Posted on 04/08/2013 9:22:31 AM PDT by DouglasKC
"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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Well said -- there are too many idiots who think the Bible was originally written in Modern English...
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.
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.
Remove the "new testament" from your bibles and suddenly everything will become crystal clear.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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 ... :-)
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?
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.
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.