{"id":79,"date":"2007-08-06T07:08:02","date_gmt":"2007-08-06T15:08:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/cog-news\/acd-promotes-dangerous-heresies\/"},"modified":"2007-08-12T06:43:15","modified_gmt":"2007-08-12T14:43:15","slug":"acd-promotes-dangerous-heresies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/cog-news\/acd-promotes-dangerous-heresies\/","title":{"rendered":"A.C.D. Promotes Dangerous Heresies"},"content":{"rendered":"

The\u00a0June-July 2007 edition of The Journal <\/em>has a lengthy article on the June 2007 “One-God Seminar” put out by Ken Westby and his Association for Christian Development (A.C.D.).<\/p>\n

I believe that what A.C.D. does and stands for is dangerous and at least two of its teachings need to be denounced as heresy–the first being the denial of Jesus being God and the second being the denial of portions of the New Testament being scripture.\u00a0<\/p>\n

For some background, let’s begin with the following introduction to this conference from Dixon Cartwright of The Journal<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\n

Ken Westby continues to stir things up five years after his first annual conference to promote the concept of \u201cone God.\u201d This year a congregation in the Albany, N.Y., area whose affiliations include the Church of God Abrahamic Faith served as the local host of the sixth yearly conference.<\/p>\n

The Living Hope Community Church, pastored by Vince Finnegan and copastored by Mr. Finnegan\u2019s son Sean, was the site of the three days of meetings June 8-10, 2007, to argue (in a collegial way, as Mr. Westby always optimistically puts it) that God is one rather than two, three or some other number.<\/p>\n

The obvious consequence of a belief that God is one\u2014unitarianism, or unitary monotheism\u2014is that Jesus is not God, at least not God in the sense that the Father is the Supreme Being: eter-nal and all-powerful. Trinitarians (most of Christianity) and binitarians (most churches derived from the Worldwide Church of God) believe that Jesus is God.<\/p>\n

Mr. Westby and friends, on the other hand, say that Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Savior and the elder brother of Christians but is not God.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A.C.D. is promoting heresy by teaching that Jesus is not God.\u00a0Yet Jesus is God<\/a> and that is what the Bible clearly teaches.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

So how do unitarians get around the Bible?<\/p>\n

They either tend to ignore,\u00a0question the validity of, or retranslate\u00a0portions of the Gospel According to John!<\/p>\n

Notice:<\/p>\n

F. Paul Haney began by referring to his \u201clingering doubts\u201d about the authenticity of the Gospel of John \u201cand its substance.\u201d He has concluded that John, unlike the synoptics\u2014Matthew, Mark and Luke\u2014is an \u201cevolved book.\u201d …<\/p>\n

Mr. Haney ratcheted the discussion up a few notches for the fundamentalist Christians to whom he was speaking when he mentioned that he had decided that perhaps the entire book of John is not what he once thought it was…<\/p>\n

If that method means Mr. Haney \u201cmust excise some parts of the Gospel of John, in particular, as being hostile to Yahweh\u2019s teaching,\u201d then \u201cso be it.\u201d Mr. Haney\u2019s presentation, he said, was meant to \u201cexamine, interrogate and analyze John\u2019s Gospel,\u201d not to discard it.<\/p>\n

\u201cI do not worship the Bible,\u201d he said, \u201cbut over the years I have discovered that some professing Christians do.\u201d Mr. Haney spoke of John\u2019s prologue, the first 18 verses, as \u201ca hymn that was a later addition.\u201d Therefore, anything in the prologue that seems to support Jesus as God as God the Father is God is automatically suspect…<\/p>\n

The synoptics\u2014Matthew, Mark and Luke\u2014in large part \u201cagree with one another,\u201d Mr. Haney said. \u201cBut John\u2019s Gospel is a special case. It came on the scene relatively late and has the distinction of sharply disagreeing in many respects with the synoptics as well as with some of Paul\u2019s writings.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Beginnings of books are normally NOT later additions.\u00a0\u00a0 The Bible itself says that we are to get doctrine from it (2 Timothy 3:16), yet many unitarians teach heresy when they teach that John 1:1-18 is a “later addition”.\u00a0 It should be noted that F.P. Haney also questioned several other portions of that Gospel–hence apparently feels that it is not inspired scripture.\u00a0 I believe he is teaching heresy.<\/p>\n

Here are some other comments about the conference:<\/p>\n

Noel Rude presented \u201cDid Christ Create the Cosmos?\u201d<\/p>\n

Several New Testament passages, Mr. Rude said, \u201cseem to say that Jesus Christ created the universe.\u201d The most widely cited, he said, is John 1:3, which states that \u201call things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.\u201d<\/p>\n

In reality, rather than Jesus the Messiah literally existing before His birth as a human, \u201cthe Messiah takes on and personifies the preexistent Word, wisdom, way, truth of God . . . Yet Jesus acknowledges that this is not His own wisdom\u201d in John 12:49: \u201cFor I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Rude noted that some verses in Paul\u2019s writings are not as easy to explain and \u201cactually do seem to say that Christ created the cosmos.\u201d The verses include 1 Corinthians 8:6 (\u201cby whom are all things\u201d), Ephesians 3:9 (\u201cwho created all things by Jesus Christ\u201d), Colossians 1:16 (\u201cfor by him were all things created\u201d) and Hebrews 1:2 (\u201cby whom also he made the worlds\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So the above presenter seems to be saying that you cannot rely on the statement in John 1:3, even though they agree with Paul’s writings that also show that all things were made by Jesus Christ.\u00a0 Teaching against relying on scripture is heresy.<\/p>\n

Here is information relating to another presenter:<\/p>\n

Citing 1 John 4:1-3 and 2 John 7, Mr. Gluckin noted that \u201cthe very root of the spirit of Antichrist is founded in not acknowledging Jesus was a man.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The above explanation was probably given in more detail at the conference, so I would simply refer readers interested in the Antichrist to the article Some Doctrines of Antichrist<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Another presenter took exception to John as well:<\/p>\n

Gary Fakhoury presented \u201cThe Nature of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.\u201d<\/p>\n

The synoptics\u2014Matthew, Mark and Luke\u2014\u201cdemonstrate an obliviousness to Jesus\u2019 deity,\u201d Mr. Fakhoury said…
\n\u201cMr. Fakhoury continued: \u201cIf everything we knew about Jesus were contained in the synoptic Gospels, we would not have the slightest reason to suspect that Jesus was God in the flesh<\/strong>. \u201cWe would, however, have every reason to believe what our group [the One God Seminar people] has always believed and taught: that Jesus was God\u2019s unique son: begotten by the Holy Spirit, righteous in word and deed, faithful to the end, a just and mighty Lord Messiah who reigns as God\u2019s glorified vice regent in heaven and before whom all knees shall bow.\u201d<\/p>\n

Regarding the literalness of the events of the synoptics as opposed to the literalness of the events mentioned in the Gospel of John, Mr. Fakhoury said he thinks of John as a \u201cmeditation\u201d about Jesus Christ whereas the synoptics present \u201cjust the facts, ma\u2019am.\u201d Therefore, John has a different purpose, Mr. Fakhoury seemed to be saying, and is not required to be as literal a report as are the synoptics.\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I bolded<\/strong> the above portion to comment about it.\u00a0 First of all, the New Testament is more than Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the “synoptic” Gospels).\u00a0 So, notice\u00a0two comments from\u00a0Paul about Jesus:<\/p>\n

\n

Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God (Philippians 2:5b-6).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom (Hebrews 1:8).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And second of all, perhaps he forgot about a particular passage in Matthew:<\/p>\n

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us” ” (Matthew 1:23).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Journal <\/em>also reported the following comments from Ken Westby at the conference:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cGod is a personal being,\u201d Mr. Westby said. \u201cHe is not a mystery, a phantom, a godhead or anything of the like. He has plans, emotions of anger, wrath, grieving, love, laughter, compassion, disappointment, pleasure and surprise…”\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Apostle Paul<\/a>, unlike Ken Westby, did\u00a0support the idea of a Godhead as\u00a0he wrote:<\/p>\n

\n

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9).\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Earlier, Ken Westby wrote:<\/p>\n

But no Gospels, no epistles, and no Apocalypse were penned until decades after Jesus was taken up into the clouds. This fact is not debated. This point can be important when confronting the very few scriptures in the NT that seem to reference the preexistence of a glorified Christ (Westby, Kenneth. Two Thrones, Two Lords, Two Saviors, One God. Association for Christian Development’s The One God Seminar. <\/em>Tyler, Texas July 25\u201327, 2003).\u00a0\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A.C.D.\u00a0 denies the deity of Christ and questions at least portions of the Gospel that the Holy Spirit inspired John to write and apparently other passages of scripture.\u00a0 A.C.D. is thus promoting dangerous heresies and should be denounced by those who believe that they are in the true Church of God.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Several articles on the Godhead include:<\/em><\/p>\n

Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning<\/a>\u00a0Is binitarianism the correct position? What about unitarianism or trinitarianism?
\nIs The Father God?<\/a> What is the view of the Bible? What was the view of the early church?
\nJesus is God, But Was Made Man<\/a> Was Jesus fully human and fully God or what?
\nDid Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity?<\/a> Or did they have a different view?
\nDid the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?<\/a> Most act like this is so, but is it?
\nWas Unitarianism the Teaching of the Bible or Early Church?<\/a> Many, including Jehovah’s Witnesses<\/a> and other groups, claim it was, but was it?
\nBinitarianism: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning<\/a> This is a shorter article than the Binitarian View<\/a>\u00a0article, but has a little more information on binitarianism.<\/p>\n

Another article of possibly related interest may be <\/em>Why Be Concerned About False and Heretical Leaders?<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The\u00a0June-July 2007 edition of The Journal has a lengthy article on the June 2007 “One-God Seminar” put out by Ken Westby and his Association for Christian Development (A.C.D.). I believe that what A.C.D. does and stands for is dangerous and at least two of its teachings need to be denounced as heresy–the first being the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-79","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cog-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t