"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. :-)