Pantheon of gods
5 Reasons COGs Are Not ‘Christian’
Wild-eyed Christian enthusiasts are quick to blast others who disagree with them as not being Christian.
A word of advice: If Christians have differing views on…
But neither should we make the mistake of thinking beliefs don’t matter. Some make a world of difference.
Can we apply the label “Christian” to the various COGs in the Armstrong tradition, such as the United Church of God (UCG); Church of God, a Worldwide Association (COGWA); Church of God International (CGI); Intercontinental Church of God (ICG); and all the rest?
We surely agree that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (think Mormons) and The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (think Jehovah’s Witnesses) are not Christian. We don’t say that to insult any adherents of their respective religions. It’s just an honest assessment of their theology, of how they view God—especially in the Person of Jesus Christ.
We have to judge honestly the theology of Armstrong COGs in the same way. While many of their believers may be sincere and decent people, here are five commonly held COG beliefs that lead me—a former COG believer—to objectively conclude these organizations cannot be properly called “Christian”:
Tertullian (A.D. 155-200), Adversus Praxeam - Against Praxeas, chapter 3
If Jesus was only a man (and not God) when he walked the earth, then we have to ask: How did his Roman execution benefit any of us? At most, we could consider him a martyr, not Savior of the world.
On the other hand, the historic Christian Church rightly understands that Jesus is at once fully God and fully man (a concept COGs often explicitly reject). He was, and remains, a divine Person with two natures: human and divine.
God cannot stop being God. As his existence is necessary for all else to exist (and continue to exist), the great “I AM” cannot become “I am not” even for a little while. He cannot go in and out of existence. That contradicts what it means to be eternal.
We have to realize the Word never stopped being God. If God can stop being God, then he was never God to begin with.
It is a contradiction of terms for the Self-Existent One to stop existing. It’s as nonsensical as suggesting the all-powerful God can create a boulder so heavy that he can’t move it. (While that proposal might be a stumper for children, we understand it is nonsensical—and God does not exist in a make-believe world of nonsense. He is not a God of self-contradiction.)
Any COG that says Jesus was no longer God when he became man is not Christian. We could not be saved by a mere man. We had to be saved by the God-Man.
What did the Early Church say?
Origen (A.D. 185-232), De Principiis, preface:
I remember how my CGI pastor reacted when the mid-1990s WCG started saying Jesus could not have sinned. He would say if Jesus couldn’t have sinned, then you have no Savior.
But the truth is just the opposite: You have no Savior if he could have sinned.
If we believe that Jesus was walking around as God in the flesh, as a divine Person who assumed a human nature, then we can’t believe Jesus (as God) was able to sin. Just as God can’t not exist, because he is necessary existence, so it is that he can’t sin, because he is all-holy.
Sin is committed only by a person, through an act of the will, not by the body alone. It involves choice. Jesus is (and was) a divine Person with a divine will, and we know God cannot sin.
Just because Jesus was born with a human body, it does not follow that his divine Person could be overwhelmed with, and succumb to, temptation. His human and divine will were perfectly united. Keeping in mind that only persons (not mere bodies) can sin, if the divine Person of Jesus could have sinned 2000 years go, then he could sin now. But we know he can’t sin now, because he’s God—a divine Person. And there was never a time when he wasn’t a divine Person.
COG leaders have even floated the idea that the Father and the Son took a huge cosmic risk in letting one of them become man. Had he failed through sin, there would have been only one of them left. The implications of this are absurd. For one, it would have cut the “God population” in half, and in such a predicament I would ask whether God the Father, as backup, could have stepped in where the Son failed in order to save the world. And what if he, too, failed through sin? Eternity would end (another contradiction of terms).
Any COG that says Jesus could have sinned is not Christian.
What did the Early Church say?
4. God (or a “God Being”) died
By now you should know where I’m going with this.
Yes, since Jesus was crucified, and since Jesus is God, it’s not wrong to say God died. In fact, it’s necessary to believe that God died.
But Garner Ted Armstrong made his view (the prevailing COG view) very clear within the first 10 to 12 minutes of his appearance on the John Ankerberg Show. He forcefully insisted that Jesus was dead in every sense.
But in what way did Jesus die? The only way possible: in his human nature—as a man. God cannot die in his divine nature. In Jesus’ case, he could only have experienced death through the humanity he assumed from Mary.
Any COG that says the divine nature can die is not Christian.
What did the Early Church say?
Hippolytus (A.D. 170-235), Exegetical Fragments from Commentaries, On Luke, Chapter 23:
5. Jesus’ body was not resurrected
COG believers seem unable to comprehend my charge that they deny the Resurrection of Jesus. They won’t admit to or agree with it, but it’s plainly their belief nonetheless.
Remember that COG leaders love talking about how the “churches of this world” teach that the souls of people, at death, “waft off” into heaven and play harps and eat angel food cake forever (or other such nonsense—a gross misrepresentation of Christian theology).
They say the biblical view is that we experience a resurrection, in which the mortal puts on immortality. As stated, this view is correct. We are absolutely awaiting a resurrection at the Second Coming.
Yet, with few exceptions, I often encounter COG teachers who deny this fundamental Christian truth about Jesus’ resurrection: that the same body that went into the tomb is the same body that came out.
When pressed, they typically explain that the physical body of Jesus was discarded and replaced with something entirely different—a “spirit body” just as he had before the Incarnation, completely unrelated to and disconnected from the body that had hung upon the Cross.
This is not, however, what “resurrection” means. Resurrection refers to something that dies and then comes back to life again, not a transference of consciousness from one body to another. That would be more akin to the pagan belief of reincarnation or a kind of transmigration of souls.
Jesus made clear that he—body and soul—came out of the tomb. He appeared to many people, he showed his wounds to his disciples, he ate with them.
His body, however, was glorified and made perfect. It was no longer subject to death or even to the laws of physics. It was the same human body but renewed in a glorified resurrected state. That’s what Christians believe happened to Jesus, and it’s what Christians believe is our final reward.
Any COG that believes Jesus abandoned the very flesh that saved us and replaced it with something wholly, entirely different is not a Christian. Their preaching is in vain and their faith is in vain.
How many times over the years have we heard various COG leaders complain they can’t get air time on certain Christian media outlets?
Often, the reason for their rejection boils down to one big issue: the doctrine of the trinity.
I would argue that the biggest problem with rejecting the trinity doctrine is not just denying the Personhood of the Holy Spirit—calling him a power or a force, or metaphorizing him as merely the presence and power of the Father and Son acting in the natural world. The biggest problem is that it opens wide the door to the kinds of tragic errors enumerated above.
The person who truly believes in the Christian doctrine of the trinity, and is consistent, will not fall into these serious errors. He will believe there is only one God. He will believe Jesus was God while in the flesh. He will know Jesus could not have sinned or risked his eternal divine life. He will understand that God cannot go out of, and into, existence. He will believe that Jesus’ mortal body was raised from the dead.
Anything to the contrary cannot rightly be called “Christian.”
it’s generally not wise to accuse them of being anti-Christ.· how predestination and God’s omniscience works with our free will, or
· whether God created the world in seven literal 24-hour days, or
· what precisely the two goats of Leviticus 16 foreshadow,
But neither should we make the mistake of thinking beliefs don’t matter. Some make a world of difference.
What about COGs?
We surely agree that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (think Mormons) and The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (think Jehovah’s Witnesses) are not Christian. We don’t say that to insult any adherents of their respective religions. It’s just an honest assessment of their theology, of how they view God—especially in the Person of Jesus Christ.
We have to judge honestly the theology of Armstrong COGs in the same way. While many of their believers may be sincere and decent people, here are five commonly held COG beliefs that lead me—a former COG believer—to objectively conclude these organizations cannot be properly called “Christian”:
1. There are two Gods.2. Jesus was no longer God when he became man.3. Jesus could have sinned.4. The Creator ceased to exist.5. Jesus’ body was not resurrected.
1. There are two Gods
This is a big one. Most COGs are quite comfortable saying outright that there are “two God Beings.“ And many will say that one day, everyone who is eventually “born again” into God’s family will also become a God Being. That means one day there may be millions of God Beings, even if they’re always under the Father and Jesus Christ in “rank.“
Despite this, they recoil at being labeled “polytheists” (a term we apply to pagans), but what’s a more accurate term to describe a belief in two or more God Beings?
Their teachers quickly respond by explaining there is only “one God Family,“ that’s the only sense in which they describe the “oneness” of God. To them it just means these multiple God Beings are united in purpose and plan, of the same mind, on the same team. These two separate God Beings are “one“ in spirit.
But this does not answer for their more-than-one-God teaching. It is their sleight-of-hand way to make polytheism appear monotheistic.
Don’t lose sight that there cannot be two or more “God Beings.” That’s impossible.
Now it is helpful to clarify what we mean by the words Being and Person in a theological and philosophical context, because they can be synonymous in an everyday, conversational context. In short, “being“ is a reference to something that exists, and “person” is a reference to who an existing something is.
So a rocking chair, for example, is a “being,” because it exists, but that rocking chair is not a person.
You, the reader, are also a “being” because you exist, but you’re also a person, because in addition to being a something, you’re a someone.
The Christian view of God is that he is one in Being, but more than one in Person.
This idea is beyond our limited imagination, because every day we see and interact with beings that are zero persons, and beings that are one person; but we never see beings that are more than one person. While we can’t picture it in our minds, a being comprised of more than one person does not contradict logic, just as it is not illogical that some beings are persons and some beings are not.
COG teachers, on the other hand, clearly mean to express that there are two God Beings.
God is almighty. But if the Father is an almighty Being, and if the Son in his divinity is an almighty Being, then neither is almighty. There can’t be more than one almighty Being. Almightiness is a superlative term; it doesn’t allow for two or more. If one is almightier than the other, then the other is not almighty. And so the one who is not almighty is, by definition, not God.
Trinitarians, using nuanced terms to affirm both monotheism and the divinity of Christ, don’t face this difficulty. They understand and explain that God is only one “What” (Being) and more than one “Who” (Person).
Any COG that says there are two or more Gods is not Christian.
What did the Early Church say?
This is a big one. Most COGs are quite comfortable saying outright that there are “two God Beings.“ And many will say that one day, everyone who is eventually “born again” into God’s family will also become a God Being. That means one day there may be millions of God Beings, even if they’re always under the Father and Jesus Christ in “rank.“
Despite this, they recoil at being labeled “polytheists” (a term we apply to pagans), but what’s a more accurate term to describe a belief in two or more God Beings?
Their teachers quickly respond by explaining there is only “one God Family,“ that’s the only sense in which they describe the “oneness” of God. To them it just means these multiple God Beings are united in purpose and plan, of the same mind, on the same team. These two separate God Beings are “one“ in spirit.
But this does not answer for their more-than-one-God teaching. It is their sleight-of-hand way to make polytheism appear monotheistic.
Don’t lose sight that there cannot be two or more “God Beings.” That’s impossible.
Now it is helpful to clarify what we mean by the words Being and Person in a theological and philosophical context, because they can be synonymous in an everyday, conversational context. In short, “being“ is a reference to something that exists, and “person” is a reference to who an existing something is.
So a rocking chair, for example, is a “being,” because it exists, but that rocking chair is not a person.
You, the reader, are also a “being” because you exist, but you’re also a person, because in addition to being a something, you’re a someone.
The Christian view of God is that he is one in Being, but more than one in Person.
This idea is beyond our limited imagination, because every day we see and interact with beings that are zero persons, and beings that are one person; but we never see beings that are more than one person. While we can’t picture it in our minds, a being comprised of more than one person does not contradict logic, just as it is not illogical that some beings are persons and some beings are not.
COG teachers, on the other hand, clearly mean to express that there are two God Beings.
God is almighty. But if the Father is an almighty Being, and if the Son in his divinity is an almighty Being, then neither is almighty. There can’t be more than one almighty Being. Almightiness is a superlative term; it doesn’t allow for two or more. If one is almightier than the other, then the other is not almighty. And so the one who is not almighty is, by definition, not God.
Trinitarians, using nuanced terms to affirm both monotheism and the divinity of Christ, don’t face this difficulty. They understand and explain that God is only one “What” (Being) and more than one “Who” (Person).
Any COG that says there are two or more Gods is not Christian.
What did the Early Church say?
Tertullian (A.D. 155-200), Adversus Praxeam - Against Praxeas, chapter 3
They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth.
2. Jesus was no longer God when he became man
COGs give the strong impression they believe
· that Jesus was God in his preincarnate state;· that Jesus was no longer God when he became man; and· that Jesus was God again when he conquered death.
If Jesus was only a man (and not God) when he walked the earth, then we have to ask: How did his Roman execution benefit any of us? At most, we could consider him a martyr, not Savior of the world.
On the other hand, the historic Christian Church rightly understands that Jesus is at once fully God and fully man (a concept COGs often explicitly reject). He was, and remains, a divine Person with two natures: human and divine.
God cannot stop being God. As his existence is necessary for all else to exist (and continue to exist), the great “I AM” cannot become “I am not” even for a little while. He cannot go in and out of existence. That contradicts what it means to be eternal.
We have to realize the Word never stopped being God. If God can stop being God, then he was never God to begin with.
It is a contradiction of terms for the Self-Existent One to stop existing. It’s as nonsensical as suggesting the all-powerful God can create a boulder so heavy that he can’t move it. (While that proposal might be a stumper for children, we understand it is nonsensical—and God does not exist in a make-believe world of nonsense. He is not a God of self-contradiction.)
Any COG that says Jesus was no longer God when he became man is not Christian. We could not be saved by a mere man. We had to be saved by the God-Man.
What did the Early Church say?
Origen (A.D. 185-232), De Principiis, preface:
He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit...
3. Jesus could have sinned
I remember how my CGI pastor reacted when the mid-1990s WCG started saying Jesus could not have sinned. He would say if Jesus couldn’t have sinned, then you have no Savior.
But the truth is just the opposite: You have no Savior if he could have sinned.
If we believe that Jesus was walking around as God in the flesh, as a divine Person who assumed a human nature, then we can’t believe Jesus (as God) was able to sin. Just as God can’t not exist, because he is necessary existence, so it is that he can’t sin, because he is all-holy.
Sin is committed only by a person, through an act of the will, not by the body alone. It involves choice. Jesus is (and was) a divine Person with a divine will, and we know God cannot sin.
Just because Jesus was born with a human body, it does not follow that his divine Person could be overwhelmed with, and succumb to, temptation. His human and divine will were perfectly united. Keeping in mind that only persons (not mere bodies) can sin, if the divine Person of Jesus could have sinned 2000 years go, then he could sin now. But we know he can’t sin now, because he’s God—a divine Person. And there was never a time when he wasn’t a divine Person.
COG leaders have even floated the idea that the Father and the Son took a huge cosmic risk in letting one of them become man. Had he failed through sin, there would have been only one of them left. The implications of this are absurd. For one, it would have cut the “God population” in half, and in such a predicament I would ask whether God the Father, as backup, could have stepped in where the Son failed in order to save the world. And what if he, too, failed through sin? Eternity would end (another contradiction of terms).
Any COG that says Jesus could have sinned is not Christian.
What did the Early Church say?
...for God cannot be tempted with evil...
4. God (or a “God Being”) died
By now you should know where I’m going with this.
Yes, since Jesus was crucified, and since Jesus is God, it’s not wrong to say God died. In fact, it’s necessary to believe that God died.
But Garner Ted Armstrong made his view (the prevailing COG view) very clear within the first 10 to 12 minutes of his appearance on the John Ankerberg Show. He forcefully insisted that Jesus was dead in every sense.
But in what way did Jesus die? The only way possible: in his human nature—as a man. God cannot die in his divine nature. In Jesus’ case, he could only have experienced death through the humanity he assumed from Mary.
Any COG that says the divine nature can die is not Christian.
What did the Early Church say?
Hippolytus (A.D. 170-235), Exegetical Fragments from Commentaries, On Luke, Chapter 23:
For His body lay in the tomb, not emptied of divinity; but as, while in Hades, He was in essential being with His Father, so was He also in the body and in Hades. For the Son is not contained in space, just as the Father; and He comprehends all things in Himself.
5. Jesus’ body was not resurrected
COG believers seem unable to comprehend my charge that they deny the Resurrection of Jesus. They won’t admit to or agree with it, but it’s plainly their belief nonetheless.
Remember that COG leaders love talking about how the “churches of this world” teach that the souls of people, at death, “waft off” into heaven and play harps and eat angel food cake forever (or other such nonsense—a gross misrepresentation of Christian theology).
They say the biblical view is that we experience a resurrection, in which the mortal puts on immortality. As stated, this view is correct. We are absolutely awaiting a resurrection at the Second Coming.
Yet, with few exceptions, I often encounter COG teachers who deny this fundamental Christian truth about Jesus’ resurrection: that the same body that went into the tomb is the same body that came out.
When pressed, they typically explain that the physical body of Jesus was discarded and replaced with something entirely different—a “spirit body” just as he had before the Incarnation, completely unrelated to and disconnected from the body that had hung upon the Cross.
This is not, however, what “resurrection” means. Resurrection refers to something that dies and then comes back to life again, not a transference of consciousness from one body to another. That would be more akin to the pagan belief of reincarnation or a kind of transmigration of souls.
Jesus made clear that he—body and soul—came out of the tomb. He appeared to many people, he showed his wounds to his disciples, he ate with them.
His body, however, was glorified and made perfect. It was no longer subject to death or even to the laws of physics. It was the same human body but renewed in a glorified resurrected state. That’s what Christians believe happened to Jesus, and it’s what Christians believe is our final reward.
Any COG that believes Jesus abandoned the very flesh that saved us and replaced it with something wholly, entirely different is not a Christian. Their preaching is in vain and their faith is in vain.
What did the Early Church say?
Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (A.D. 110), chapter 3:
ConclusionFor I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now.
How many times over the years have we heard various COG leaders complain they can’t get air time on certain Christian media outlets?
Often, the reason for their rejection boils down to one big issue: the doctrine of the trinity.
I would argue that the biggest problem with rejecting the trinity doctrine is not just denying the Personhood of the Holy Spirit—calling him a power or a force, or metaphorizing him as merely the presence and power of the Father and Son acting in the natural world. The biggest problem is that it opens wide the door to the kinds of tragic errors enumerated above.
The person who truly believes in the Christian doctrine of the trinity, and is consistent, will not fall into these serious errors. He will believe there is only one God. He will believe Jesus was God while in the flesh. He will know Jesus could not have sinned or risked his eternal divine life. He will understand that God cannot go out of, and into, existence. He will believe that Jesus’ mortal body was raised from the dead.
Anything to the contrary cannot rightly be called “Christian.”
The COG Catholic currently blogs at https://write.as/thecogcatholic.
Oh dear! Bob Thiel will melt down over this! LMAO
ReplyDeleteTreble-minded.
ReplyDelete... as opposed to bass-minded?
Delete"We surely agree that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (think Mormons) and The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (think Jehovah’s Witnesses) are not Christian."
ReplyDeleteI don't find that to be a given. They're all "Christians" to me. Including the abhorrent Christian Identity folks.
What did "early church leaders" say???
ReplyDeleteEarly is a relative term, but you are talking about dudes that were 100 to 250 years after the fact. In the short history of the COGs since 1934, 89 years, one can see a wide variety of thought, doctrinal change, attitude , sociology and a lot more. So surely there was lots of "evolution" in those centuries after Jesus as well.
You have to stick with "sola scriptura" or you have to rely on what is "historically derived provenance doctrine". Early Christianity is fragmented with contemporaneous competing orthodoxies. Even the Apostle John was dealing with gnostic ideas even before the first century was over with.
COG Catholic,
ReplyDeleteYour post is well-articulated and well-researched, and I agree with many of the points that you make in the article. Nevertheless, I am dismayed anytime that I see someone set in judgement of whether or not someone else is a Christian. Obviously, I disagree with MANY of the doctrines/beliefs of the ACOG's, but I KNOW that some of those folks have God's Holy Spirit and are in Christ - I've seen the evidence! Having emerged from a delusion which claimed to be the one and only, I shudder to think that that kind of thinking would ever hold sway in my mind again. God's reality IS reality - whatever that happens to be on any given topic (including "His" nature). In short, our beliefs do NOT change God's reality! Moreover, if we are truly obedient and in the right frame of mind, we will exercise the humility to admit that. By the way, I've known some Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses in my lifetime who have exhibited the fruits of God's Spirit and have professed their faith in Jesus Christ (and I've known a few Roman Catholics who were completely devoid of any trace of God's Spirit). Remember, it's NOT what you know (or think that you know) - it's what you do with what you know.
Darren, I know you do not like when Catholic beliefs are misrepresented, and I feel the same about the Church of God. I will address each point.
ReplyDelete1. There are two Gods.
There is only one God and that is what the Church of God that I belong to believes and what scripture teaches. (James 2:19, Isaiah 44:6)
Scripture plainly says that "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist ( 1 Corinthians 8:6).
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
The Bible reveals one God consisting of Father and Son. God is not two Spirits, but only one Spirit. The Holy Spirit (also described as God) is both the presence and influence of the Father and Jesus in the life of a Christian. It is Their Spirit. Christians are currently children and heirs of God (1 John 3:1-2) and will eventually be transformed (glorified) to be in the likeness of the resurrected Christ.
"It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." 1 Corinthians 15:43-44
However, this does not mean that we believe that humans will ever be equal to the Father and Jesus.
2. Jesus was no longer God when he became man.
The Church of God believes that Jesus was fully God when He was Man.
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). When He became human, He was the same person (authority, personality, and character) that He was before.
"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us)" (Matthew 1:23). So Jesus was still God with us.
Jesus was fully God, but Jesus was also fully human.
This was because He "emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness" (Philippians 2:7).
"But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while" (Hebrews 2:9).
In other words, Jesus was changed from His previous spiritual form to be a human. Flesh and blood just like us, but full of His own (Holy Spirit), connecting him to His Father. He was not an illusion, He was entirely a human being in every respect. To deny that is the spirit of antichrist. (1 John 4:3)
3. Jesus could have sinned.
"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).
It is not temptation without the possibility of sinning. If I didn't have the possibility of sinning when I am tempted, I would never sin.
James 1:13 is about God in the present tense. He is not contradicting the writer of Hebrews.
4. The Creator ceased to exist. God (or a "God Being") died
ReplyDeleteWe believe that Jesus died like any other man and was resurrected after three days and three nights. I wouldn't say Jesus ceased to exist in the same way I wouldn't say my dead mother has ceased to exist. She sleeps awaiting a resurrection.
"For if, while we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son" (Romans 5:10)
If Jesus did not die, then we do not have a savior.
5. Jesus' body was not resurrected.
Of course, we believe that Jesus' body was resurrected.
We believe exactly what it says here:
1 Corinthians 15:
"42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man."
When He was resurrected, the body of Jesus was changed into the "heavenly Man" that the Apostle Paul describes as "a spiritual body." I don't know exactly how that happened or all the technical details, I just have faith that it did.
We do not believe the physical body was discarded; it just changed. There was no body in the tomb because He had risen.
No, trinity minded. Maybe a better word is triple-minded, as opposed to double-minded.
ReplyDeleteJeff Reed wrote, "The Bible reveals one God consisting of Father and Son. God is not two Spirits, but only one Spirit."
ReplyDeleteApparently, some splinter groups derived from the WCG are Bi-theistic and some are Binitarian. There are so many splinter groups that it would be a challenge to compile the statistics on which are Bi-theistic and which are Binitarian. I posted this comment in response to a different post but will repeat it here because it seems to fit:
I had a look at the STP carried on the CGI site and nonticed immediately that CGI's Doctrine of God departs significantly from Armstrongism. I had been wondering if there were any real theological differences between STP Armstrongism and Classical Armstrongism and there are.
This is what the UCG booklet titled "Is God a Trinity" says about God on page 52:
"Comprehending God’s Oneness: We see, then, that Scripture reveals two separate, distinct persons, both spirit, yet one in unity, belief, direction and purpose—members of the same divine family."
This is Bi-theism and aligns with Classical Armstrongist Booklet Theology. The relationship between Father and Son is purely ideological. They are otherwise two separate beings.
On the other hand, we have this statement from the CGI STP:
"God the Father and the Word have eternally existed as one. As mentioned in the Statement on God, God is not two Spirits, but one Spirit (“Spirit” is the essence of God). Within that one Spirit—the one eternal essence—are the Father and the Son, but,the two are distinct Persons in the family of God."
While the vocabulary is not orthdox Christian, the intent, I believe, is to state that there is consubstantial relationship between Father and Son. This is not the Bi-theism of Classical Armstrongism but is Binitarianism and acknowleges to co-inherent relationship between the Persons of God.
The Bi-theism of Classical Armstrongism is a "liberal" innovation. It is a form of polytheism and is a radical departure from the monotheism of the Old Testament. Binitarianism conservatively adheres to the monotheistic theme of the ancient Hebrews though acknowledging multiple Persons in the Godhead.
If HWA even noticed this, I could see where he would be alarmed at this shift towards Christianity.
Scout
Note: The use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" is a matter of perspective. HWA implemented a very liberal version of the Torah. He liberally let the Church Administration Department of the WCG revise aspects of the Torah for modern usage. Then once this liberal agenda was set in place, it became a conservative approach to support it. And any departure from it was called "liberal". The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are pretextual and easily misappropriated for vested interests. These propgandistic terms should not be the center of any substantive analysis. With regard to the Torah, orthodox Jews would regard HWA as a flaming liberal.
There was no unity in the "early" church until the "heretics" of all stripes--and there were many--were persecuted out of the picture and history was rewritten.
ReplyDeleteProverbs 26:4 (NASB)
ReplyDelete4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.
This scripture seems to fit the article quite completely. Jeff Reed chose to use the next verse instead ---- Proverbs 26:5 (NASB)
5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.
I doubt that it had any effect in this instance, but Jeff tries. :-)
1) I could not believe UCG let Jerold Aust keep saying over and over from the speaker's stand, "Two gods."
ReplyDeleteYet the Biblical tension is to compare Deut. 6:4 with John 1:1.
4) follows from 1). I'm told that last year on Passover night, one COGWA minister went off the script and commented that when Jesus died, "God ceased to exist."
As if God the Father disappeared for three days and three nights as well?!
"The Christian view of God is that he is one in Being, but more than one in Person."
ReplyDeleteUmm, no. That is the Catholic/Protestant view.
"If Jesus was only a man (and not God) when he walked the earth, then we have to ask: How did his Roman execution benefit any of us? "
Well, the bible says He "emptied Himself", and He said that He could do nothing of Himself.
The problem with Roman Catholics is they create their own theology (technically they adopt existing pagan theologies) and twist and pervert the bible to try to make it fit their ideas.
If you want to be Catholic, fine, but you will never convert a true COG member to your way of thinking.
What? Only two gods? Heresy! There are zillions of 'em! Ask any pagan. And the angels are all gods. Even the demons are called gods in the bible.
ReplyDeleteWhen one gets baptized into Armstrongism, one becomes a "binity". That's right folks, two people in one. The person displayed for the benefit of the minister and brethren, and the one known by the offspring, and "unconverted" family and friends. You got it: Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde!
ReplyDeleteI came from a COG background, and after years of research about it here is what I came up with: There is only one God who has existed from eternity, the one we call God the Father, or Yahweh. No one else. Jesus is not God, never was God, never will be God. He was, is, and always will be the Only Begotten Son of God. He did not exist from eternity. He was not created by God. However, his existence did not begin with his human birth by Mary. He was literally birthed into existence by God at a point in time so far back as to be "time out of mind". But he is not eternal, he had a beginning. He was divine as God is divine, but he is not God. God and God alone is the Creator, Jesus never created anything. That was never the purpose for God in having a son, to be a creator. God (the Father) alone is Creator. Jesus became fully human at his birth from Mary, he was not a "God-Man", no such term is in the Bible. He was in all points tempted and yes, he could have sinned, but he never did because he stayed close to his Father. When Jesus died he was completely dead for three days and three nights, as if he had never existed. Then God resurrected him, not again as a flesh and blood man because that would have accomplished nothing for our salvation. The flesh and blood Jesus died for all eternity and was never seen again. He was quickened as a mighty spirit being who had the power to manifest himself as human for the benefit of disciples and other followers, and no one else. But he was no longer human, and is not now or ever will be again a human. He is not an "immortal man" with a "glorified human body" in heaven. There is no such thing as a "glorified human body". There are two kinds of bodies: flesh and blood mortal bodies, and glorified spirit bodies composed of spirit flesh and spirit bone (not blood). This is what God, and Jesus, and the angels are composed of: spirit bodies of spirit flesh and spirit bone. So HWA was wrong about some things, but it turns out he was right about others. We can't throw the baby out with the bath water.
ReplyDeleteCory,
ReplyDeleteThe Word was God, and was made flesh......Jesus John 1:1, 14
Jesus, the Son, made the worlds......Hebrews 1:2
Yes, I've heard that narrative.
DeleteI just have to laugh at all these people who post their little Armstrong-based Bible studies in response to what has been taught and practiced in an endless chain for millennia as classic Christianity. HWA and the sources from which he plagiarized cobbled together scriptures lifted from context, perverting their actual meanings just as the jihadists have perverted the Koran.
ReplyDeleteIt's both pathetic and sad. How are you guys' prophecies and finances working out for you? Is your quality of life and character better than it was before Armstrongism entered your lives? Is your character and reputation at least as good as that of the folks who are observant members of the local Catholic and Protestant churches in your community? Are you working on fixing the things which are broken, the things that you have the ability to fix now and make less bad as they are doing, or just sending in the tithes your ACOG leader tells you he deserves and waiting for the end? It's such a defeatist attitude to give up hope in what surrounds you, to become a separatist from your community, and to just wait for a mythical "end" to correct everything. Each of us has the ability to have an impact, to make that which surrounds us just a little better, to help in some way, even if it involves raising standards by example. Think a little. Broaden your horizons. Don't just use Armstrongism as your default "gold" standard. It is not that, and never has been. It is a severe limitation. It holds you exactly where "they" want you.
Hello, Jeff Reed:
ReplyDeletehttps://thecogcatholic.super.site/5-reasons-cogs-are-not-christian/reply-to-jeff
This is my tardy reply to your good comments on my guest blog post.
This is rich! A Roman Catholic showing up and declaring why others are not "Christian".
ReplyDeleteThis is rich and hypocritical coming from an Armstrongite who says everyone outside Armstrongism is not a true Christian.
ReplyDeleteThe Cog Catholic wrote:
ReplyDelete"Hello, Jeff Reed:
https://thecogcatholic.super.site/5-reasons-cogs-are-not-christian/reply-to-jeff
This is my tardy reply to your good comments on my guest blog post."
Thanks for your thoughtfulness in your response. My objective was just to show the difference in what CGI believes as opposed to Armstrongism. It is not what traditional Christianity generally teaches. But even among traditionally Christianity there is differences in explanations of God.
From the CGI STP which has been changed quite a bit from its initial publication:
"God is not two Spirits, but one Spirit (that’s the essence of God). Within that one Spirit, or essence, are the Father and the Son, and the two are distinct persons in the family of God. The one Spirit is called the “Spirit of Christ” because Christ sends it. It is also called the “Spirit of the Father” (or “Spirit of Him Who raised Jesus from the dead”) because the Father sends it, too (Jn. 14–16). Also, it is the means whereby these two persons, Father and Son, dwell “in” or “with” Christ’s disciples. (“I will send the Helper ... My Father will send the Helper ... We will come unto you ... make our abode with you...,” etc). It is the one essence of God, both Father and Son, not two essences (which would be Semi- Arianism)."
We do say that God is a family and that we can be a part of that family based on scriptures that say the same thing. We do believe God is reproducing himself (Theosis).
Athanasius of Alexandria wrote:
"He was incarnate that we might be made god"
In the sense of the Godhead (The Father and Jesus) glorified humans will never be God as God is God. But we do have the opportunity to be children as part of God’s family (Holy, immortal, and with spiritual power at a level above the angels).
The CGI STP states:
"God is a loving, kind, merciful being who wants to share His magnificent existence by reproducing Himself through man."
God can share His plane of existence with us, Theosis, without us being God as He is. Our very creation now is God sharing His existence with us. And as Christian children, we experience His righteousness living in us.
Also the Catholic Pope John Paul II once wrote:
"God passed into man so that man might pass over to God. This theology of divinization remains one of the achievements particularly dear to Byzantine Christian thought."
If I understand his meaning, I think he is saying that the Catholic doctrine of Divination is essentially the same thing as Theosis. Correct me if I am wrong. I make no claim to understand Catholicism better than a Catholic.
John 17
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
To be one with God in His Eternal Family is what Jesus prayed for. And that is something we have now if God lives in us. Our resurrection will be the full expression of God's will for us.