Noted Christian Author: God Is Having Children. Jesus Not The Only Son Of God.

[BCSpace]

Joe Kovacs, a Bible-believing Christian, was just interviewed by the Good News magazine, and was asked by reporter Jerold Aust, “Who are the children of God? What makes them so, or is this simply in-house religious talk?”

Kovacs responded, “If you just look at the natural world around us, you realize that everything reproduces. They have children or offspring after their own kind. I mean, the children of giraffes are giraffes. The children of cats are cats. And what are the children of God? You know people have to come to that conclusion: we’re not here for no good reason. The Bible calls us “the OFFSPRING of God.” (Acts 17:29) It uses the word offspring.

“God is having offspring. And countless times, you will see the phrase ‘children of God’ or ‘sons of God’ in the Bible. In fact, in the famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.’ Paul says in Romans 8:14, ‘For as many are as led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.’ I show you many more verses in ‘The Divine Secret’ but over and over again, the Bible calls us ‘sons of God,’ ‘children of God.’ He (God) says ‘I will be your Father and you will be my sons and daughters,’ (2 Corinthians 6:18), so Jesus is not the only son of God. He’s the only begotten Son of God from the way He came into the Earth, but God wants all of us to be sons of God and children of God.”

Aust noted, “The thing that struck me when I read that again, this could seem a rather bold statement for your readers to consider: How can infallible, puny human beings who need nourishment, who need sleep, how can they even be considered to be equal with angels eventually, or be angels, let alone to be born into the divinity of God, to be divine?”

Kovacs explained, “Right now, in our current form, we’re not there yet, so I don’t want to boost anybody’s ego and make them think that they are the bomb because it’s simply not the case yet. We are, in our current state, sinful beings who are all disobedient to the ways of God. But God is calling us out of that and He wants us to be part of His family.

“We are being trained right now to get our act together … stop breaking God’s laws and become, as the Bible says, ‘partakers of the divine nature.’ I didn’t put that phrase in the Bible. It’s already in the Bible from the apostle Peter. He says that ‘you may be partakers of the divine nature.’ (2 Peter 1:4) We’re actually going to take on God’s own divine nature … in the future … if we stop our sinning and give our life to God, and He has promised that He will raise us from the dead, give us eternal life, and we’ll be part of the divine family.”

http://www.wnd.com/2...ving-offspring/

Sounds almost straight from an LDS manual.

Edited September 9, 2012 by BCSpace

[Freedom]

Thanks for sharing.

[cesc101]

A lot of Evangelicals are coming around to understanding the TRUTH.

Thanks for sharing this.

[Vance]

That Bible. It is amazing what is in there to be found, when the reader is unencumbered by presumptions.

[Veles]

Evangelical theology teach about the possibility to become sons of God... but only as ADOPTED sons, not literally sons...

Edited September 9, 2012 by Veles

[telnetd]

I would agree with Veles.

Regarding the passage quoted in Romans ... "For as many are as led by the Spirit

of God, these are sons of God". Those not led by the Spirit of God are the sons

of the devil (as Jesus referred to in John 8:44) - but this would not make them the

literal sons and daughters of Satan (as if he had a wife).

I have not read Mr. Kovacs' "The Divine Secret" so I cannot say if he mentioned

the Idea of a Heavenly Mother goddess.

Gail

[Carborendum]

I increasingly find evangelicals behavior towards the LDS like the French do towards Americans. They continue to ask "How can we be more like them without being them?"

Edited September 9, 2012 by Carborendum

[BCSpace]

Evangelical theology teach about the possibility to become sons of God... but only as ADOPTED sons, not literally sons...

Yes, LDS accept adoption as well in the sense that it is required if one is to attain one's Divinely inherited potential. But this author is arguing from the position of image, as LDS do, that God's children, humanity, are literal children. He says "If you just look at the natural world around us, you realize that everything reproduces. They have children or offspring after their own kind. I mean, the children of giraffes are giraffes. The children of cats are cats. And what are the children of God? You know people have to come to that conclusion: we’re not here for no good reason"

He certainly needs to clarify this if that's not what he means.

Edited September 10, 2012 by BCSpace

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I would agree with Veles.

Regarding the passage quoted in Romans ... "For as many are as led by the Spirit

of God, these are sons of God". Those not led by the Spirit of God are the sons

of the devil (as Jesus referred to in John 8:44) - but this would not make them the

literal sons and daughters of Satan (as if he had a wife).

I have not read Mr. Kovacs' "The Divine Secret" so I cannot say if he mentioned

the Idea of a Heavenly Mother goddess.

Gail

There is a whole lot of Bible wrapped around Romans. To me it seems many are too focused on this one book. But to each his own.

[danielwoods]

Yes, LDS accept adoption as well in the sense that it is required if one is to attain one's Divinely inherited potential. But this author is arguing from the position of image, as LDS do, that God's children, humanity, are literal children. He says "If you just look at the natural world around us, you realize that everything reproduces. They have children or offspring after their own kind. I mean, the children of giraffes are giraffes. The children of cats are cats. And what are the children of God? You know people have to come to that conclusion: we’re not here for no good reason"

He certainly needs to clarify this if that's not what he means.

Would it be accurate to say that the LDS believe that God has a DNA, and passed that on to man?

Because, I don't think that an evangelical could affirm that statement. At which point, no matter what words this author is using, they couldn't be construed to say that man has the same DNA as God.

[altersteve]

Would it be accurate to say that the LDS believe that God has a DNA, and passed that on to man?

No. The only person God the Father passed His DNA on to was Jesus.

[BCSpace]

Would it be accurate to say that the LDS believe that God has a DNA, and passed that on to man?

Yes. He passed that directly to Jesus, His only Begotten Son. We have the same in us via the creation in His literal image. Since we are literally HIs spirit children whatever corresponds to that would be the same also.

Because, I don't think that an evangelical could affirm that statement. At which point, no matter what words this author is using, they couldn't be construed to say that man has the same DNA as God

I think they can. It appears that other EVs think he is saying it that way too.

[spartacus]

I increasingly find evangelicals behavior towards the LDS like the French do towards Americans. They continue to ask "How can we be more like them without being them?"

One "noted Christian author" and what else? I am very curious to learn by what, Carborendum, you find that evangelicals want to be like LDS without being them. I'm also curious how the French relate to Americans in this way.

Perhaps, if others agree with Carborendum, this can be made into a new topic. What do you think Carborendum? Perhaps you can make a topic "Evangelicals:LDS::French:Americans" topic and all interested can discuss this interesting thesis in an appropriately independent thread.

As for this thread, I believe discussions of theosis have already occurred on this board. That this "noted Christian author" is being interpreted as saying LDS ideas is actually yet to be proven. The examples given are a metaphor of animal reproduction which is indeed one used by LDS, but the rest of the quote doesn't seem to follow so clearly an "LDS read." The rest are quotes from the Bible that have simpler meanings according to their context, and larger meanings according to the whole - the whole Bible that is. As PaPa said, "there's a lot of Bible wrapped" around all these verses.

[danielwoods]

It appears that the author, Joe Kovac has been influenced by Herbert W. Armstrong or the teachings of the Church of God, which would make since given his statements. Not an evangelical.

[Rob Bowman]

Daniel is correct. The website on which the article appears is the website of the "United Church of God," a splinter group that broke away from the Worldwide Church of God after its founder Herbert W. Armstrong passed away. Several such splinter groups claim to be carrying on the true heritage of Armstrong. Armstrongism denies the doctrine of the Trinity; it teaches that the Father and Jesus Christ are two members of "the God family" and that human beings are meant to become part of that "God family" as well. Armstrongism teaches several other interesting heresies including British-Israelism (the people of British descent are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel) and the necessity of observing the sabbath and feasts of the Mosaic covenant. Armstrong arose out of the broader anti-Trinitarian wing of the Adventist movement, as did Jehovah's Witnesses (whereas the Seventh-day Adventist Church ended up embracing the doctrine of the Trinity, at least in general).

Meanwhile, in an astonishing development, the WWCG in the years following Armstrong's death actually became an evangelical denomination, completely repudiating Armstrong's heretical theology.

[Vance]

It appears that the author, Joe Kovac has been influenced by Herbert W. Armstrong or the teachings of the Church of God, which would make since given his statements. Not an evangelical.

So, does that mean that he isn't a "noted Christian author"?

[Vance]

Daniel is correct. The website on which the article appears is the website of the "United Church of God," a splinter group that broke away from the Worldwide Church of God after its founder Herbert W. Armstrong passed away. Several such splinter groups claim to be carrying on the true heritage of Armstrong. Armstrongism denies the doctrine of the Trinity; it teaches that the Father and Jesus Christ are two members of "the God family" and that human beings are meant to become part of that "God family" as well. Armstrongism teaches several other interesting heresies including British-Israelism (the people of British descent are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel) and the necessity of observing the sabbath and feasts of the Mosaic covenant. Armstrong arose out of the broader anti-Trinitarian wing of the Adventist movement, as did Jehovah's Witnesses (whereas the Seventh-day Adventist Church ended up embracing the doctrine of the Trinity, at least in general).

Meanwhile, in an astonishing development, the WWCG in the years following Armstrong's death actually became an evangelical denomination, completely repudiating Armstrong's heretical theology.

So, are you kicking them out of Christianity?

[Ahab]

Evangelical theology teach about the possibility to become sons of God... but only as ADOPTED sons, not literally sons...

We're already literally sons and daughers of our Father in heaven by virtue of our spirits being begotten by him. The adoption you refer to is the adoption of us by Jesus Christ as he becomes our Father to those who are born again through him, which is necessary because of our "fall" due to Adam and Eve. That fall didn't nullify our spiritual birth through our first Father in heaven, though.. referring to the father of Adam and Eve. If it did we wouldn't even exist. Edited September 10, 2012 by Ahab

[BCSpace]

Several such splinter groups claim to be carrying on the true heritage of Armstrong. Armstrongism denies the doctrine of the Trinity; it teaches that the Father and Jesus Christ are two members of "the God family" and that human beings are meant to become part of that "God family" as well

It's always good to hear of other Christians making progress on Biblical interpretation whatever their faults may be.

[KevinG]

So, are you kicking them out of Christianity?

Rob's heaven will be an exclusive place. I prefer to continue passing out invitations to ours in the holy temple.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't think it's at all revolutionary within the Christian world to say that humans are children of God, or the offspring of God. Christians believe that humans are God's creations and his children. What traditional Christians don't believe is that the Son was a creation of the Father. So they would disagree with modern Mormons in placing ourselves and Christ on the same footing as creations of the Father. (Incidentally, that is not what Joseph Smith ever taught, either. He taught all of us, the Father and Son included, were uncreated.)

Edited September 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Ahab]

Would it be accurate to say that the LDS believe that God has a DNA, and passed that on to man?

Because, I don't think that an evangelical could affirm that statement. At which point, no matter what words this author is using, they couldn't be construed to say that man has the same DNA as God.

Would it be accurate to say that Christians (other than LDS) believe God created everything from some part of his being, instead of from nothing at all?

Because, I've heard some evangelicals say that at some point there was only God with God creating everything else that now is.

Plus, I've also heard some evangelicals say that God is in all and throughout all things that are now in existence.

So, wouldn't that mean God is somehow in us, in some way, even though we may not refer to whatever makes him God his "DNA" ?

[danielwoods]

Would it be accurate to say that Christians (other than LDS) believe God created everything from some part of his being, instead of from nothing at all?

Because, I've heard some evangelicals say that at some point there was only God with God creating everything else that now is.

Plus, I've also heard some evangelicals say that God is in all and throughout all things that are now in existence.

So, wouldn't that mean God is somehow in us, in some way, even though we may not refer to whatever makes him God his "DNA" ?

The infinite transcendent nature of God is seen throughout the Bible, from David in the Psalms to Paul in Colossians. If there's anything that I would associate as a DNA of God, it would be his Spirit which he gives us, which transforms our spirit when we are born again, because at that point we become apart of his family.

[Avatar4321]

No. The only person God the Father passed His DNA on to was Jesus.

i disagree. Adam comes to mind.

[Avatar4321]

I don't think it's at all revolutionary within the Christian world to say that humans are children of God, or the offspring of God. Christians believe that humans are God's creations and his children. What traditional Christians don't believe is that the Son was a creation of the Father. So they would disagree with modern Mormons in placing ourselves and Christ on the same footing as creations of the Father. (Incidentally, that is not what Joseph Smith ever taught, either. He taught all of us, the Father and Son included, were uncreated.)

And yet the Bible declares us to be joint heirs with Christ. Sounds like the same footing to me. Of course, I dont think that takes away from the preeminence of the Son through which all things are done.