church prior to 381 a.d. were not really Christians, but heretics. But I suspect that you believe in an "evolving" theology on the issue...
This is the exact belief of the UCG; the word "God" is redefined apart from its historic, Biblical context, and given the meaning that it is a "family name,"
Is God a family? Let's see if we can find scripture to support my position:
Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
Scripture doesn't get much plainer than this. Paul seems to think there is a "family in heaven and earth", named after God, the father. The family in heaven is who? God and Christ (not the holy spirit, but we'll get to that). The family on earth is who? Christians. Why do you think Christians call God "the father" and Christ "our brother". And why do we call each other "brothers and sisters IN Christ"? Are these just metaphorical terms to you? Or could it possibly be that the bible really means what it says?
2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Earthly families are a shadow, or a type, of heavenly families. Since we WERE created in God's image, and families are certainly a fact of life, then it stands to reason that we are modeled after a heavenly family. It obviously doesn't take the same form because we a flesh and God is spirit, but the concept is certainly biblically supported.
with the family comprised of multiple, separate beings--this is polytheism.
Why do you keep making me get out the dictionary?:-)
Polythiesm - 1. The worship of or belief in more than one god.
2. The doctrine of, or belief in, a plurality of gods.
3. Belief in multiple Gods.
I and nobody at UCG believes in "multiple Gods". There is one God, composed of God, the father, and Christ, the son. How they are "one" is certainly a mystery unknown and unknowable to us while we are in the flesh. You take on faith a statement handed down to you from tradition with no basis in the bible. I belief their oneness is anagulaous to a perfectly married couple who are "one" in the sense that they have combined their goals and wishes into common goals and wishes. This of course falls far short of the spiritual reality, but (and this is speculation) apparently God instituted marriage with Adam and Eve in the beginning to hint at this relationship:
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Granted that this is also a type of Christ's relationship with his church, but remember that God created man in his own image.
You have no biblical basis to disagree with this. You only have a difference in tradition.
The Trinity is a theological term that expresses the New Testament teaching that there is one God, and only one God, and within the undivided being of the one God there exists three Persons, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. It is a Biblical doctrine, and it is a foundational, central teaching of the faith. To deny the Triune God is to deny the God of the New Testament.
Okay, if your opinion is biblically sound then the preponderance of evidence should be that we will see a God in heaven in the bible composed of the father, the son and a holy spirit. I take the position that the Godhead is composed of God the father and Christ the son. Here is my evidence:
Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him
What is missing from all these visions of God's throne, the Godhead? There is NO third component called "the holy spirit" there.
Let's look at more:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Once again, the two of them. God the father and Christ the son. No holy spirit in the Godhead.
Did Paul think of the Holy Spirit as third, seperate deified part of God?Let's look at several greetings:
1Co 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
2Co 1:2 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
Notice a pattern developing here? I find it inconceivable that if Paul thought the Holy Spirit were a component of the Godhead that he would neglect to mention him in his greetings to the churches. Yet he did.
It comes down to this Ethan: Do I believe you when you tell me that the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead...or should I believe what scripture tells me?
Their position is that Jesus was "God", but a separate being, from the Father.
Again, they redefine the word "God" to mean a "family name" that the pantheon of God-beings all share. They do not believe that Jesus Christ is God Himself incarnate in the fullest, unique sense.
False...
He not only was just a man in the Incarnation, according to Armstrongism He was a man with a sinful nature, a man that needed "extra help" to not sin, not a sinless nature as the Second Adam, the perfect Man.
"Yes, Jesus had sinful flesh--human nature" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Nov. 1963, pp. 11-12. emphasis in the original).
I've got to tip my hat to you Ethan. You've taken the art of misrepresentation to a new level.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
God agrees with Armstrong...
2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
The bible thinks that Christ came IN the flesh. I accept that, do you?
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Again, Christ was tempted IN the flesh.
Jesus Christ in the flesh WAS part of God. It was the part of God through whom ALL things were made. He was God IN the flesh. In order to be our saviour, he had to experience the same pulls and tempations that we do and still remain sinless. If he would have sinned he would have paid the penalty for sin, death. Knowing this, Satan tried to get Christ to sin. God love is truly wonderous when you think about it. He loves us so much, he loves you so much Ethan, that he was willing to risk a part of himself so he could bring us into glory. THAT is what makes this verse so beautiful and true:
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
This is getting way too long...I'll finish up in the next post...
That's exactly right...
Ethan: Of course. Jesus Christ, in His humanity, the Son of Man, receives all the promises of glory; this does not mean that finite creatures are to "become" God. We, Christians, will be joint heirs with Christ as resurrected, glorified men, with the Son of Man, Jesus Christ. The cults get confused in that their Christology is not Biblical--Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man, the two natures in the one Person. The Resurrected saints will be like Jesus, glorified and perfected by God; we will be like the glorified Son of Man--we are not to "become God." That is unbiblical and it is blasphemous.
I think this is the gist of your argument. This is actually a huge topic and I'm not going to do it justice in this type of forum, but I do think that the ultimate fate of man is to be subsumed in, to become part of, the Godhead. In reality Christians are already part of the Godhead in a very real sense because we are actually IN Christ. Here are my biblical references for my belief:
1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
How do you read this? I read this to mean that God lives in us and we live in God. Part of the Godhead.
Rom 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be the First-born among many brothers.
What does this mean to you? To me it means we are going to go through a similar process and end up with similar results...
2Co 6:18 and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.
Not "like" sons and daughters, but sons and daughters. Like begets like. Dogs beget dogs. Eternal life begets eternal life.
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Jesus quotes the old testament here and scripture uses the greek "theoi", which clearly means "Gods" in every sense of the word. He says, paraphrased, "Why are you getting upset that I'm claiming to be the son of God when scripture calls YOU Gods?
At any rate this notion is hardly unique to United or Armstrong:
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS: "The Only-Begotten Son of God, wishing to enable us to share in His Divinity, assumed our nature, so that by becoming man He might make men gods" (Opusc. 57, 1-4; cf Divine Office, Vol. III, Feast of Corpus Christi, Office of Readings).
Aquinas understanding seems to be different from yours...
Again:
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS: "The grace which is an accident is a certain likeness of the Divinity participated by man. But by the Incarnation human nature is not said to have participated a likeness of the Divine Nature, but is said to be united to the Divine Nature itself in the Person of the Son." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q.2, Art. 10, Reply Obj. 1).
Again:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995), paragraph 460:
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature" : "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."
So to be consistent, I think it's incumbent on you to start going into a public forums and start calling Aquinas and Roman Catholics heretics and blasphemers for holding this view. :-)
DouglasKC wrote: "I think this is the gist of your argument."
Ethan: It's really the position of the historic Christian church as based upon the Holy Scripture.
DouglasKC wrote: "This is actually a huge topic and I'm not going to do it justice in this type of forum, but I do think that the ultimate fate of man is to be subsumed in, to become part of, the Godhead. In reality Christians are already part of the Godhead in a very real sense because we are actually IN Christ. Here are my biblical references for my belief:"
Ethan: Being in Christ does not mean we are to become God. The Bible is wholly against such a notion. Being "in Christ" in the context of the New Testament refers to the fact of regeneration through faith and having the Person of God the Holy Spirit indwell us.
DouglasKC wrote: "1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."
"How do you read this? I read this to mean that God lives in us and we live in God. Part of the Godhead."
Ethan: You are reading your religious tradition into it, vis., Armstrongism. The Scripture doesn't say anything about the creature becoming God, "part of the Godhead." It very clearly speaks--and of which the historic Christian church has always confessed--that we have intimate fellowship with God as His adopted children through faith in Jesus Christ and His vacarious atonement (Gal. 4:4-5).
The creature does not become "part of the Godhead." God is not an open pantheon, but utterly unique and unchanging (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8).
DouglasKC wrote: "Rom 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be the First-born among many brothers."
"What does this mean to you?" To me it means we are going to go through a similar process and end up with similar results...
Ethan: It isn't so much a postmodern, subjectivist issue of "what does it mean to you?" Again, the problem is that you, as result of the unlearned and confused Christology of Armstrongism, have a defective understanding of the Person and nature of Jesus Christ (documented from the primary sources) and therefore read into the text a concept alien to its grammatical and historical context.
Jesus Christ is very God and very Man. In His humanity, Jesus Christ is the first to be Resurrected as an immortal, glorified Man. Those that have faith in Christ will likewise be bodily resurrected and glorified, and in this Jesus Christ is certainly the first-born of many brothers.
The passage in no way teaches that men are to "become God."
DouglasKC wrote: "2Co 6:18 and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."
Not "like" sons and daughters, but sons and daughters. Like begets like. Dogs beget dogs. Eternal life begets eternal life."
Ethan: The only-begotten Son of God is Jesus Christ. He is the unique monogenes of God. It is certainly true that those that have faith in Jesus Christ are the sons of God, but this, as has been already explained, does not mean we "become God" but that we become His children through the adoption of faith (Rom. 8:15).
DouglasKC wrote" "Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"
"Jesus quotes the old testament here and scripture uses the greek "theoi", which clearly means "Gods" in every sense of the word. He says, paraphrased, "Why are you getting upset that I'm claiming to be the son of God when scripture calls YOU Gods?"
Ethan: You don't understand the passage because [a] you are filtering it through the grid of Armstrongism and; [b] it is very evident you have no serious background in exegesis, systematic theology or hermeneutics. I will explain the passage to you from an informed, exegetical basis.
In John 10:34-36 Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6. The view of Biblical scholars with advanced training in Hebrew and Biblical theology, in other words, men that know what they are talking about, is that Psalm 82 refers to Israelite judges in the capacity of their position of representing God to the nation.
Moreover, the passage in the NT is used in a condemning, ironic sense to the enemies of Jesus Christ rejecting His statements. St. Paul uses an analogous usage in 1 Cor. 4:8 where he writes "you have become kings" when his entire point is that they were not kings--he is employing a rhetorical device to show the absurdity of the other position.
Jesus' use of this rhetorical device is made clear and driven home when the full context of the passage He is quoting is made known which you neglected to include:
"They know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler. Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance" (Psalm 82:5-8).
"They know nothing." "They understand nothing." "They walk about in darkness." Hardly attributes of the Deity to the reasonable person that gives it an honest read. And the context of the passage is driven home--"yet you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." They really weren't God or gods in a literal sense.
The context of Psalm 82--which Jesus was quoting--is a device of irony--they were "gods" in the sense that they were rulers of Israel. The psalmist goes on to demonstrate this ironic usage by telling them they will die just like every other ruler.
Jesus was employing this same passage to the rulers of Israel in His day, and using the same irony that these mere men, corrupted rulers, were taking exception at He--the LORD God Himself--was taking to Himself the perogative of exhibiting the authority of God, yet they were considered "gods" by virtue of being rulers over Israel by the permission of God. Essentially, "who are you to take exception at Me claiming to be God Himself?!"
In contrast, Jesus Christ is truly God Himself (cf. John 1:1, 18; 20:18; 1 John 5:20) and the unique monogenes of God, the unique Son of God (cf. John 10:36; 20:31). He is the only-begotten of the Father.
The Israelite judges ironically called "gods" in Ps. 82 and John 10:34-35 were wicked men, grave sinners, condemned to die by the declaration of the true God and were therefore not truly gods or "gods in the making."
Because you didn't utilize the full context of the passages and how they were used, and, of course, because you are not utilizing any exegesis but simply using the traditions of Armstrongism, you completely bastardized the passages with eisegsis.
DouglasKC wrote: "ST. THOMAS AQUINAS: "The Only-Begotten Son of God, wishing to enable us to share in His Divinity, assumed our nature, so that by becoming man He might make men gods" (Opusc. 57, 1-4; cf Divine Office, Vol. III, Feast of Corpus Christi, Office of Readings)."
Ethan: I have the issue of the Good News magazine, published by the United Church of God, where you took that partial quote, too (Good News July/August 2002).
DouglasKC wrote: "Aquinas understanding seems to be different from yours..."
Ethan: Not at all. Rather, because you have been given a selective quote by your cult and have not read the Church fathers in their entirety and in their context you assume, based upon your religious tradition that Herbert Armstrong was the only man to have really understood the Bible and preach the Gospel in the past 1,900 years, of which the United Church of God perpetuates, that you are right, but in reality you are eisegetically utilizing these statements as selectively found in the magazines of the United Church of God. Your statements are not those of a man that is learned in Biblical theology or Church history.
Thomas Aquinas' quote, taken in isolation, may be used to provided superficial (and deceptive) support to the serious error of Armstrongism. However, Thomas Aquinas taught, along with some other Church fathers, that men are "deified" in the sense and context that the Holy Spirit indwelling Christians sanctifies them into the image of God in Christ, which comes to full fruitition in the bodily resurrection and the full sanctifiction of moral holiness.
You are confused because you don't have a knowledge of patristics nor understand the full context of these Christian fathers and their statements. In short, Thomas Aquinas did not teach that men will become God "as God is God" in the blasphemous context of Armstrongism but, rather, held to the orthodox and Biblical teaching that men will be given the communicable attributes of God, vis., moral holiness and eternal life with Him.
DouglasKC wrote: "From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995), paragraph 460:" "460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature" : "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."
Ethan: The context of the Cathechism--which I strongly doubt you have read either in part or in its entirety--is in full accordance with the Church fathers, vis., that by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ, men receive the adoption as sons of God and receive the communicable attributes of God, His moral perfection, made possible throught God the Son, Jesus Christ, very God and very Man. The Roman Catholic church does not in any way teach or endorse the Armstrongism tradition that men can become God "as God is God."
DouglasKC wrote: "So to be consistent, I think it's incumbent on you to start going into a public forums and start calling Aquinas and Roman Catholics heretics and blasphemers for holding this view. :-)"
Ethan: No, your ignorance of the actual beliefs in full-context of the Church fathers and the Roman Catholic church, does not make anything "incumbent" upon anyone.
You are projecting your ignorance of these issues as normative. In other words, because you don't know anything about the Church fathers, exegesis, or the context of the pieces you copied from the literature of the United Church of God, you don't know what you're talking about.
Neither St. Thomas or any of the fathers of the Church, such as St. Augustine, taught the Armstrongism doctrine of men becoming "God as God is God." The Roman Catholic church does not in any sense teach or endorse the Armstrongism doctrine that men can become God in essense of substance.
Their teaching is that men partake of the "divine nature" in the context of being made to conform to the moral perfections and holiness of God. This is perfectly Biblical and has nothing to do with the false doctrine of Armstrongism you're trying to promote.
All of the Church fathers, in accordance with the historic Christian faith and the Old and New Testaments, hold to the following which put into context any statements the literature of the United Church of God may selectively use in order to deceive its followers to [a] continue in Armstrongism and [b] continue sending in the tithes.
Monotheism. The Church fathers, including St. Thomas Aquinas, believed in one God, not an open pantheon. The one God they believed in alone is and forever will be the one, unique, true God. While there is certainly a familial relation between the Father and Son, there is only one Being of God, and the one Being of God is manifested in three centers of consciousness--three Persons; the three Persons are the one God.
The cults, including the United Church of God, will say they believe in one God too!--but the casual, innocent reader is not aware that a complete redefinition of the terms has taken place, injecting into them concepts completely alien to their historic, Biblical context (see Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults. Minn: Bethany House Publishers, 1985, pp. 18-24).
Trinitarianism. The Church fathers, including St. Thomas Aquinas, held to the New Testament revelation that the one God exists eternally in the undivided being of Deity in three Persons, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. As with monotheism, the term Trinity is likewise redefined so the casual, innocent reader may be sucked in with the deception. For example, "DouglasKC" implied that the United Church of God accepts in some way the Council of Nicea and its teachings on the nature of God. I'll be blunt--that is a lie.
The council of Nicea articulated and defended the historic and New Testament teaching that there is one God and within the undivided substance of the one, true God there exists three Persons, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. The United Church of God (Armstrongism) completely and aggressively rejects these Biblical, Christian truths.
Incarnationalism. The Church fathers, including St. Thomas Aquinas, believed that the Second Person of the Trinity (called the "Word" and the "Son") became flesh, without ever ceasing to be God, forever and uniquely uniting the two natures of Deity and humanity in His Person.
The statements of the Church fathers, when taken in their entirety and in their context, do not teach the Armstrongism doctrine that men are to become God in their essence of being and that they will be God as "God is God."
Armstrongism is not Christian in its basic doctrines and is, in fact, wholly at odds with the Church fathers and, ironically, considering your attempt to hijack them despite the position of Armstrongism and the United Church of God toward them, the Roman Catholic church, regarding their view of man and his relation to His Maker, the one and only God.
Armstrongism (and the United Church of God) teaches:
"God's PURPOSE in having created humanity - in having caused YOU to be born - is to reproduce Himself" (Herbert W. Armstrong, Just what do you mean Conversion?, p. 18. emphasis in original).
Holy Scripture teaches:
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me" (Isaiah 43:10).
You made the charge that holding the position that "God is a family" was a heretical statement. I answered back with scripture that proved my point:
Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
Since you didn't respond can I take it that you concede this point?
You also stated that anyone who did not believe in the trinity doctrine as it taught today is a "heretic" and not really a Christian...or words to that effect.
I made the case that the holy spirit was not a personage (okay, "being") in the Godhead and quoted many verses to support my position.
Since you didn't respond to that either can I take that you concede that point too?
You have also presented yourself as an expert in grammatical exegesis. So far I have asked you twice if there is any glaring grammatical error in a passage you used to support your position that the bible does away with the 7th day sabbath. Here is what you posted:
The New Living Translation expresses it, "So don't let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new-moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules were only shadows of the real thing, Christ himself" (Col. 2:16-17, New Living Translation).
For the third time I ask you is there anything that strikes you as unusual in the translation of this particular passage?
Let me approach this from another way. A clear biblical teaching is that the nature of God is love.
1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
I take it we can agree on this point.
Now your position seems to that we are positionally "apart" from God. That "we have intimate fellowship with God..." whatever that encompasses, but that we are somehow "apart" from God in a tangible way both in this life and the next.
Now examine the following verses:
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Paul in these truly inspired verses says that NOTHING can seperate him FROM the LOVE of God which is IN Christ Jesus the Lord. Right? And God IS Love right?
Nothing can seperate us. Not life OR death. Nothing in the present or in the future can seperate us. We are bound together as ONE. If God is love and we are bound in his love AND part of him then we ARE part of the Godhead.
John writes this verse which I quoted previously:
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Also:
1Jo 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
We would have no eternal life if we were not IN Christ:
1Jo 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jo 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Again:
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
I'm sorry, but I can not read this scripture without getting the distinct impression that we are and will be joined to God, are and will be part of God...we are are will be ONE with God eternally. And as Paul said, nothing can seperate us ever. Scripture is clear that WE are PART of God. We are called the BODY of Christ.
This is not "Armstrongism". This is what the bible says.
My response to that would be:
Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
In John 10:34-36 Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6. The view of Biblical scholars with advanced training in Hebrew and Biblical theology, in other words, men that know what they are talking about, is that Psalm 82 refers to Israelite judges in the capacity of their position of representing God to the nation.
I just wish you would insult me without adding in all the extra words. That way I could respond much quicker to your posts.
Jesus' use of this rhetorical device is made clear and driven home when the full context of the passage He is quoting is made known which you neglected to include etc. etc.
The Israelite judges ironically called "gods" in Ps. 82 and John 10:34-35 were wicked men, grave sinners, condemned to die by the declaration of the true God and were therefore not truly gods or "gods in the making."
Because you didn't utilize the full context of the passages and how they were used, and, of course, because you are not utilizing any exegesis but simply using the traditions of Armstrongism, you completely bastardized the passages with eisegsis.
Well that was very interesting (and long) explanation. It was chockfull of interesting traditional ideas and opinions. I appreciate your sharing them. But for all that you still have to contend with the context that Jesus used when he quoted the verse.
First of all you said "Jesus was employing this same passage to the rulers of Israel in His day,". That's an interesting opinion but not exactly scriptural. Christ was talking to a group of jews. That chapter says nothing about Sanhedrin, or Pharisees, or scribes, or Sadducees or priests. He was addressing Judaens. Now granted there could have been members of the "rulers of Israel" in the crowd, but you're reading that in to buttress your tradition.
You also said "The Israelite judges ironically called "gods" in Ps. 82 and John 10:34-35". You also said "St. Paul uses an analogous usage in 1 Cor. 4:8 where he writes "you have become kings..."
In 1 Cor 4:8, it doesn't say "you have beome kings." Kings isn't even in the original greek. It's added in. The literal of the passage is:
1Co 4:8 You are already satisfied; you already became rich; you reigned without us (and oh that you really did reign, so that we also might reign with you!)
Granted the KJV translators added to get this:
1Co 4:8 Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.
Now anyone without the prejudice of their tradition wouldn't say Paul was calling them "kings". He would say that they were reigning AS, or LIKE kings, ironic or not. So the use of this scripture to support your position is questionable.
That leaves us with your position that Christ is making an ironic statement to a crowd of Judeans. However the context of the entire chapter doesn't support this.
In fact, it's much easier if I quote from a contemporary engish version of the bible. We'll start with the God's Word Translation:
Joh 10:29 My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than everyone else, and no one can tear them away from my Father.
Joh 10:30 The Father and I are one."
Jesus makes the claim that he and the father are one, essentially asserting that he is a member of the Godhead. The jews naturally didn't like hearing this:
Joh 10:31 The Jews had again brought some rocks to stone Jesus to death.
Joh 10:32 Jesus replied to them, "I've shown you many good things that come from the Father. For which of these good things do you want to stone me to death?"
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered Jesus, "We're going to stone you to death, not for any good things you've done, but for dishonoring God. You claim to be God, although you're only a man."
Look Ehthan! They are reacting just like you! I'm no Jesus, but when I'm in Christ and Christ in me we are unseperable...the bible says so remember?
Joh 10:34 Jesus said to them, "Don't your Scriptures say, 'I said, "You are gods"'?
Jesus, in response to their saying that he's claimed to be God reminds them of scripture that says "You are Gods." And scripture uses the specific greek for "Gods", not "judges" or "leaders" or anything else that denotes that he's talking about anything else but God. Crystal clear.
Joh 10:35 The Scriptures cannot be discredited. So if God calls people gods (and they are the people to whom he gave the Scriptures),
Joh 10:36 why do you say that I'm dishonoring God because I said, 'I'm the Son of God'? God set me apart for this holy purpose and has sent me into the world.
As if he's talking right to you Ethan he says "Hey, it's in scripture and scripture is true so why am I dishonoring God?"
Joh 10:37 If I'm not doing the things my Father does, don't believe me.
Joh 10:38 But if I'm doing those things and you refuse to believe me, then at least believe the things that I'm doing. Then you will know and recognize that the Father is in me and that I am in the Father."
He ends his discourse by making the same claim.
Because you didn't utilize the full context of the passages and how they were used, and, of course, because you are not utilizing any exegesis but simply using the traditions of Armstrongism, you completely bastardized the passages with eisegsis.
I took the clear, plain, obvious meaning of scripture and based my conclusions on it. You added layer after layer of your tradition and ascribed motivations to Christ that just aren't there. You attempted to use supporting verse that don't support your position.
I think it would be wise for you to read a couple of verses prior to 1 Corinthians 4:8:
1Co 4:6 Brothers and sisters, I have applied this to Apollos and myself for your sake. You should learn from us not to go beyond what is written in Scripture. Then you won't arrogantly place one of us in opposition to the other.
Thanks, I wish I had known that...it would have made my search easier. Knowing that you have an extreme prejudice against any material I might happen to quote from UCG, I actually cut and pasted this, in it's orignal form, from this website which seems to be some type of Catholic apolgetic site. Click on the link, go down to the near the bottom and there you will see the quotes, same formatting and all..
Not at all. Rather, because you have been given a selective quote by your cult and have not read the Church fathers in their entirety...
I won't bother quoting the rest because it's entirely invalidated by where I actually got the quotes from...
In short, Thomas Aquinas did not teach that men will become God "as God is God" in the blasphemous context of Armstrongism but, rather, held to the orthodox and Biblical teaching that men will be given the communicable attributes of God, vis., moral holiness and eternal life with Him.
The bible teaches "in" not "with" Him. IN Him Ethan. We are not "with" Christ. We are IN Christ.
You have no idea what Aquinas had in mind when he penned his words. The fact that they are identical to my beliefs almost to the letter should give you pause to consider your own understanding of the nature of God and humanity.
You are projecting your ignorance of these issues as normative. In other words, because you don't know anything about the Church fathers, exegesis, or the context of the pieces you copied from the literature of the United Church of God, you don't know what you're talking about.
lol...basically you're saying that I don't know anything about your traditon. I do know quite a bit, but probably it's the bits you don't want to hear. I choose to follow what's written in scripture first and foremost. If we went one on one in a discussion about your tradition I admit that you would beat me hands down. It's kind of like trying to argue with Moromons about the book of mormon. I don't care if they believe it, but I'm not going to try and debate them on the issues raised there because I don't believe it. Your responses break down like this: 75% consists of your learned opinion and tradition. 28% consists of attacking Herbert Armstrong, the WWCG and UCG, 2% (and I'm being charitable) consists of actual scripture.
The Church fathers, including St. Thomas Aquinas, held to the New Testament revelation that the one God exists eternally in the undivided being of Deity in three Persons, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. As with monotheism, the term Trinity is likewise redefined so the casual, innocent reader may be sucked in with the deception. For example, "DouglasKC" implied that the United Church of God accepts in some way the Council of Nicea and its teachings on the nature of God. I'll be blunt--that is a lie.
I said and implied no such thing Ethan. Let me do this again so you will understand. I quoted the Nicene creed:
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
This is almost exactly my understanding. I believe that the Holy Spirt emanates from God the Father and Christ the son and manifests here in our reality. The Holy Spirit IS holy because it IS God's presence here on earth. It expressly does NOT say that the Holy Spirit is a seperate "being" as the father and son are, but instead PROCEEDS from the father and son.
Now here is the statement of beliefs from United:
We believe in one God, the Father, eternally existing, who is a Spirit, a personal Being of supreme intelligence, knowledge, love, justice, power and authority. He, through Jesus Christ, is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. He is the Source of life and the One for whom human life exists. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who is the Word and 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 the 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. We believe in the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of God and of Christ Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the power of God and the Spirit of life eternal.
I and every other member of United takes the Holy Spirit very seriously. The only thing we disagree with in traditional Christianity is the location of the Holy Spirit. It IS NOT in the Godhead as a personage, or being, as God the Father and Christ the son are. I've showed you scripture after scripture that supports my position and you have shown me no scripture that supports your view. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Your rebuttals consist of attacks on Armstrong, quoting of your tradition and proclamations of your theological expertise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.