Posted by A2 on 4/17/2001, 4:18 pm

UROG theology... Posted by Steve B. on 3/28/2001, 8:49 pm , in reply to "Re: Fellowship with the glorified Son of man" Lanny, The question is not whether we will prostrate ourselves before Jesus Christ. I agree that we will. The question is whether "the man Jesus Christ" is a complete description of him, especially in this context. Can we distinguish between worship of him as man and worship of him as God? I do not believe the scriptures show that we can, and I think it is very misleading to think of our worship of him in this bifurcated way. As I said above to A2, there is only one worship of Jesus, the one Lord who is both God and man. He is both God and man, not because God dwells in him, but because, as Philippians 2 says, he was in the form of God before being made in the likeness of man. You write “Many believe” that the fall of Satan revolved around Satan's learning that God's plan for man was to exalt man far above him(Satan). It is interesting that you appeal here to what “many believe” not to anything scriptural. This shows (in my opinion) the conjectural and unbiblical basis of UROG theology, a theology that tends to demote Christ instead of exalting man, and that as a result contributed to the fleshly disaster we saw unfold in spiritual connections. In practice, it degraded man instead of exalting him. But since trinitarian theology also teaches that believers are to partake of Christ's glory, are to rule and reign with him, and will be made in the image and likeness of Christ, you would be hard-pressed to substantiate your claims that trinitarian doctrine is continuing Satan's goal of obscuring “what God wants to do with man.” Can you actually cite anything in trinitarian theology that backs up this claim? No one has been able to show me any trinitarian source that does so yet. In actual fact, the difference between trinitarian and Oneness theology is not in its teaching about what man will be, but in its doctrine of who Christ is. In other words, how does teaching the the eternal existence of the Son of God contradict, or mitigate, the teaching of man's future exaltation? One of the later steps in my journey away from UROG was in realizing this was a red herring (whether intentionally created or not—it may have been created only under the pressure of needing a benefit of Oneness theology to advertise). Man is not deprived of his future glory in trinitarian theology, but rather Christ is given proper glory. The Christ of trinitarian theology is fully the Christ of the Scriptures—someone who was by very nature God before he was made in the likeness of man. Oneness theology takes this away from Him. By implying that Christ cannot be anything that man cannot be, Oneness theology demotes Christ from his proper standing. The Christ of UROG theology (a man who was God only because God dwelt in him) turned out to be a Pied Piper, a man who supposedly manifested himself gloriously among us in “spiritual unions,” but then disappeared when the church began to drown in its own flesh. No one could find him, because he didn't exist. The crash of the Chapel caused an indelible stain that UROG will never wash from its garments, a stain due not primarily to sin but to falsehood. I have had to open my eyes to this and realize that UROG was not a great last-day truth which would spiritually awaken millions and draw them out of trinitarian churches into the light. Instead, the saints from the Chapel that survived the adultery and the divorces and are still going on with God are largely doing so in trinitarian churches. Just as we were falsely taught that the love manifested in connections would cause a thirsty world to flock to the Chapel, so we were also falsely taught that UROG is a truth other believers need to fully come into the bride of Christ. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest there's a relationship there. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by lanny on 3/31/2001, 7:44 pm , in reply to "UROG theology..." It might be of interest to note that New Heart Worship Center is a oneness church. It was not that long ago that Joe Parker felt to sever ties with the UPC. I would have no problem attending a trinitarian church where God is moving. The largest group of CCer's around, however, still attend a oneness church. Lanny ---------- PS Posted by lanny on 3/31/2001, 7:51 pm , in reply to "Re: UROG theology..." I know quite a few CCer's who have a real vision for ministry and still believe that God will open up this area so many will be able to come to the truth and see God as He really is. They are ministering all over the country and teach this truth whenever they can. It would be really interesting to compile a list of former CCer's who are ministering in one capacity or another. I am sure we would all be amazed and blessed. Lanny ---------- Posted by Dave Kenady on 3/31/2001, 11:49 pm , in reply to "PS" Yes, I occasionally hear of someone from the Chapel ministering here and there. They are all over the country, even in other countries. Just this last year, I was aware of many former CCers who were in other countries doing mission work. I've heard a lot of good things about New Heart. God is moving there, the church is reaching out to the community and doing missionary work, they are growing. Didn't I hear that New Heart is presently building a new sanctuary that will seat 1,500, replacing the existing building that seats 300? A vibrant music ministry, a bible college and they are on the web.