Almighty But Not Omnipotent? (Part 2)

[To read part 1, click: “Almighty But Not Omnipotent? Part 1”)

Same word. Different dictionary.

That seems to be one of the problems when we try to make sense of the teachings of Ang Dating Daan (ADD).

We already saw that they declare that they believe that God is Almighty but denies that He is omnipotent. But it is clear, in the dictionary and in the Bible, that “Almighty” actually means “Omnipotent.” (Read “Almighty But Not Omnipotent Part 1”) 

We see this “same-word-different-dictionary” dilemma in their statement of faith regarding what the ADD believes about God and about our Lord Jesus Christ: “We believe in the Almighty God, the Father, the Creator of the universe, in Christ Jesus, the Father’s begotten son, a true and Mighty God, the only savior of mankind and the only way to the Kingdom of God in heaven” (Members Church of God International, Beliefs. Emphasis added). They appear to teach that “Almighty God” is different from “Mighty God.”

In doing so, the ADD has fallen into the same error like that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Jesus is spoken of in the Scriptures as ‘a god,’ even as ‘Mighty God.’ (John 1:1; Isa. 9:6) But nowhere is he spoken of as being Almighty, as Jehovah is.” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 150. Emphasis added.)

But, the Bible does not really make a distinction between “Almighty God” and “Mighty God.” It is because “Almighty” and “Mighty” mean one and the same: “The name Almighty means ‘the mighty one’ and is probably derived from the verb meaning ‘to be strong’”. (Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 195. Emphasis added)

In the Greek New Testament, “Mighty One” is ὁ δυνατός, which is “a title for God, literally ‘the one who is able’) one who is capable of doing anything—‘the Mighty One, Mighty God, the Almighty’” (Louw and Nida, 675. Emphasis added.) So, in its original language, “Mighty God” means “Almighty.”

Yes, Isaiah 9:6 called Jesus “Mighty God” : “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (English Standard Version. All Bible verses are the ESV, unless otherwise noted.)

But Isaiah called the Almighty God as the “Mighty God” also: “A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. … For the Lord GOD of hosts will make a full end, as decreed, in the midst of all the earth.” (10:21, 23)

Note that “the Lord GOD of hosts” in verse 23 is translated as “LORD Almighty” in the New International Version. “The Lord, the LORD Almighty, will carry out the destruction decreed upon the whole land.” (Emphasis added) So, as far as Isaiah is concerned, “the LORD Almighty” is the same as “the Mighty God.”

(Knowing the ADD, they could reason out that verse 21 says “Mighty God” while verse 23 says “LORD Almighty.” So, they might try to explain that “God” is different from “LORD.” But, note that, “LORD” in the NIV is in all capital letters. That indicates that, in Hebrew, it is the divine name YHWH. It can also be translated as “GOD,” which is the way the ESV goes. So, there’s no actual difference at all between “Mighty God” and “LORD Almighty.”)

Thus, any attempt to differentiate between “Almighty God” and “Mighty God” is merely playing with words. But we are not supposed to toy with God. We are to trust Him for Who He really is.

[To read part 1, click: “Almighty But Not Omnipotent? Part 1”)

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

________________________________

REFERENCES

“Beliefs.” Members of the Church of God, International. http://mcgi.org/en/teachings_and_works/beliefs/. Accessed September 23, 2012.

Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989.

Louw, Johannes P.  and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, vol. 1. Electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. NY: United Bible Societies, 1996.

Reasoning from Scriptures. Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1985, 1989. 

Almighty But Not Omnipotent? (Part 1)

Photo from the Facebook page of Maurice Chavez

“We believe in the Almighty God, the Father, the Creator of the universe…” (Members Church of God International, Beliefs. Emphasis added)

Here we see that, in the official website of their church, the Ang Dating Daan (ADD) declares that they believe that God is Almighty. However, in “The Official Blog of [their very own] Presiding Minister,” Eli Soriano explicitly denies that God is omnipotent.

“To think and to conclude that God can do everything constitutes an insult and blasphemy unto the unfathomable majesty of the Most High. As it is unwise to put limits to Him, it is equally unwise to put elasticity to the limits set by God for Himself. We know that He cannot lie because He revealed it through His written words in the Bible. He cannot change himself; He cannot deny himself and so on. To say and make others believe that God can do anything or everything will be an insult and blasphemy against God.” (Eli Soriano, Not Everything is Possible to God.)

So, for the ADD, God is Almighty but not omnipotent: “Many religious groups believe that God can do everything and anything because He is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. But, do you know that there is something, which God cannot do? … It is impossible for God to lie; He cannot lie. Let us not believe those who say that nothing is impossible with God. That is a deceit meant to mislead you.” (Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, “There is something that God cannot do.” Emphasis added.)

However, the question is, who is really misleading whom?

First, when we check the definition of “omnipotent,” the primary meaning is “almighty.” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) “Omnipotence” means “All-Powerful” (from the Latin words omni or “all” and potens or “powerful”). Then, the adjective “Almighty,” often capitalized when it refers to God, means, “having absolute power over all”.  So, when we say God is Almighty, we are saying that He is omnipotent or all-powerful. When we say that He is omnipotent, we are saying that He is Almighty.

Thus, one wonders what dictionary the ADD was using. It seems the ADD mouths the same word but uses a different dictionary. Somebody wrote, “We may change what those words mean to us today, but it doesn’t change what those words meant when they were written, and that’s all that matters.” When we use the same word but not the same dictionary, it leads to confusion.

This Calvin and Hobbes cartoon strip shows that
when we use the same word but not the same dictionary, it leads to confusion.

Second, the Bible itself declared, “For nothing will be impossible with God.” (Luke 1:37, ESV. See also Matthew 19:26 and Jeremiah 32:27.) Also, according to Revelation 19:6, “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!” (New King James Version. Emphasis added.) In the New American Standard Bible, it goes like this: “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns.” (Emphasis added)

In the Greek New Testament, the word “Almighty” is παντοκράτωρ (pantŏkratōr). It means “the all-ruling, i.e. God (as absolute and universal sovereign): — Almighty, Omnipotent.”  (James Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible Volume 1, 54. Emphasis added.) Thus, in its original language, the Bible makes no distinction between “Almighty” and “Omnipotent.”

So, did the Bible tell us “a deceit meant to mislead” us? Should we follow Soriano that we should “not believe those who say that nothing is impossible with God”? This actually shows the tendency of the ADD to isolate a Bible passage from its context and pit it against other passages. This result in a misinterpretation of what the Bible really teaches. Grudem wrote, “[It] is not entirely accurate to say that God can do anything. ... Although God’s power is infinite, his use of that power is qualified by his other attributes (just as all God’s attributes qualify all his actions). This is therefore another instance where misunderstanding would result if one attribute were isolated from the rest of God’s character and emphasized in a disproportionate way.” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 217. Emphasis added) The ADD made much of the passages where it says God could not do something at the expense of passages where it says that nothing is impossible with God. (See also “Was Eli Soriano Correct In His Criticism of Hermeneutics?”)

Third, as we have pointed out in “Making Sense of Ang Dating Daan,” it appears that the ADD misunderstood the Biblical teaching that God is Almighty or omnipotent. When we say that God is all-powerful, we do not mean that “God can do everything and anything”. As Wayne Grudem wrote, “God cannot will or do anything that would deny his own character. ... It is not absolutely everything that God is able to do, but everything that is consistent with his character.” (Ibid, 216) Simply put, “God’s omnipotence means that God is able to do all his holy will.” (Ibid) What God decides to do, He can do it and He does it. What God wills, He could and He would do it. When He decides to do something, it is determined by and does not deny His character. 

Fourth, what ADD attacked is a mere caricature of what we really believe about the omnipotence of God. This is what we call the “straw man” argument, which is “a weak or imaginary opposition (as argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.” (Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation, 29) It appears the ADD misunderstood the doctrine. (Such is the same thing that happened to those who question the Trinity. They thought that it talks about three Gods. So, they are actually attacking that misunderstanding and not the doctrine itself. In a sense, they are barking at the wrong tree.) Ryrie added, “Realize that a straw man is not a total fabrication; it usually contains some truth, but truth that is exaggerated or distorted or incomplete. The truth element in a straw man makes it more difficult to argue against, while the distortion or incompleteness makes it easier to huff and puff and blow the man down.” (Ibid) The sad thing is that, when they misunderstood it, the ADD ended up rejecting the Biblical teaching on omnipotence altogether. 

So, when the Bible says God is Almighty, it means He is omnipotent. To say otherwise is an insult and a blasphemy to Him.

[To read part 2, click: “Almighty But Not Omnipotent? Part 2”)

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

________________________________

REFERENCES

Almighty. 2012. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved September 23, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/almighty. 

“Beliefs.” Members of the Church of God, International. http://mcgi.org/en/teachings_and_works/beliefs/. Accessed September 23, 2012.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. MI: Zondervan, 1994.

Omnipotent. 2012. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved September 23, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent.

Ryrie, Charles C. So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe In Jesus Christ. IL: Victor Books, 1989.

Soriano, Eliseo F. “Not Everything is Possible to God.” esoriano: The Official Blog of the Presiding Minister, Members of the Church of God, International. www.mcgi.orghttp://esoriano.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/not-everything-is-possible-to-god/. Accessed September 23, 2012.

Strong, James. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible, Volume 1.  Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009.

“There is something that God cannot do.” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 2004. http://angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_issues_13_pf.htm. Accessed January 17, 2006.

Scriptural and Biblical

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

What does it mean when we say that something is “not in the Bible”? We need to clarify such a statement because there is a difference between something that is not found in the Bible and that which is not taught by it. 

The Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) teaches that the doctrine that our Lord Jesus is equal with God (or the Trinity) is not in the Bible. They even label it as a “monumental error on the belief concerning Christ.” (Pasugo July 1994, 13) They even call it a “doctrinal innovation” (Ibid, 14). Then, they claim that,

“The belief of the Iglesia ni Cristo that Christ is man and not God is apostolic and biblical. … The Iglesia ni Cristo in these last days gallantly upholds this apostolic and scriptural teaching in the face of criticism and opposition from those who believe otherwise.” (Ibid, 16, 12. Emphasis added.)

So, as far as the INC is concerned, the teaching on the deity of Christ is not scriptural or biblical. It appears that they used the adjectives “scriptural” and “biblical” interchangeably. For them, both words seems to mean that, “It’s in the Bible.” So, when they say that a teaching is not scriptural or biblical, they are saying that, “It’s not in the Bible.” But such use of those words is too simplistic. When we dig deeper, we will see that there’s an important distinction between scriptural and biblical.

“We must always distinguish between something that is contrary to Scripture and something that is not in Scripture; a thing may be non-scriptural without being against Scripture. We are allowed to do [Bible Exposé: and, if I may add, to believe in] things not specifically mentioned in Scripture provided they are not contrary to Scripture; that is, provided they are in harmony with scriptural principles.” (Brian Edwards, Nothing but the Truth, 103)

Something is scriptural when the exact words or phrase is “specifically mentioned” or “in the Scriptures.” It is “biblical” when it is taught in the Bible or not “against Scripture.” So, when we evangelicals say something is scriptural, what we meant was that it is found in the Bible. When we say that it is biblical, it is taught by the Bible.

When something “is not in Scripture” or “not specifically mentioned in Scripture”, we call it “non-scriptural.” But that does not mean that it is automatically unbiblical. Keep in mind that “a thing may be non-scriptural without being against Scripture.” In other words, it may not be scriptural but that does not mean it is also not biblical. As long as it is “not contrary to Scripture; that is, provided [it is] in harmony with scriptural principles”, that which may not be scriptural can still be biblical.

Groups that deny the Trinity assert that, “It is not in the Bible.” (For example, Eli Soriano of Ang Dating Daan for dramatic effect would even run a word search using Bible software to show that the word “Trinity” is not found in the Scriptures.) But that only means the word itself is not scriptural. Of course, they would want to make us believe that it is also not biblical. Yet, the term may not be scriptural but the concept behind that term is biblical. “Even though the word ‘Trinity’ does not appear in Scripture, its essence pervades New Testament revelation.” (Noel A. Espinosa, Trinity: Take A Second Look, 7) The Trinity may not be scriptural but it is nonetheless biblical. 

From BibleGateway.com

Let’s look at it from another point of view. The word “shabu” is not found in the Bible. It is not scriptural. Does that mean that we can now use methamphetamine? Of course not! Why? The Bible tells us, “‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say—but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’—but I will not be mastered by anything.” (1 Corinthians 6:12, NIV. All Bible verses are from the ESV, unless noted.) Shabu is not beneficial. It is in fact harmful. It masters or controls the person who uses it. So, even if the word itself is not scriptural, the use of shabu is not biblical. Its use is contrary to the Scripture.

Now, the INC may disagree with us on this. But, if we follow their logic to its end, we can also question why they believe their founder, Felix Manalo, was “the last of God’s messengers.” Search the entire Scripture and we will never find the words “Felix Manalo.” So, we can say that Felix Manalo is not in the Bible. We merely used their “not scriptural” argument against their teaching. But, despite the fact that we cannot find his name in the Bible, the INC would still insist that it prophesied about him. They are not even consistent with their argument. If they reject the Trinity because it is not scriptural, then they should also reject Felix Manalo on the same ground. 

From BibleGateway.com

Actually, in a sense, we can argue that the belief that Jesus is God is not only biblical but also scriptural. We may not read Jesus saying the exact words, “I am God.” But that doesn’t really mean He did not make such a claim. The problem is we are reading the ancient words of God through a modern mindset.

In John 5:17b, Jesus declared, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” Look at the response of the Jews: “This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” (Emphasis added.) Now, from our point-of-view, when Jesus called God “My Father,” it is not much of an issue to us. But from the Jewish eyes, Christ claimed equality with God. 

“The words My Father should be noted. Jesus did not say ‘your Father’ or even ‘our Father.’ His opponents did not miss His claim to Deity.” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 290. Emphasis theirs.)

A Jew would not dare call God “My Father” unless he adds the phrase “in heaven.” But our Lord Jesus did not even qualify His statement. To the Jews, when He called God “My Father,” it is really equivalent to Him saying “I am God.” So, in effect, He did say “I am God.” That's the Jewish way of making such a claim.

Thus, to say that something is not “in the Bible” is a sweeping generalization. We need to be precise with our words so as not to mislead people. Keep in mind that, “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” (Matthew 7:2) Based on their own measure, we measured the INC and we found them wanting.

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

________________________________

REFERENCES

Aromin, Ruben D. “Just when was Christ made God?” Pasugo: God’s Message. July 1994.

Edwards, Brian H. Nothing but the Truth. Great Britain: Evangelical Press, 1993.

Espinosa, Noel A. Trinity: Take a Second Look. Mandaluyong: OMF, 1987.

Martin, John A. “John” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament. Ed. John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983, 1985.

Bible Exposé Would Love To Serve You Better

Do you want to see the “big picture” of Bible Exposé?

Do you find it time-consuming to sift through our blog archive?

Here’s how you can make the most of Bible Exposé!

http://bibleexpose.weebly.com/

Though the blog archive is at the bottom of the page, we saw that our “bounce rate” or “the percentage of single-page visits (i.e. visits in which the person left the site from the entrance page)” here at Bible Exposé is almost at a high 69%. (Source: Google Analytics)

We feel that, being a blog, either you just want to see what’s the new entry (hence you only look at the opening page) or, as the number of entries grows, you find it time-consuming to sift through the archive.

Thus, to help you navigate better and faster in our blog, we came up with this index page to serve as our “big picture”:

http://bibleexpose.weebly.com/

In this homepage, you would see our latest posts, featured articles, our mission, our beliefs, our strategies and a convenient list of all the articles about the Iglesia ni Cristo and Ang Dating Daan grouped accordingly with summary descriptions of each article for easy browsing. (Its contents would still be hosted here at http://bibleexpose.blogspot.com/.)

It is our prayer that this new index page would help you maximize your browsing experience here at Bible Exposé!

“My Dog Ate Your Letter!”

Picture From Entrepelife

Wish I could give that excuse :'-(

Seriously, I was checking my inbox and accidentally erased one of the emails. It was an email from one of you. Sadly, I could not find it even in the trash bin. I'm sorry. My bad. 

If you sent me an email before and you did not receive a reply, maybe it’s your email that got lost.

May I ask that you send it again to me? Your message is important to me. I apologize for the inconvenience. 

The Dangers of False Doctrines

Poison symbol from Wikipedia

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

Is belief really just a matter of taste?

But, does it matter if a poison is in its original taste or is orange flavored? Poison is poison. It is the same with our beliefs.

In the book of Colossians, the apostle Paul warned the believers there regarding the dangers of false doctrines.

“I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. … See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (2:4, 8) [All Bible verses are from the ESV unless noted.]

Note the words “delude” (v. 4b) and “captive” (v. 8b). Here we see the first danger of false doctrines: It does not set us free but takes us captive through its deceptions. Error imprisons us. Paul described people who oppose the truth as being trapped in “the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:26b) On the other hand, the truth sets us free us (John 8:32).

Picture from Dr. John MacArthur Jr's
“Exposing False Spiritual Leaders”
Bible Study Guide. 

False teachers would seek to “delude [us] with plausible arguments.” (Colossians 2:4b) In the NIV, “plausible arguments” is translated “fine-sounding arguments”. Error sounds so persuasive. But they are just “hollow and deceptive philosophy.” (v. 8a, NIV) The second danger of false doctrines is that it does not satisfy our soul but leaves us empty. It’s just an “empty deceit” (v. 8a. Emphasis added). They are merely “a shadow of the things to come” (v. 17). False teachers boast about knowing the “deeper meanings” of the Word. We see this attitude when a group claims that they and only they saw such an interpretation of a passage in the Bible. But they only fill the mind of their followers with useless teachings. “Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.” (1 Timothy 1:6-7. Emphasis added.) But truth feeds our souls, making us “nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that [we] have followed.” (1 Timothy 4:6b, NIV)

The third danger of false doctrines is that it makes us think of ourselves superior to others or more spiritual than them. “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” (Colossians 2:16. Emphasis added) Error makes us judgmental of others. When a group thinks it is the “only true church,” it breeds such a mindset. It tends to make people look down on others who disagree with them. But truth leads to humility. To paraphrase what somebody wrote, “Error makes us proud that we know so much. Truth makes us humble that we know so little.” The more we learn from the Word, the more we realize we need to know more of it.

It is a great thing that Colossian believers stood firm against these attacks. “For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.” (v. 4) Thus, like them, we should remain in the faith and not yield to doubt.

Belief is not a matter of taste. It is a matter of the truth. Somebody said, “Ideas have consequences.” That’s why we must expose errors and teach the truth. Error is a disaster. Truth is a delight.

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

Bible Verses Are Not Lego® Bricks

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

Like the plastic Lego bricks that we put together to build a structure, the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) like to do the same with Bible verses to prove their teachings.

From Wikipedia

Most of the plastic bricks would fit any other bricks. So, we can interlock one brick with another brick without even thinking if they belong to each other. But it is not the same with verses. Every verse has a context. The context of a verse(s) would be the verses preceding and following it. The larger context would be the entire paragraph, the paragraphs (or chapters) before and after, and even the book where the passage is found. We cannot put verses together without checking its context. The context determines whether the verses connect with one another.

We call this proof-texting. The problem with this approach is that the INC tends to wrest verses out of its context.

“The Iglesia ni Cristo unashamedly uses a proof-text method of handling Scripture. It knows which doctrines it especially needs to depend and seeks verses and parts of verses to defend them, often completely disregarding the context. … This proof-text method does have the advantage of overwhelming opponents by the sheer volume of texts cited. In one sermon, I heard 21 different texts referred to, and in another 26.” [Arthur Leonard Tuggy, Iglesia ni Cristo: A Study of Independent Church Dynamics, 127]

For example, the INC has put John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 together merely because those verses have the same word (“spirit”) without considering its context. Then, they falsely concluded that, “Since ‘God is spirit (Jn. 4:24) and Jesus Christ isn’t [Lk. 24:39], then Jesus Christ is not God.” [Pasugo, April 2002, 7] (See also: “Did Jesus Deny His Deity in Luke 24:39?”) 

Whenever the INC would quote a verse, we should not counter by quoting another verse. Doing so would just give the impression to people listening to the discussion that we could make the Bible say what we want it to say. Instead, like what we do here in Bible Exposé, we study those verses that the INC uses as proof-texts, seeking to bring out its intended meaning by showing its real context.

Other than Numbers 23:19, the INC also quotes Hosea 11:9 and Ezekiel 28:2 to teach that Jesus is man, not God. (See also: “Does Numbers 23:19 Deny That God Would Become Man?”)

“I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.” (Hosea 11:9, KJV. Emphasis added.)

“Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst​a​ of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God…” (Ezekiel 28:2, KJV. Emphasis added.)

After quoting those verses, the INC makes this conclusion.

“Kung gayon, ang Diyos ay Diyos at ang tao ay tao. Ang Diyos ay hindi tao at ang tao ay hindi Diyos. Kaya wala sa Biblia ang aral na si Cristo ay taong totoo at Diyos na totoo. Ang ating Panginoong Jesucristo ay tao ayon sa Biblia.” [“Therefore, God is God and man is man. God is not man and man is not God. Thus, the teaching that Christ is true man and true God is not found in the Bible. Our Lord Jesus Christ is man according to the Bible.”] [Pasugo, February 1995, 14] 

But like Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9 and Ezekiel 28:2 did not actually rule out the possibility that God would become man. Indeed, God actually became man (John 1:1, 14. See also: “What Does John 1:1 Say About The Nature of Jesus Christ?”). The INC merely took those verses out of its context, putting the wrong verses together.

Hosea 11 is about God promising restoration for Israel after pronouncing judgment upon the nation. His punishment for their sins did not cancel out His promise to them.

“God did not change His mind about bringing judgment on Israel, but He promised not to apply the full measure of His wrath or to destroy Ephraim again in the future. He would show restraint because He is God, not a man who forgets His promises, is arbitrary in His passions, and might be vindictive in His anger”. [Dr. Thomas L. Constable, Notes on Hosea 2012 Edition, 48. Emphasis added.] 

Like what I wrote regarding Numbers 23:19 before, Hosea 11:9 is not about the impossibility of God becoming man but about the His immutability as far as His promises and purposes for the chosen people are concerned.

Ezekiel 28 is part of a series of prophecies against Gentile nations. At this point, the prophet Ezekiel pronounced judgment upon Tyre. He focused on the sin of its king that brought upon the judgment on the city.

“The underlying sin of Tyre’s king was his pride, which prompted him to view himself as a god. … Evidently in Ezekiel’s day the kings of Tyre believed they were divine. The king’s claims to deity were false. … Evidently he felt he had wisdom that only a god could possess.” [The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1282. Emphasis added.]

Of course, man would never become God. But, Jesus is not a man who became God. He is God Who became man. Denying that man would ever become God does not also mean denying that God would become man.

Thus, when we ignore the context of a verse, we are actually putting words in God’s mouth. When we proof-text, we make Him say what He did not really say. We should rather let God speak through His Word.

After all, Bible verses are not Lego bricks.

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

________________________________

REFERENCES

Catañgay, Daniel D. “Ang mga katangian ni Cristo at ang Kaniyang likas na kalagayan.” Pasugo: God’s Message. February 1995.

Catañgay, Tomas C. “That stubbon skeptic, Thomas.” Pasugo: God’s Message. April 2002.

Constable, Dr. Thomas L. “Notes on Hosea 2012 Edition.” Sonic Light 2012. http://soniclight.org/constable/notes/pdf/hosea.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2012.

Dyer, Charles H. “Ezekiel.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament. Eds. John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983, 1985.

Tuggy, Arthur Leonard. Iglesia ni Cristo: A Study of Independent Church Dynamics, Arthur Leonard Tuggy. QC, Philippines: Conservative Baptist Publishing, 1976.