Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Church Jesus Built - Introduction
The Church Jesus Built ^ | Various | United Church of God

Posted on 04/08/2013 9:22:31 AM PDT by DouglasKC

Introduction: The Church Jesus Built


Jesus Christ said that He would build His Church and that it would never die out. Is today's Christianity, with its hundreds of denominations with widely differing beliefs and practices, the Church Jesus promised that He would build?

"I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in...the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Jesus Christ proclaimed, almost 2,000 years ago, "I will build My church." He declared that His Church would never die out, promising that "the gates of Hades [the grave] shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).

As we will see in the pages that follow, the institution to which Jesus referred was not an earthly building or a mere physical organization. Rather, the Church was and remains the called-out assembly of Christ's spiritually transformed and faithful followers.

Jesus assured His disciples that He would guide and preserve His Church until His return, promising them, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).

What happened to the Church Jesus built? An eyewitness tells us that immediately after Christ ascended into heaven following His resurrection, His apostles "went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs" (Mark 16:20). The Church had a powerful beginning.

Millions of people profess Christianity; they claim to be members of the Church Jesus founded. But Christianity is a divided religion, comprising hundreds of denominations and schisms. Through the centuries, most of Christianity's branches have assimilated many non biblical traditions—philosophical, cultural and religious—into their teachings and practices, spawning even more variations.

How can we account for the explosion of contradictory practices and conflicting factions in the world of Christianity? Is it possible to reconcile competing denominational groups with the standards and objectives Christ established for His Church? Can we know whether Christianity's bewildering variety of customs and teachings faithfully represents those of Jesus Christ? Remember, Jesus not only promised He would build His Church, but He assured His disciples that His Church would not perish. Is the divided Christianity we see around us that Church? Only the Holy Scriptures can provide a reliable answer to this question.

If Christ's promise that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail" against His Church should be considered a guarantee that those who believe on His name could never be misled or corrupted, then we would have every reason to accept the collective sum of the various divisions of Christianity as the Church Jesus built.

But He guaranteed no such thing. Instead, He warned His disciples that "false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect" (Mark 13:22, emphasis added throughout).

Later the apostle Paul expressed his concern to Christians in his day that their minds could be "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" by the preaching of "false apostles" (2 Corinthians 11:3 , 13).

Jesus spoke even more plainly, explaining that "narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:14-16).

In these pages we examine the fruits Jesus and His apostles said would identify His Church. We look at the contrasting fruits that identify those who are influenced by a different spirit and preach a different gospel. We will learn, not from human tradition or opinion but directly from God's Word, how we can distinguish "the church of the living God" (1 Timothy 3:15) from those who follow "false prophets" in sheep's clothing.

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

For clarity throughout this booklet, the word Church (with a capital C ) refers to the faithful Church that Jesus Christ founded. The word church (with a small c ) refers to local groups of believers or other physical organizations. Since church is not capitalized in the Bible translations quoted, all scriptural quotations—whether referring to the Body of Christ or a local congregation—use church with a small c.


TOPICS: General Discusssion; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: christ; church; god
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-312 next last

1 posted on 04/08/2013 9:22:31 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

Isaiah 5:20
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
____________________________________________________________

We today do call ‘evil good and good evil’.

God forgive us, in Jesus name,amen.

WAKE Up all of us that seem to be hypnotized, and many are in such a state and do not realize it.


2 posted on 04/08/2013 9:46:32 AM PDT by geologist ("If you love me, keep my commands" .... John 14 :15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

There is no such word as church or Church, which is why all of the believing community is scattered around. The word Jesus used (which was morphed by Rome) is “gathering” or “assembly”. It is a common word with no special emphasis. Even the riot at Ephesus was an ecclasia. You will now hear the clammor of the RCC claiming their pre-eminence in 3,2,1...


3 posted on 04/08/2013 9:49:00 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

No Jesus told us to not test everything in light of scripture but to trust in the traditions of men, blindly accept the word of self appointed prophets and oracles of biblical interpretation and through their expertise we can get the filtered albeit correct version of God’s plan for us. Jesus also told us his Mother was to be exalted prayed to,was sinless and a mediator between God then Jesus , we are unworthy to come straight to God. Also Jesus also preached to thief on the cross that he would not be going to heaven that day “techincally”.. he was to do a stint in a netherworld between the living and the dead. Jesus also preached that no meat on Fridays buys extra favor, that prayers with beads are super holy and that His ...whoops I mean Peter’s church... was to proclaim some people “Super Christians”...aka Saints and we are to pray to them when we are boarding a boat or when we lose our car keys. Jesus also preached some women are to be married to him and live a life of sullen pharisaical piety, spend their lives forcing children to kneel in rice in Chapel. Jesus did not come to fulfill the law but establish a brand new set of laws that worked better than that Old testament stuff, now we have the right people in power including a guy in a pointy hat to tell us God’s Law v2, is now the correct mixture of high priest hypocricy , theft, depravity and legalism.


4 posted on 04/08/2013 9:57:49 AM PDT by pburgh01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

DouglasKC, my understanding of the United Church of God forbids voting and proselytism. So just what are you doing for God by posting here?


5 posted on 04/08/2013 10:02:21 AM PDT by timeflies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
There is no such word as church or Church, which is why all of the believing community is scattered around. The word Jesus used (which was morphed by Rome) is “gathering” or “assembly”

Agreed...the booklet makes that clear in a later chapter.

6 posted on 04/08/2013 10:04:31 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: timeflies
DouglasKC, my understanding of the United Church of God forbids voting and proselytism. So just what are you doing for God by posting here?

On voting the official position of United is Christians should abstain from voting and running for political office but voting and participating in local issues isn't discouraged. As for myself I'm guilty of over involvement in politics BUT I'm making progress.

As far as proselytizing I'm sure it's discouraged. I'm not doing that. I know it's impossible for me to convert someone. But I am sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ and this is just a way of doing that.

7 posted on 04/08/2013 10:12:28 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
For those FReepers unfamiliar with the "United Church of God" they should know that it was invented in 1986 and is a branch of Herbert Armstrong's personal fiefdom - the group that was known as the "Worldwide Church of God."

Some of the more striking doctrines of the UCG are (1) rejection of the Trinity, (2) adoption of certain dietary laws and restrictions of the Hebrew Scriptures, (3) Saturday observance and (4) the particularly bizarre concept known as "British Israelitism."

The UCG is, I believe, currently split into two factions - the Luker group and the Kilough group.

8 posted on 04/08/2013 10:16:57 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

So when Easter or Christmas or other holidays rolls around you post your articles to “share” the gospel with people here, knowing full well there are people who do believe in them. You would not want to pick a fight with those people and then go pat yourself on the back and gloat at church on how deceived the people on here are would you?


9 posted on 04/08/2013 10:26:05 AM PDT by timeflies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
For those interested in factual information, the word used in New Testament is ekklesia, meaning "assembly."

Far from being "morphed" by "Rome" the Latin word used by Catholics is ecclesia - a direct transcription of the Greek word.

Hence the Spanish word iglesia, the Italian word ecclesia, the Portuguese word igreja, the French word eglise, the Gaelic word eglaise, the Polish word kosciol, etc.

The word "church" is a Germanic one, and is of contested origin - some supporters of the Reformation have argued that it comes from kuriakh in the Greek phrase ekklesia kuriakh, that is "the Lord's assembly."

That's disputed and there are various theories as to why the Germanic languages, as opposed to the Romance and Celtic languages, adopted this word (church/kirche/kirk) instead of some form of ecclesia.

10 posted on 04/08/2013 10:28:07 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

My married neighbor got caught up with a man who was involved in the church. Left her husband and children and went off the rails. I did quite a bit of research on their origins, splinter groups, doctrine, etc. Some consider it a cult and after what I personally experienced with my neighbor, not surprised.


11 posted on 04/08/2013 10:33:54 AM PDT by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
The word Jesus used (which was morphed by Rome)

This is one of your odder claims. The English word "church" comes from the Greek "kyriakon" ("House of the Lord").

No Romance languages, Latin included -- and remember that Latin is the official language of the Catholic church -- use a word derived from "kyriakon" or cognate to "church". The word in Latin is "ecclesia". That looks an awful lot like the Greek "ekklesia" to me.

So how is "church" Rome's fault? Because everything is Rome's fault, sooner or later?

12 posted on 04/08/2013 10:37:22 AM PDT by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

There is a remnant, within His church, like Gideon. The institution and intellitualism of itm has followed the 1st Covenent into false traditions, commandments of men.

Rev 12:17 (NASB) Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who
* keep the commandments of God and
* hold the testimony of Jesus.


13 posted on 04/08/2013 10:42:44 AM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
For those FReepers unfamiliar with the "United Church of God" they should know that it was invented in 1986 and is a branch of Herbert Armstrong's personal fiefdom - the group that was known as the "Worldwide Church of God."

You have faulty information. United Church of God, as an organization, was formed in 1995. Herbert Armstrong died in 1986. You're off by almost 10 years. You may want to do some research before posting:

See About UCG

Some of the more striking doctrines of the UCG are (1) rejection of the Trinity, (2) adoption of certain dietary laws and restrictions of the Hebrew Scriptures, (3) Saturday observance and (4) the particularly bizarre concept known as "British Israelitism."

The first three are certainly fundamental beliefs because they are beliefs that the 1st century church of Jesus Christ held.

"British Israelitism" is really a gross oversimplification of the belief that the leaders of the United States and Great Britain at one time believed the establishment of our countries were ordained and blessed by God. I think they were. As a result some of the prophecies and promises of the bible do extend to the present time and to our country. One of those prophecies is basically that we will go into captivity (economic or perhaps physical) because as a country we have turned on backs on the Lord Jesus Christ.

To better increase your understanding of the Lord and the early church you may wish to study some of these fundamental beliefs. Here's a good starting point:

Fundamental Beliefs

The UCG is, I believe, currently split into two factions - the Luker group and the Kilough group.

Not even close. Dennis Luker has died and Clyde Kilough joined another group.

Thanks for the opportunity to set some of this straight!

14 posted on 04/08/2013 10:44:08 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pburgh01; DouglasKC
blindly accept the word of self appointed prophets and oracles of biblical interpretation

Like Herbert W. Armstrong ...

15 posted on 04/08/2013 10:45:33 AM PDT by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bonfire
The denial of the Trinity makes it a non-Christian religion, by definition.

But that doesn't cause any cult-related concerns.

The part that makes people concerned about the potential for cult-style issues is the "British Israelitism."

That part is explicitly racialist to begin with, and since it is so strange, so ahistorical, and so closely related to other movements that are definitely cults - like Christian Identity - it is heart of those concerns.

16 posted on 04/08/2013 10:45:33 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: timeflies
So when Easter or Christmas or other holidays rolls around you post your articles to “share” the gospel with people here, knowing full well there are people who do believe in them.

I would hope people would believe and understand scripture!

You would not want to pick a fight with those people and then go pat yourself on the back and gloat at church on how deceived the people on here are would you?

If my attitude were as you describe then that would be sinful. I would ask that the Lord open up my eyes to my sins and grant me repentance and mercy.

17 posted on 04/08/2013 10:47:36 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Campion
blindly accept the word of self appointed prophets and oracles of biblical interpretation Like Herbert W. Armstrong ...

Herbert Armstrong was never involved with United Church of God. He was the "leader" of Worldwide Church of God. I never belonged to that organization. But I do know from some study that he never asked people to "blindly" accept what he said. Instead he urged people to verify what he said against scripture.

I think that's fair.

18 posted on 04/08/2013 10:50:25 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; All
Consider and listen to what Jesus Christ said by revelation (His Words, not men's imagination) to the great Apostle Paul to the Church, the Body of Christ:

I Timothy 1:16: Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

And at Damascus:

Acts 26:15: And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

Acts 26:16: But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

Acts 26:17: Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee

Christ Jesus HIMSELF NOW sends Paul to the Gentiles - unto whom now I [Christ Jesus] send thee [Paul]

Therefore, be forewarned as Christ Jesus (the Word) gave Paul these Words of warning:

Romans 2:16: In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

19 posted on 04/08/2013 10:51:34 AM PDT by AmbassadorForChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; bonfire
The denial of the Trinity makes it a non-Christian religion, by definition.

Granted with a caveat. Since the trinity is a doctrine that evolved over several centuries after the death of Christ by what became the Catholic church. Protestants decided to keep this tradition. However the trinity doctrine isn't a "Christian" belief, rather it's a TRADITIONAL Christian belief. There's no doubt that bible Christians had no clue that a trinity doctrine was going to developed.

I would be glad to identify myself as a biblical Christian or a 1st century Christian to make that distinction clearer.

20 posted on 04/08/2013 10:55:14 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bonfire
My married neighbor got caught up with a man who was involved in the church. Left her husband and children and went off the rails. I did quite a bit of research on their origins, splinter groups, doctrine, etc. Some consider it a cult and after what I personally experienced with my neighbor, not surprised.

That's horrible! Was this a United Church of God congregation? If so please private message me with what area of the country you're talking about. Such abusive and harmful behavior certainly isn't condoned or encouraged by United and is in fact strongly discouraged. If it happened in a United congregation you can bet it will be taken care of!

21 posted on 04/08/2013 10:57:47 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
You have faulty information. United Church of God, as an organization, was formed in 1995. Herbert Armstrong died in 1986. You're off by almost 10 years. You may want to do some research before posting:

The UCG was legally incorporated in 1995. But it didn't magically appear in 1995, it began as one of the factions in the WCG that were created by Armstrong's death.

The first three are certainly fundamental beliefs because they are beliefs that the 1st century church of Jesus Christ held.

The early Church upheld the Trinity (Matthew 28:19), the lack of necessity for festival observances (Colossians 2:16) and the abrogation of dietary laws (Acts 10:15).

"British Israelitism" is really a gross oversimplification of the belief that the leaders of the United States and Great Britain at one time believed the establishment of our countries were ordained and blessed by God.

That belief - which in itself is theologically questionable - is different from the principle of British Israelitism, which both the WCG and UCG supported/support. Armstrong's book The United States and Britain in Prophecy forms the core of this belief in the UCG and WCGA.

Dennis Luker has died

Are you arguing that once someone dies, his followers stop supporting his views? The UCG exists because of ongoing dedication to Armstrong's views after his demise.

and Clyde Kilough joined another group

Kilough did not join someone else's group - he split the UCG by founding the Church of God Worldwide Association, or CGWA. His view is that the UCG has been corrupted and that the CGWA upholds the original UCG teachings.

The UCG exists because its founders believe that it upholds the true WCG beliefs and that the current GCI has corrupted the old WCG.

All three groups derive their worldview from Herbert Armstrong, are all factions of Armstrong's organization, and all claim to be the original and authentic upholders of 1st century Christianity.

Armstrong himself split off from the CGSD.

22 posted on 04/08/2013 11:03:47 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Well, perhaps, I should not have blamed the RCC. Several writers in the second/third century AD began to use the term earlier than the RCC existed. Thanks for the heads up.


23 posted on 04/08/2013 11:07:29 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
I would be glad to identify myself as a biblical Christian or a 1st century Christian to make that distinction clearer.

About one thousand different sects claim to be authentic "biblical Christians" or "1st century Christians."

The Primitive Baptists, the LDS, Oneness Pentecostals, Orthodox Presbyterians, United Church of God, the Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, Iglesia ni Cristo, the Marcionists, and many, many others love to make or have made this claim.

Yet they all have deeply different beliefs and distinctives.

Very few people, however, realize how radically arrogant this claim is.

24 posted on 04/08/2013 11:11:16 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
You have faulty information. United Church of God, as an organization, was formed in 1995. Herbert Armstrong died in 1986. You're off by almost 10 years. You may want to do some research before posting:

The UCG was legally incorporated in 1995. But it didn't magically appear in 1995, it began as one of the factions in the WCG that were created by Armstrong's death.

I'm sorry, I assumed you were asking about the organization "United Church of God." As you recognize, it was organized and established in 1995. I have no way of going back in time and verifying and/or confirming whatever "factions" you're referring to.

If you would like to you can once again follow this link for more information on the genesis of United.

From the linke: "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.
Concerned with uneven administrative practices of the former assembly, more than 100 ordained ministers developed a new administrative structure that was more directly accountable to members and the ministry. A new 12-person Council of Elders, elected by a general assembly of all ordained ministers in United, was tasked with reviewing and independently documenting all core beliefs and doctrines of the Church, which above all must be true to the biblical record and not reliant on later divisive philosophical and theological traditions that were developed centuries after the original apostles. That task has been largely completed, and the Church's formal Statement of Fundamental Beliefs is published for all to see on our website.

The early Church upheld the Trinity (Matthew 28:19), the lack of necessity for festival observances (Colossians 2:16) and the abrogation of dietary laws (Acts 10:15).

These are incorrect traditional interpretations of holy scripture. Jesus Christ taught none of these things neither did his disciples.

Armstrong's book The United States and Britain in Prophecy forms the core of this belief in the UCG and WCGA.

It's certainly not a topic that can be covered in a post or summed up and dismissed with a couple of words. If you (or anyone else) is interested in taking on a study of this topic you can read:

The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy

It's quite fascinating and will show you that some of the turmoil and troubles we're experiencing today were predicted long ago in the pages of the bible.

Dennis Luker has died Are you arguing that once someone dies, his followers stop supporting his views? The UCG exists because of ongoing dedication to Armstrong's views after his demise.

I'm not arguing that at all. Dennis Luker was but one of many Presidents (an administrative role) within the organization "United Church of God". It's an appointed position through the 12 man council of elders, who are elected by the larger body of elders. He has no "following" and he's not the head of the church. Jesus Christ is the head of the church!

Kilough did not join someone else's group - he split the UCG by founding the Church of God Worldwide Association, or CGWA. His view is that the UCG has been corrupted and that the CGWA upholds the original UCG teachings.

Certainly Clyde Kilough was part of a group of ministers that (apparently) didn't like the how United was set up. My understanding was that this group thought that United should be MORE like the old Worldwide Church of God under Herbert Armstrong in structure and philosophy. When they started their organization they greatly strengthened the responsibilities of the office of the President...more in line with how they saw Herbert Armstrong. Clyde Kilough isn't the President of the new group so I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. I didn't know many of these people personally so I'm just reporting scuttlebutt a bit.

The UCG exists because its founders believe that it upholds the true WCG beliefs and that the current GCI has corrupted the old WCG.

That's just factually incorrect. UCG purposely set itself up differently administratively to avoid some of the abuses and mistakes in administration that the Worldwide Church of God had.

All three groups derive their worldview from Herbert Armstrong, are all factions of Armstrong's organization, and all claim to be the original and authentic upholders of 1st century Christianity. Armstrong himself split off from the CGSD.

The Church of God of course has existed since Christ created it. As the article points out, it's a spiritual organism that has existed throughout time and through many organizations. It's members certainly have existed in the Church of God 7th day, United, the Catholic church, Baptists, and probably any other organization one can think of.

Again, thank you for providing the opportunity to clarify some of the information you have. I'm sure it's helpful to you and many others.

25 posted on 04/08/2013 12:07:48 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The Primitive Baptists, the LDS, Oneness Pentecostals, Orthodox Presbyterians, United Church of God, the Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, Iglesia ni Cristo, the Marcionists, and many, many others love to make or have made this claim. Yet they all have deeply different beliefs and distinctives.

I'm certainly not an expert in the doctrine or beliefs of any of those groups so I won't attempt to speak for them.

Very few people, however, realize how radically arrogant this claim is.

The overwhelming feeling in my experience is gratitude to the Lord for opening my heart. I don't have any control over how following the instructions of Lord in scripture is perceived by anyone else. If my attitude is one of arrogance then I will ask for more humility and forgiveness.

26 posted on 04/08/2013 12:12:13 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
I'm sorry, I assumed you were asking about the organization "United Church of God."

You're basically making two contradictory arguments here: that the United Church of God is the first century Church and that UCG came into existence in 1995.

These are incorrect traditional interpretations of holy scripture. Jesus Christ taught none of these things neither did his disciples.

I see.

And the UCG's interpretations are the correct ones.

And we can rely on this assertion that the UCG is correct and others are incorrect because . . . you say so?

It's certainly not a topic that can be covered in a post or summed up and dismissed with a couple of words.

Yet you attempted just that upthread.

Thanks for posting the link - people should look for themselves to find Armstrong's ahistorical, racialist arguments about the Scythians.

He has no "following" and he's not the head of the church.

He indeed has a following. Specifically, persons like yourself who agree that his position on Armstrong's teachings was more reliable than that of the GCI or of the CGWA.

And while he was not the head of the Church, he was the head of the UCG until a few weeks ago.

Clyde Kilough isn't the President of the new group so I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.

Kilough was absolutely a founder of CGWA. Jim Franks may be the current President, but Kilough is not an after-the-fact, rank-and-file member. He was instrumental in the splitting of the CGWA from the UCG.

While I understand the rhetorical value of saying that you desire "humility" while simultaneously asserting that orthodox Christian theology is "incorrect tradition" the UCG retains certain core distinctives.

Among those distinctives, as illustrated by your link, is the belief that whites of "northwest European" descent are actually the physical descendants of the 10 tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

You speak of the Church as a "spiritual organism" existing in many forms - this is vague enough to pass muster with most "nondenominational" and Evangelical Christians.

But the UCG also believes that the Church is a physical and political organism as well, based on the genetic ancestry and political history of the British diaspora.

27 posted on 04/08/2013 12:57:54 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
And while he was not the head of the Church, he was the head of the UCG until a few weeks ago.

I'm afraid you're still misunderstanding. In any sense of the word the President of UCG is not the "head" of the church either in a corporate or spiritual sense. The president is an administrative position that administers the physical operation of the organization. The council of elders, the 12 persons elected by the general conference of elders, are the governing body of the organization with the ultimate responsibility for the overall operation of the church. But even they answer to Jesus Christ.

I sense that you're not really interested in discussion because every time I post something that I feel is a direct and clear answer you come back kind of hostile (in my estimation) and contradictory. So I'm going to end this line of discussion.

I don't mean to not address certain doctrinal points but that really isn't the purpose of the thread. If you look at some of the past stuff that I've posted you can get a pretty good idea of what Christ taught according to scripture.

Take care and God bless...

28 posted on 04/08/2013 1:28:00 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
I don't mean to not address certain doctrinal points but that really isn't the purpose of the thread.

The purpose of the thread, looking at the original post, was to promote the UCG doctrines concerning ecclesiology.

If the purpose of the thread was not to initiate a discussion of UCG doctrine, then the thread had no purpose to begin with.

29 posted on 04/08/2013 1:36:41 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Hence the Spanish word iglesia, the Italian word ecclesia, the Portuguese word igreja, the French word eglise, the Gaelic word eglaise, the Polish word kosciol, etc.

Well said -- there are too many idiots who think the Bible was originally written in Modern English...

30 posted on 04/08/2013 1:51:01 PM PDT by Cronos (Latin presbuteros->Late Latin presbyter->Old English pruos->Middle Engl prest->priest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
The Church referred to in Matthew 16:13-19 cannot be seen on earth today any place. It will be observable in the Kingdom setting of the reign of Christ when He returns to this earth to rule from David's Throne. It is the assembly of Israel saved, believing Israel, with believing Gentiles, in the Davidic Kingdom.

Israel could have had that Kingdom setting beginning in the days of the Apostles, and Peter had the keys to administer entrance into it, but the leadership of Israel, both in the land of Israel, and the Dispersion (Acts ch. 28) rejected it . . .

. . . thus it is in abeyance until the return of Christ.

31 posted on 04/08/2013 1:57:42 PM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
The Church referred to in Matthew 16:13-19 cannot be seen on earth today any place. It will be observable in the Kingdom setting of the reign of Christ when He returns to this earth to rule from David's Throne. It is the assembly of Israel saved, believing Israel, with believing Gentiles, in the Davidic Kingdom.

I would agree to that to a certain extent. Ultimately we can't know or judge who is a member of God's church...who has the spirit of God. We're not capable and Christ made this clear in the parable of the wheat and tare. However we can band together with others of like minds in organizations to combine resources to fulfill the commission that Christ gave his disciples. Under those circumstances we make the good faith assumption that we've banded together with fellow Christians and we make that discernment based on the spiritual fruits we perceive and the love we show to one another.

32 posted on 04/08/2013 2:25:08 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
Seriously, there is no "one true chrstian church," and as long as people keep looking for it, whether ancient and historical or modern and reconstructed, they will only flounder.

Remove the "new testament" from your bibles and suddenly everything will become crystal clear.

33 posted on 04/08/2013 3:03:51 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

It’s not even in operation. It’s not here yet. Men who would be king and wear robes and mitres like to think it is here, and ecclesiastics of ALL sorts and denominations like to make it something they can have their petty authority in, BUT IT’S NOT EVEN HERE ON EARTH AT ALL.


34 posted on 04/08/2013 3:03:51 PM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
"Well said -- there are too many idiots who think the Bible was originally written in Modern English..."

My favorite is people who claim "adoration" is the same as worship due to that being one usage being added as an acceptable use in England around 1630. If their agenda requires them to ignore the facts and the truth, that's "how they roll".

Just like all of the non-Catholic churches doing a 180 on birth control about five years after Latex condoms became inexpensive and widely available. Interesting coincidence, that, but at least they weren't yet willing to ignore murder of infants in the womb with abortaficient contraceptives like they do now. The "Truth" changes to suit whatever makes going along to get along easiest for such folks.

35 posted on 04/08/2013 3:21:08 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Seriously, there is no true religion, and as long as people keep looking for it, whether ancient and historical or modern and reconstructed, they will only flounder.

Remove all the debates and disputes over the Tanakh and suddenly everything will become crystal clear - no one has any reliable answers to any question, and we are alone in the universe.

Or maybe, ZC, your assumptions about reality, as expressed here, are a little naive.

As long as there are creatures involved there will be disputes and disagreements.

Removing the Gospel does not remove doubt.

36 posted on 04/08/2013 3:28:51 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin; Cronos
Quite a few disputes on these threads revolve around English usage.

In early modern English "worship" could mean adorare, or venerare, or respectare in Latin translation.

People routinely referred to anyone slightly above them in social status as "my Lord" or "your worship" or "your worshipfulness."

The word "pray" meant the same as quaerere in Latin, such "I pray thee, give me another mug of ale" or "pray your brother to excuse my lateness", etc.

Likewise, people used to bow down multiple times to someone of superior social status.

The word "father" was used to refer to anyone older than yourself or even more socially advanced than yourself. Outside of England, priests were referred to as "mister X" (which is a variant of "master" or in Latin domine)or "senor X" or "monsignore X" or simply, in several countries as "priest X."

English speakers used "Easter" instead of Latin Dominica resurrectionis or Italian/Spanish/Greek/Portuguese/French Pascha/Paschale etc. They also use "Sunday" instead of Latin/Italian/Spanish/French Dominica/Dimanche/Domingo etc.

Now, based on English translations of Greek and Hebrew texts that they cannot read or understand, various idiots believe that Catholics call all priests "Father" (not the case), or the Resurrection "Easter" (not the case) or the Lord's Day "Sunday" (not the case), or "worship" saints (not the case), or share their confusion that "praying" (i.e. asking) is equivalent to "worship" (not the case) or any number of stupid, anachronistic assumptions.

None of these criticisms even remotely apply to anyone who speaks a language that is not Germanic.

37 posted on 04/08/2013 3:47:29 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Seriously, there is no "one true chrstian church," and as long as people keep looking for it, whether ancient and historical or modern and reconstructed, they will only flounder.

I agree. No organization can claim to be the "one true Christian church". But clearly there ARE Chrisitians who are members of Christ's church.

Remove the "new testament" from your bibles and suddenly everything will become crystal clear.

Well....IF one believes the new testament ... :-)

38 posted on 04/08/2013 3:57:17 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
It’s not even in operation. It’s not here yet. Men who would be king and wear robes and mitres like to think it is here, and ecclesiastics of ALL sorts and denominations like to make it something they can have their petty authority in, BUT IT’S NOT EVEN HERE ON EARTH AT ALL

It's not here as a kingdom with authority but surely you believe there are called individuals who are members of the church of God under the new covenant? Correct?

39 posted on 04/08/2013 3:59:18 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; Cronos
I forget what the thread a while back started out about but it dissolved into the usual silly chit and someone ranting about how horrible it was for anyone to bow to someone, so bad it was a sign of being in the service of Satan.

Well, just prior to coming home and catching up on FR I was dealing with some Japanese folks I've done a good bit of software work for over the years. I got started thinking about the person having the rant waking up in Japan one day then running around like a maniac because everyone had to be possessed by Satan or they wouldn't bow all the time.

That got me tickled and my son and I got in a laugh fest over someone being surrounded by bowing Japanese and freaking out like they do in Zombie movies. You know, grabbing a nearby flat panel display from a desk and then bashing people with it, that sort of thing, while they desperately hunted for a chainsaw.

I didn't comment on that thread.

40 posted on 04/08/2013 4:01:33 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

Are those who believe in Jesus Christ as in the Holy Trinity, trinitarians, part of the church your article describes?


41 posted on 04/08/2013 4:46:01 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Are those who believe in Jesus Christ as in the Holy Trinity, trinitarians, part of the church your article describes?

Beats me. Only Jesus knows who are his. He gave us hints though:

Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Therefore by their fruit you will know them.
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
Mat 7:23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Christ indicates that there will be MANY who will claim to follow him but their lawlessness, their sin, the antipathy of the law of God, will mark them out.

Paul says much the same thing though in a different way:

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

Christianity today, as I'm sure you will agree, is chock full of those who claim Christ yet practice and espouse all sorts of lawlessness. Whether or not they embrace the tradition of the trinity matters little at that point.

42 posted on 04/08/2013 4:54:52 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
Jesus Christ said that He would build ‘His Church’ and that it would never die out..... Is today's Christianity, the Church Jesus promised that He would build?

Yes of course...for the church is made up of Christian believers from all walks of life, from various cultures, and peculiarities. It was so when He walked among us, and after that.

That's not to say there isn't error happening....the church doesn't do a very good job of identifying the “wolfs” Jesus expressly said would be among us.

But there are no perfect church denominations or otherwise apart from the centrality of Jesus Christ being foremost among it's believers.

43 posted on 04/08/2013 4:55:08 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caww
That's not to say there isn't error happening....the church doesn't do a very good job of identifying the “wolfs” Jesus expressly said would be among us. But there are no perfect church denominations or otherwise apart from the centrality of Jesus Christ being foremost among it's believers.

See post above...I think as we progress closer and closer to the end times that the term "Christian" will be widely embraced but not wisely practiced. Many will come in the name of Christ but will reject what he actually taught and believed.

44 posted on 04/08/2013 4:58:23 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
You stated of Armstrong.....”I do know from some study that he never asked people to “blindly” accept what he said. Instead he urged people to verify what he said against scripture.”....”I think that's fair.”.....

Oops!.....That's what many cults and false religions say as well, so does the New Age Spirituality......that is no indication you should continue with them....but it gives people a ‘false’ sense of security to continue, unfortunately.

Armstrong is nothing people should get involved with....it has enough “truth” to entice and then mingles it's own ideology and beliefs with it....as do cults and false religions.

45 posted on 04/08/2013 5:06:36 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: caww
Oops!.....That's what many cults and false religions say as well, so does the New Age Spirituality......that is no indication you should continue with them....but it gives people a ‘false’ sense of security to continue, unfortunately.

Well THAT was certainly a leap from the previous discussion. Do you NOT think it's fair to verify from scripture what someone teaches you or tells you?? Or to encourage others to do the same? There are numerous examples in scripture of God's people verifying from scripture what Godly practices are.

46 posted on 04/08/2013 5:10:47 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

The term “Christian” has been widely abused for generations...’this is nothing new’.... Many false religions, cults/ and ideologies claim the mantel of “Christian”...when in fact they are not...they serve “another Christ other than the Christ of the Bible, though “blinded” to that fact.


47 posted on 04/08/2013 5:11:15 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: caww
The term “Christian” has been widely abused for generations...’this is nothing new’.... Many false religions, cults/ and ideologies claim the mantel of “Christian”...when in fact they are not...they serve “another Christ other than the Christ of the Bible, though “blinded” to that fact.

I certainly agree...

48 posted on 04/08/2013 5:12:39 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
"It's not here as a kingdom with authority but surely you believe there are called individuals who are members of the church of God under the new covenant? Correct?"

The Church of Matthew 16 IS the Great Congregation of the Millennial Reign of Christ.

No, it is a "church" that is not on earth at all, yet.

49 posted on 04/08/2013 5:21:18 PM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
.....”Do you NOT think it's fair to verify from scripture what someone teaches you or tells you?.... Or to encourage others to do the same? ....There are numerous examples in scripture of God's people verifying from scripture what Godly practices are.”......

It's not about "fair"....it's about "Truth". I think you learn how to identify falsehood and false teaching by already knowing and understanding the word of God....and study of.

Those who are taught how to identify counterfeit money are NOT taught what the phony stuff is....they are taught inch by inch, in every minute detail, what 'true' bills look like and are. Thus they can identify the false bills because they are well familiar with what is “real” (truth)

50 posted on 04/08/2013 5:21:47 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-312 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson