Worldwide Church of God: A convert to OT/NT onlyism?

In the early 1930s, Herbert Armstrong began a radio ministry, a magazine and a church that eventually became "The World Tomorrow," The Plain Truth, and the Worldwide Church of God. He had many unusual doctrines. These he taught so enthusiastically that eventually more than 100,000 people attended weekly services. After he died in 1986, church leaders began to realize that many of his doctrines were not biblical. These doctrines were rejected. Today the church and The Plain Truth are in full agreement with the statement of faith of the National Association of Evangelicals. Here is the story of how the church developed and how it changed.

Jesus Christ changes lives. He can change an organization, too. This is the story of how the Lord changed the Worldwide Church of God from an unorthodox church on the fringes of Christianity, into an evangelical church that believes and teaches orthodox doctrines.

The story involves both pain and joy. Thousands of members left the church. Income is less than one fourth of what it once was. But thousands of members are rejoicing with renewed zeal for their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The story begins in Oregon, in the 1920s. Herbert Armstrong, a newspaper advertising designer, accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior. He described it in his autobiography:

"Jesus Christ had bought and paid for my life by His death. It really belonged to Him, and now I told Him He could have it! From then on, this defeated no-good life of mine was God's. I didn't see how it could be worth anything to Him. But it was His to use as His instrument, if He thought He could use it....

"In surrendering to God in complete repentance, I found unspeakable joy in accepting Jesus Christ as personal Savior and my present High Priest.... Somehow I began to realize a new fellowship and friendship had come into my life. I began to be conscious of a contact and fellowship with Christ, and with God the Father.

"When I read and studied the Bible, God was talking to me, and now I loved to listen! I began to pray, and knew that in prayer I was talking with God. I was not yet very well acquainted with God. But one gets to be better acquainted with another by constant contact and continuous conversation. So I continued in the study of the Bible. I began to write, in article form, the things I was learning."

As Herbert Armstrong studied the Bible, he came to a number of unusual conclusions. Eventually, he began to preach and to lead small congregations of believers. In the early 1930s, he started a radio program and a small magazine.

Armstrong often focused on areas in which his conclusions were different from traditional doctrines. This aroused interest. He emphasized the unusual, the never-before-understood. With advertising flair, he created interest in various doctrines by teaching things that other preachers did not.

Most people did not accept his unusual views, but he persuaded a few people that traditional churches were wrong, and that he had the truth. This small group supported the radio ministry (called The World Tomorrow) and the magazine (called The Plain Truth). Finances were always tight, but the ministry gradually grew along the Pacific Coast of the United States.

In 1947, Herbert Armstrong moved his ministry to southern California, so that he could have better access to the radio industry. He also began a small school to train leaders for the church -- Ambassador College, in Pasadena. Finances continued to be very tight, but the ministry continued to grow as time was purchased on more and more radio stations.

Since the message went out by radio throughout North America, the people who responded to the message were scattered throughout the United States and Canada. Young graduates of Ambassador College were then sent to various cities to gather the believers into small churches.

The church grew rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s. The radio program was sent to England, Australia, the Philippines, Latin America, and Africa. Church offices were opened in numerous nations around the world. The name of the church was changed from "Radio Church of God" to "Worldwide Church of God."

But growth began to slow in the 1970s. Christ did not return in 1975, as many ministers had speculated. Minor doctrines were changed, weakening some members' respect for Armstrong's doctrinal authority. Armstrong's son, widely considered to be an heir apparent, was accused of improprieties, and he eventually left with a few thousand other members to form the Church of God International.

Another article about Herbert Armstrong For photos of Herbert Armstrong, see Transformed by Truth

Nevertheless, many people continued to be attracted to Herbert Armstrong's style and teachings, and the church continued to grow slowly until Armstrong died in 1986 at the age of 93. He left a denomination that numbered 120,000 people in attendance every week. Annual income was 200 million dollars. Plain Truth circulation was in the millions every month, and the television program was one of the top two religious programs in America.

As the Worldwide Church of God criticized traditional Christianity, it also attracted criticism. Many people considered Herbert Armstrong to be the leader of a heretical cult. Today, the leaders of the Worldwide Church of God reject Armstrong's doctrinal errors, but we do not hide our past. Rather, we acknowledge that our errors were deep and serious, but that Christ has rescued us from them.

In some ways, we were like Saul of Tarsus, who zealously persecuted Christians. He was confronted by Christ, transformed, and given a new mission. Although he began to preach about Jesus right away, his most significant work did not come until more than ten years later, when he became Paul, the missionary apostle.

We hope that we are also used by Christ to proclaim his gospel worldwide. But that is getting ahead of the story. In order to understand the Worldwide Church of God today, it is helpful to see how we started. We turn our attention now to the doctrinal mix that made Armstrong both interesting and unorthodox.

Three doctrines were instrumental in Armstrong's conversion: 1) That God is the Creator, 2) That the Bible is true, and 3) That the Bible does not change the Sabbath to Sunday. Armstrong was guided to this third doctrine by a member of the Church of God (Seventh Day), a small group that has some similarities to the Seventh-day Adventists.

Armstrong was eager to obey God, and he saw in Scripture that God commanded his people to keep the seventh day as a Sabbath. Although most Christians do not keep the seventh day, no one was able to prove to Armstrong that God ever authorized his people to change or ignore this commandment. Armstrong felt that he had to choose between Bible and tradition, and he chose the Bible. However, he had no seminary training, nor any disciplined study of church history, biblical interpretation, or the original languages of Scripture.

He reasoned that if traditional Christianity could be wrong about such a major topic, perhaps they were wrong on other things, too. Armstrong became skeptical of all Christian tradition and he studied everything from scratch. He could not find biblical proof for many traditional doctrines. This bias against traditional orthodoxy became part of the WCG culture, and it was an advertising hook that captured many people's interest.

Armstrong had a high respect for Scripture. If the Bible said it, he was willing to do it, no matter how difficult it might be. His zeal is commendable -- and his respect for Scripture made his message more believable. "Don't believe me," he often said, "believe the Bible. Blow the dust off your own Bible, and read what it says." Many people were surprised at what they found.

Armstrong believed that Jesus is God, but he usually gave much more emphasis to God the Father. That is because some churches focused so much on Jesus that they offered "cheap grace" (as Dietrich Bonhoeffer later called it). Armstrong emphasized God's role as Lawgiver, as One who is to be obeyed.

Armstrong accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins, as divine. But he did not have the theological training to know how to reconcile the biblical data that Jesus is God and the Father is God and yet there is only one God. He mistakenly taught that God is a family, and that the Father and the Son are two beings in that family, and that when humans are resurrected, they will be born again as members of the God Family.

Armstrong did not see biblical proof that the Holy Spirit was a distinct person, so he taught that the Holy Spirit was an impersonal force. In this, his teaching was similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses, but there is no evidence that he obtained his doctrine from them. This anti-trinitarian view had circulated in several groups.

Armstrong preached that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, but he also stressed the necessity of obeying God. An emphasis on law-keeping formed another major component of WCG culture.

Armstrong believed that if a person loves God, the person will obey God's commands. If a person does not keep the Sabbath, Armstrong concluded, then that person must not love God. Unfortunately, he viewed the Sabbath as the ``test commandment'' — in effect, a requirement for being considered a true Christian. Other churches were false churches, children of the devil.

In addition to the weekly Sabbath, the WCG observed seven annual Sabbaths, based on Leviticus 23. WCG members also avoided pork, shrimp and certain other meats (Lev. 11). They gave one tithe to support the ministry, used another to keep the annual Sabbaths, and in some years gave a third tithe to the church for its poor members. The financial requirements were high, but they also increased the levels of commitment. Where a person's treasure is, there the heart will be also. Members of the WCG had their hearts in the church and its work.

Armstrong taught that repentance involves a change in behavior, that Christianity involves a way of life. In the WCG, this focused primarily on prohibitions. WCG members were not allowed to vote, serve in the military, marry after divorce, go to doctors, use cosmetics, or observe Christmas, Easter and birthdays. All this emphasis on rules, however, meant that grace was rarely mentioned. Many members became legalistic in their own relationship with God, and judgmental of other Christians.

Armstrong viewed himself as God's apostle, leading the one true church. Armstrong had supreme doctrinal authority. If anyone was disloyal, that person would most likely be fired and expelled from the church fellowship. (Legally, Armstrong was under the authority of a board of directors, but they always supported his decisions.)

Armstrong also had many unusual ideas about prophecy, and these may have been the most attractive doctrines of all. He taught that the United States and Britain are modern descendants of the northern ten tribes of Israel, and that therefore many biblical prophecies apply to the Anglo-Saxon peoples. He saw himself as an end-time fulfillment of prophecy, with a message of warning for the "Israelite" peoples.

The Great Tribulation would soon start, he warned in the 1930s, in the 1940s, in the 1950s, in the 1960s, in the 1970s, and in the 1980s — but the good news is that Christ will soon return and rule for 1,000 years. In fact, the millennium was so important to Armstrong that it became the center of the gospel. It was the reason the radio and television broadcasts were titled ``The World Tomorrow.'' The millennium was the good news.

Obviously, there are a lot of doctrinal errors in this list. Equally obviously, we would not describe them as errors unless we had understood why they were in error. We have worked hard to inform our own members about where we went wrong --- and we say "we" with all honesty, for all the current leaders of the church once believed and taught these erroneous doctrines. We have all criticized other Christians as false, deceived, children of the devil.

We have much to apologize for. We are profoundly sorry that we persecuted Christians and created dissention and disunity in the body of Christ. We seek forgiveness and reconciliation.

Much of our doctrinal foundation was faulty. And yet part of it was true. Some of our members came from other denominations, but others were unchurched people who had little previous exposure to Christianity. Many people came to Christ in the Worldwide Church of God, accepted his death for their sins, and trusted in him for salvation. Many lives were transformed from sin and selfishness, to service and humility. A germ of life continued inside the crust of erroneous doctrines.

After Herbert Armstrong died, that germ of life slowly began to grow, breaking off the crust that had once limited it. It took many years --- and many tears. Here's the story:

In 1986, shortly before he died, Herbert Armstrong appointed Joseph Tkach (pronounced Ta-cotch) to be his successor. Tkach had been a loyalist who supervised all the ministers. He was more an administrator than the magnetic personality that Armstrong had been. Tkach assigned other people to present the television program and write the articles.

The church continued to grow slowly. In 1988, Tkach made minor doctrinal changes. He taught members that it was permissible to go to doctors, take medicines, observe birthdays and wear cosmetics. He realized that many of the prophetic speculations that had made the television program and magazine so interesting couldn't actually be proven from Scripture.

Questions also arose about some of the things that Armstrong had written, and some of his books were withdrawn from circulation until further study could resolve the questions. Some members were troubled that the church was no longer teaching the same things that Armstrong had, and in 1989, 3,000 members left to form the Philadelphia Church of God to preserve Armstrong doctrines.

In 1990, the church peaked at 133,000 in weekly attendance. More doctrinal changes were made as Tkach realized that some of Armstrong's unusual beliefs, though sincere, were not biblical. The focus of the gospel is Jesus Christ and grace, not prophecy or the millennium. Budgetary reductions began to affect the television broadcast. More Armstrong literature was discontinued and/or edited.

In 1991, Tkach revised the church's explanation of what it means to be born again, noting also that humans will never become Gods. He also announced a study about the modern identity of the lost ten tribes, and accepted the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Membership, attendance, and income began to decrease slowly.

In 1992, income continued to decrease, and a prominent minister and 3,000 members left to form the Global Church of God.

In 1993, the church accepted the doctrine of the Trinity. The church declared that the cross was not a pagan symbol, that it is not a sin to have illustrations of Jesus, and that Christians may vote. Such changes may seem inconsequential to most Christians, but each change was significant for WCG members because each change attacked strongly held beliefs about how we ought to express our devotion to God. Each change had to be explained from the Scriptures and had to explain how previous explanations were not correct.

In 1994, the television program was cancelled and employees were laid off. The church also explained to the members that true Christians can be found in other denominations.

But perhaps the most traumatic change came in December 1994: Tkach announced that Christians do not have to keep old covenant laws such as the weekly and annual Sabbaths, two and three tithes, and avoid pork, shrimp and other meats. In many ways, the Sabbath had been the foundational doctrine of the entire denomination, so this was the biggest change of all. (Click here for the text of the sermon Tkach used to announce these changes, and click here to see a menu of papers analyzing these doctrines.)

Many members did not accept these changes. After decades of understanding their identity as Christians in terms of Sabbath-keeping, and after making many sacrifices in order to keep the Sabbath, they could not easily accept the idea that it really didn't matter.

In early 1995, hundreds of ministers and 12,000 members left to form the United Church of God. Thousands more stopped attending any church, and many congregations were left with only half the members they used to have. Church income dropped another 50 percent, and hundreds of employees were laid off. Friends and families were split. It was a time of anguish and depression.

Something unexpected also happened: Many members, after struggling to understand the doctrinal change, began to experience a new sense of peace and joy through a renewed faith in Jesus Christ. Their identity was in him, not in the particular laws they kept.

The Sabbath doctrine was changed in order to be more biblical; the result was that members became more spiritual. Members focused more on their relationship with Jesus Christ; they also had an increased interest in worship. Organizationally, this doctrinal change had catastrophic results. But spiritually, it was the best thing that ever happened to the WCG.

Another major change also occurred in 1995: Joseph Tkach Sr. died after a brief battle with cancer. He designated his son, Joe, as his successor, and the board of directors honored this appointment.

A few additional doctrines were changed later in 1995: The church officially rejected the doctrine that the Anglo-Saxons descended from the tribes of Israel, and the church permitted the observance of holidays such as Christmas and Easter.

It was a tumultuous decade. Now, the Worldwide Church of God is about half the size it used to be. The television ministry, once one of the largest in America, is gone. Circulation of The Plain Truth fell from a peak of 8,000,000 down to less than 100,000. The number of employees in Pasadena fell from 1,000 to about 100. Some pastors were also terminated, and lay pastors were appointed for small congregations.

The church's properties in Pasadena are greatly underutilized and up for sale. Ambassador College/University was forced to close because the church could no longer subsidize it, and its properties have been sold. An era of change is coming to an end.

Evangelical churches have also re-evaluated their stance toward the WCG. One of the first friendly groups was the Haggard School of Theology at Azusa Pacific University. Fuller Theological Seminary also helped. Cult-watching groups such as the Christian Research Institute complimented the church when it accepted the doctrine of the Trinity. In 1995, more evangelicals embraced us as brothers in the faith. We cite the International Church of the Four Square Gospel in particular. We are grateful for these gestures of reconciliation.

In March 1996, Joe Tkach wrote an editorial in The Plain Truth [click here for article] apologizing to members and all who have been hurt by the church's erroneous teachings and practices. He asked for forgiveness and cooperation. In July 1996, Christianity Today published a long article on the Worldwide Church of God --- "From the Fringe to the Fold," by Ruth Tucker (pp. 26-32) [click here for article]. And in 1997, the church was accepted as a member of the National Association of Evangelicals. [click here for press release]

The apostle Paul, after his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, immediately began to preach that Jesus is the Son of God (Acts 9:20). But he was not immediately accepted into Christian fellowship. The Christians in Jerusalem were skeptical, and it took a bridge-builder named Barnabas to bring him into the group (verses 26-27). Not long thereafter, Paul was sent away to Tarsus (v. 30).

God had great plans for Paul -- but it took quite a while for those plans to be implemented. Paul spent three years in Arabia, many more years in Tarsus. What he preached and whom he reached, we do not know. But it must have been a time for Paul to clarify his thoughts. He had heard the arguments of the early Christians; he knew well the arguments of the Jews who did not believe. And he was faced with undeniable evidence that Jesus was in fact the Messiah.

Paul had help from his new-found Christian friends. He already knew what they were teaching, and they taught him more, and yet he still had more to think about. Why did the Messiah have to die? Why did the Jews not accept the Messiah God had given them? Where had the Jewish religion led them astray? If one could be right with God under old covenant laws, then why did God have to send his Son to die? Paul had to think about all the implications -- thoughts we would later read in his epistles. It took many years to make a transition from a worship rooted in the Old Testament, to a faith based in the new covenant.

Paul, whom God had chosen to be a missionary to the gentiles, was waiting in the wings for many years. Luke tells us that Paul wasn't even around when the first gentiles came into the church (Acts 10). Paul doesn't enter the picture until after many gentiles had already become part of the church at Antioch (Acts 11:20-26). And it was only after some time in Antioch that Paul actually got around to do the missionary work for which Christ had called him.

There are many similarities between the story of Paul and the story of the Worldwide Church of God. We have roots in the old covenant, and the new has been revealed. We have embraced the new with joy, and there have been Barnabas-like people who have helped reconcile us to other Christians, and who have helped teach us. And yet it is taking us some time to understand our identity and our role in the Christian world.

We do not have any delusions of grandeur, that we will be as great as the apostle Paul. We do not imagine that we will turn the world upside down. We do not think we will transform the church like Paul did. But we do expect God to use us to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps there is a niche out there that needs our particular experience. Perhaps God is preparing us for situations that do not yet exist. We do not know, but we remain ready to respond to God's leading.

When our foundational doctrines were changed, some people claimed that the Worldwide Church of God should just close its doors and tell all its members to go to authentic Christian churches. Ironically, we heard this not from other Christian churches, but from a few of our own members! They were angry and bitter that the WCG had caused such pain in their lives by teaching erroneous doctrines. They concluded that the WCG had been built on false pretenses and therefore had no right to exist.

We acknowledge that many of our doctrines were erroneous. We acknowledge that the WCG would not exist without those erroneous doctrines. But we do not conclude that Jesus Christ rescued us as a group merely to have us disband. He has bought and paid for this church. It belongs to him, and we have told him that he can have it! If it is of any value to him, he can use it as his instrument, and we are happy to let him lead us. We rejoice in the fellowship we have with him, and we believe that he is already leading us into usefulness.

Due to our shared experiences, we have things we need to learn as a group, and we will not learn these things as well if we disband. We also hope that our shared experiences also give us something to teach.

As a group, we are enjoying a new interest in worship. We are discovering spiritual gifts and lay ministry. We are learning to function in new ways.

Our strengths as a denomination include a high respect for Scripture and a willingness to do what it says. We recognize that Jesus, as our Savior and as our Lord, gives us instructions for our thoughts, words and actions. We know that Christ makes a difference in the way we live. He transforms our lives in this age, as well as giving us eternal life.

We have also stressed prayer and study as important aspects of spiritual growth. Our recent history gives us a concern for grace, and an awareness of legalism.

Of course, the story is not yet over. Jesus is not done with us yet. We are still being shaped and fashioned for his purpose. We praise him and worship him, and seek to know his will for our lives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For further information on the history of the church, you may wish to consult one of the books listed below:

J. Michael Feazell, The Liberation of the Worldwide Church of God. Zondervan, 2001. J. Thomas Lapacka, Out of the Shadows: Finding God's Truth in a World of Deception. Concordia, 2001. Joseph Tkach, Transformed by Truth. Multnomah, 1997 - this book is no longer in print, but is available on our website. Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults. Bethany House, 1998. Earlier editions of this book were written before most of our doctrinal changes were made. The 1998 edition has an appendix documenting our transition into orthodoxy. This appendix is available at http://www.wcg.org/wn/98apr/cult.htm. George Mather and Larry Nichol, Rediscovering the Plain Truth. InterVarsity, 1997. Ruth Tucker, "From the Fringe to the Fold: How the Worldwide Church of God Discovered the Plain Truth of the Gospel." Christianity Today, July 15, 1996. This is available at http://www.wcg.org/wn/96aug27/ct.htm

Ethan: Actually, no, on a number of counts. First, I cited credentialed, serious Christian scholarship in order to responsibly demonstrate that I was not utilizing the word in a pejorative sense or in a capricious manner. I deal full-time in a Christian educational and apologetics capacity, including research on Adventist-based cults, particularly Armstrongism, and so use the word "cult" in a very precise, carefully defined, well-established manner.

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? :-)

Douglas, I didn't simply "tear down the man" to "invalidate his doctrine" as you eisegetically focused on one partial quote outside of the broader context and content.

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?

fishtank wrote:

"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).

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.

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...

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. :-)

I previously wrote: 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.