Posted on 04/14/2006 6:32:26 PM PDT by DouglasKC
I apologize for any confusing I caused there.
Service is certainly commendable, but it is not a gift which the Bible says is bestowed through the laying on of hands. I have not had the laying on of hands yet still do my best to serve others. My question remains, "What mericalous spiritual gift did you receive?"
1Co 12:28 And God placed some in the assembly: firstly, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; then works of power; then gifts of healing, helps, governings, kinds of languages.
Helps = Service
Have you heard that it was Astrology which guided the Wisemen to the birth of Jesus, because Astrology originally pointed humankind toward the coming of God in flesh? [He is Leo, the Lion of Judah don'tchaknow.]
Not silly at all. The only church I belong to is the body of Christ, the church of God. I'm sorry if you're having trouble with this distinction, but my allegience is to Christ alone. The United Church of God has beliefs that closely match my own. That's why I attend services and fellowship there. If their beliefs change, I would leave. And it's not "Armstrong" material. It's material publicized by Armstrong, but it's been around for a long time. If you doubt me, name one doctrine on United's website that you think was created by Herbert Armstrong and I'll cite proof of it's existence before Armstrong.
It's spun. The article never says we are to become "God, the father".
From the article:
Put together all these scriptures in this booklet, and you begin to grasp the incredible human potential. Our potential is to be born into the God Family, receiving total power! We are to be given jurisdiction over the entire Universe!
Scripture:
Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creation was not willingly subjected to vanity, but through Him subjecting it, on hope;
Rom 8:21 that also the creation will be freed from the slavery of corruption to the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that all the creation groans together and travails together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only so, but also we ourselves having the firstfruit of the Spirit, also we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly expecting adoption, the redemption of our body;
From the article snippet you posted, with my commentary:
The WCG belief in a "God Family" has been likened to the Mormon belief that the faithful will one day attain godhood.
Set up expecation by comparing to doctrine that is similar on the surface, but different in effect.
"Our potential," wrote Armstrong, "is to be born into the God Family, receiving total power! We are to be given jurisdiction over the entire universe!. … We shall impart life to billions and billions of dead planets."
Left off quote that shows that "We shall impart life, etc, etc. is speculaton. Actual quote:
What are we going to do then? These scriptures indicate we shall impart life to billions of dead planets, as life has been imparted to this earth.
Now I will agree that a major problem with Worldwide, from what I can gather, is that people took Herbert Armstrong's speculation as gospel and made unofficial doctrine out of it.
The discussion of the gifts of the spirit which come with the laying on of hands is outlined in verses 1-17. Beginning with vs 18 Paul discuses the various positions in the church which different people hold. The gift you refer to is in vs 28 which comes somewhat after the gifts of the Hold Soirit and falls into the catagory of a position in the church. Very commendable but not a Spriitual Gift as enumerated by Paul.
And where does it say that these gifts which made up the first century church came with the laying on of hands. We all have gifts of some kind or the other. But only cetrtain gifts come with the laying on of hands. See Acts 8:14-18. I am not questioning your devotion or your service to your church. But we need to be careful not to confuse our God given abilities with those mircalous gifts that came in the first century as a result of the laying on of an Apostles hands. That is my only point.
Neither did I or the magazine. I dunno where you got that from.
Set up expecation by comparing to doctrine that is similar on the surface, but different in effect.
No trinity, becoming god, ruling a planet - you have to admit is quite similar to what Mormon's teach.
people took Herbert Armstrong's speculation as gospel
Um, speculation? From an article he begins:
It's positively astounding! It has remained undiscovered by science. Higher education has never taught it. And organized religion has withheld it. How? By suppressing the real gospel message Christ brought from heaven that reveals the awesome purpose of human life.And I know you were talking about the planet bit, but that's a detail of the whole tapestry of what Armstrong claims is THE Gospel of Jesus.
And I've been reading your current belief statement. "The God Family" etc is still pretty solidly Armstrong; though I didn't see any planet mentioned.
I've read Armstrong and the UCG version. They look to me to be of the same basic stuff.
name one doctrine on United's website that you think was created by Herbert Armstrong and I'll cite proof of it's existence before Armstrong.
Am I understanding you now to be distancing the UCG from Armstrong? I honestly don't get your point here. Would it be a bad thing in your view if UCG's beliefs were the same as Herbert Armstrong?
Or are you saying that Armstrong had the same beliefs as Jesus, or knew Jesus's true message? Something like that? And objecting to my attributing your theology to him instead of "scripture"?
Is this what you mean?
I understand you can/will leave. This started about whether Armstrong was the founder of your church, or the founder of the church your church branched off from.
From the UCG website:
Many of the current ministers and members of the United Church of God were once members of the Worldwide Church of God, a nonprofit corporation under the leadership of Herbert W. Armstrong until his death in 1986. A subsequent unwarranted shift toward nonbiblical practices and beliefs led numerous ministers and members to leave the fellowship of that organization.So, this is what I meant. I'll rephrase it: The church you currently attend has many current ministers and members who were members of the WWCG which was led by Herbert W. Armstrong.
You have to admit that believing you're eating the real flesh of Christ and drinking his real blood is quite similar to what cannibals do. You have to admit that believing that the pope is God on earth is similar is quite similar to believing that Jim Jones thought he was God on earth.
name one doctrine on United's website that you think was created by Herbert Armstrong and I'll cite proof of it's existence before Armstrong.
Am I understanding you now to be distancing the UCG from Armstrong? I honestly don't get your point here. Would it be a bad thing in your view if UCG's beliefs were the same as Herbert Armstrong?
Or are you saying that Armstrong had the same beliefs as Jesus, or knew Jesus's true message? Something like that? And objecting to my attributing your theology to him instead of "scripture"?
That's pretty much it. You're not so subtly attempting to destroy the theology by avoiding scripture and focusing on Armstrong's commentary and speculation on scripture. You're then putting your spin on his comments. It's akin to me looking up comments from popes or bisops and then making the claim that what you believe is represented by my interpretation of what they say.
The theology that I believe is biblical and stands with or without Armstrong.
I said this waaay back in post 44. Are you reading my replies at all?
Gifts come from God when he gives us his holy spirit, which comes from the laying on of hands. They are "gifts of the spirit", not "gifts from laying on your hands".
Well that is it. That's the theology of the WWWCG, ETCOG, UCG.. Armstrong's commentary and view of scripture and history. To you there's no or little difference, re:
"I think he popularized biblical truths that had been buried by culture and society. I believe that many sects of Christianity have bits and pieces of truth, but he studied the bible and put these bits and pieces together into a comprehensive teaching that most closely expounds the biblical truth God wishes to convey. It could have been anyone, but God chose to use him to spread the truth."So I don't think it's unfair since to you, they are the same. I disagree, I think your interpretation is polytheism, but we could play dueling scripture, but scripture isn't the issue between us; it's interpretation.
And note also that for the discussion on Christology I quoted from your church's website.
So, I'm not being unfair, unless Armstrong's views are held to be in error compared with yours and the UCG, which I don't think either of you are saying.
But in 105 you were objecting to the UCG branching off of WWCG. I'm just trying to correct the point to be accurate.
It seems one minute, Armstrong is God's messenger and the next you want nothing to do with him.
That's why we went back and forth on this exercise.
You're wrong, scripture is the issue and our conversation has included little, if any of it. You've avoided any specific analysis of passages and prefer instead to put your own intepretation without benefit of debate on actual scripture. This is exactly why I don't usually engage Catholics. Generally, you see no need for scripture since you believe that your church has the authority to override scripture on any subject. I hold scripture as the bottom line, you don't.
And note also that for the discussion on Christology I quoted from your church's website.
So, I'm not being unfair, unless Armstrong's views are held to be in error compared with yours and the UCG, which I don't think either of you are saying.
I don't think Armstrong is wrong on most points. But I think your interpretation and spin void of scriptural debate is flawed. I'll show you what you're doing and maybe you'll see what I mean.
According the heading infallability in the Catholic encyclopedia, the pope could say ex cathedra that having sex with babies is perfectly moral and acceptable in the eyes of God and he would be right in your eyes. Why do you believe the pope has the power to make sex with babies morally acceptable?
Nope, you used the phrase "your church". I can't help it that you don't understand the concept of "church", or don't use it the same way I do. The "church" is the called out body of believers in Christ. It passes all corporate and denominational lines. You apparently have a tough time understanding this concept.
It seems one minute, Armstrong is God's messenger and the next you want nothing to do with him. That's why we went back and forth on this exercise.
No we went back and forth because you can't argue scripture so you focus on other things.
Yeah I did. Sometimes considered the same as a religious organization that you "fellowship with and attend services with." I assumed that would be the same as your church. My apologies.
No we went back and forth because you can't argue scripture so you focus on other things.
I don't know that we have different scriptures. From the articles I read at your.. religious organization that you "fellowship with and attend services with" it is obvious one can look at the same canon and come up with considerably different views on Christ, God, worship and man.
Now I can post the scripture of Christ saying he and the Father are One, and you can post scripture of Christ saying "Our Father Who art in heaven..." and we can go on and on with dueling scriptures from there.
I know you've had this exercise before on the Neverending Thread.
Same canon, different scriptures - or even the same scriptures quoted - and quite different Christologies and Theologies.
And if scripture were obviously the same in meaning to all then what is the purpose of the document "Fundamental Beliefs" that you pointed me to.
So what we are dealing with is interpretation. It can't be avoided. We must of course back up our interpretation with scripture - which we both can do - for pages and pages with footnotes.
Now, what I would maintain, scripturally, is that polytheism, or any interpretation that leads to it, is contrary to scripture.
This is what I was engaging you in earlier.
If your interpretation, your "Fundamental Beliefs" of the religious organization that you fellowship with and attend services with, leads to or interprets scripture to mean more than one God, then that is in error.
So we can argue scripture all day, but if this is where you end up, somewhere, somehow, someone has made a wrong turn.
Doug, I don't think I've done anything like what you're saying. I think I am being accurate in quoting and linking to Armstrong and the Fundamental Beliefs.
I think they do emphasize, or at least point to, more than one God - the UCG section specifically emphasizes the "distinction" and plural form used for God. I've read the God Family article on the UCG site and several others and I've read the Armstrong articles I linked to and several others. They are consistent. The UCG articles parallel the Armstrong topics even.
And your reply comparing them to a "married couple" follows the same thought.
I really don't see where I'm spinning the position. I really do not. Help me out with it.
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.