Physical vs Spiritual

Deceptions rarely stand alone in a religious environment. A deception usually breeds more deceptions in order to build a structure of interwoven deceptions that appear to all be supporting one another as truths.

One of the tell-tale indicators is how the language is used, with deceptions often being referred to as “obviously true” despite a lack of biblical evidence to support them.

The concept of “moral” law is a good example. Nowhere in Scripture does it state that any law constitutes being “moral” law, let alone the entire Decalogue. Yet the concept is accepted as true despite this, and the requirement stated in Scripture is to prove all things, not to accept all things should they appear to be “obviously” or “apparently” true.”

(Proverbs 3:5) Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Ask those who believe in “moral” law to define it. And ask how it contrasts to “ceremonial” law and how that is defined. It’s like watching a deer illuminated in the headlights, because the organization they belong to that proffers the concept has not defined the terms outside of circular reasoning. Most members are reluctant to answer, knowing that any answer they proffer may well not meet the criteria of any ‘official position’ of the organization. They are satisfied to simply parrot the belief/claim and leave it at that.

I proffer the concept that if there truly were such a thing as “moral” law, they would be laws where there is NEVER an excuse or justification for violating them. Murder is always wrong when properly defining ‘murder.’ Same with adultery, bearing false witness, and idolatry, to mention a few.

The concept of ‘moral’ law also raises another, associated issue. Are we discussing “moral” law in the context of a person being justified and declared morally upright because they keep or comply with “moral” law? And if so, then what of those who, say, never commit a murder, yet have a deep seated hatred of another, which Scripture identifies as the “spirit of murder”?

This would also be hard to embrace, given the statements by Paul that no one will be justified by the works of the law. What ties this all together is Jesus’ declaration about the Pharisees, who we could argue at least kept the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) yet Jesus referred to them as children of the devil and that they hated Him without a just cause.

(John 15:25) But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

No matter what Jesus did before them, in their sight, even raising the dead, was rejected in favor of the law. To them, the Messiah to come would be validating both them and the law they administered, so that, they charged even the followers of Christ Jesus for being ignorant of the law and thus cursed as a result.

(John 7:48-49) Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

Dare I point it out? The law was more important than God Incarnate. And if you put something, anything, above and greater than God, then what is that ‘thing’ to you? It is the ‘god’ you serve and obey. It is your idol; whether made of stone, or the product of your imagination, or both.

(John 4:23-24) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Can we agree then that the Pharisees, whose focus was about the law and the works of the law that were physically oriented, were not worshiping God in spirit and in truth? They were rejecting truth by rejecting He who was the personification of Truth, and where spirit is about things non-corporeal; outside the realm of physical things and outside the realm of the heart, mind, and soul, where their focus was in relation to the physical body and outward appearances.

A believing Christian then sees themselves in relation to Christ in association with the heart, mind, and soul. False Christians, unbelievers, not being led by the Holy Spirit, will focus then on the physical things, such as the works of the law that have no bearing, no impact, on the heart, mind, and soul, even as was the case with those Pharisees.

The works of the law, and most everything in the law, pointed forwards to the Messiah to come; the Christ we know to be the Son of God, who is also God. It is a concept impossible for those focused on the physical to fully grasp, being a spiritual concept. For God exists in a spiritual realm and not a physical one where physically-, carnally-minded people try to understand the nature of God through a physical filter.

The physical sacrifices were typology of Him. Circumcision was typology of conversion, performed by the Holy Spirit, where under the law, a Jew was not complete unless and until he was circumcised. And in this spiritual reality, a “man” becomes complete in Christ through this spiritual “circumcision” “performed without hands”.

(Colossians 2:11) In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

As an aside, note carefully the wording and reference to sin, being sins of the flesh… not sins of the law. For the Gentiles were never required to come under the law, through a physical circumcision according to the law. This spiritual circumcision of the heart brings one into the New Covenant “law” of the Spirit and not the old covenant law of the physical letter… that kills.

Where Sabbatarianism, such as Armstrongism and Adventism, expose themselves as non-spiritual is their embrace of the old covenant Sabbath rest for the physical body that followed six days of physical work; ignoring the typology which they vaguely comprehend in regards to the sacrifices and circumcision. There is a spiritual “rest” found in Christ; a rest for the non-physical component of mankind associated with the heart, mind, and soul. The author of Hebrews points out this spiritual rest as a cessation of a former work, even as God ceased from the work of the physical universe where that typology meets its completion in the spiritual creation of a new man; a new creature / creation where all things have become new; different than the old.

(2 Corinthians 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

What were the “old things” that passed away? Everything associated with the old man, including his previous works of the flesh and sins of the flesh. A man in Christ enters into God’s rest. The rest God entered into millennia ago and still resides in is a permanent rest or “cessation” from the act of physical creation. This is a typology of our rest/cessation of our former works of the physical flesh, leading to eventual death, and in contrast our conversion/transformation places us within God’s rest, that is life ETERNAL. We now reside in this condition for the rest of eternity; having entered into God’s rest with Him that will never end. Death has been swallowed up by life.

This is all spiritually discerned, and as such, rejected by those still held by the flesh; still under the bonds and chains of sin. All they know and understand are physical things, along with physical rites and rituals that were typology of what was to come. People reject the concept due to having evil hearts of unbelief; held captive to sin by their very nature; their hearts, minds, and souls that have not undergone any spiritual awakening through conversion via the Holy Spirit, to the end that they end up actively resisting the Holy Spirit in favor of their own efforts under a physical law that condemns physical, carnal people led by the flesh.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Just What Do They Mean "Born Again"?

Over the past months, we've considered some of the problems with Herbert W Armstrong's teachings on "born again," and how the modern-day Churches of God have carried his fallacies forward. Today, I'd like to close this series by explaining what we "deceived" Christians believe about regeneration, or being "born again."

I know, you think you already understand. I always thought I did. After all, COG literature is replete with critiques of "so-called Christian" doctrines.  The problem is, HWA and those who followed him have created a "Christian" straw man, assigned it highly shallow, flimsy beliefs, then knocked it down. And why would we have any reason to doubt them? Most COG members are disenchanted Protestants and Catholic, as well as their children, who have never darkened the door of a non-COG church outside of weddings and funerals.

These factors, combined with Armstrong's dogmatism and authoritarianism, created a feedback loop that keeps us in the dark about what "deceived" Christians believe. Plus, Google wasn't a factor until relatively recently.

Most of today's COGs are less authoritarian, but they continue HWA's tradition of taking swipes at these supposedly monolithic, shallow beliefs:

"The theological concept of regeneration was considered an instantaneous result of one's commitment to Christ without repentance or change of conduct." United Church of God, Study Paper on "Born Again," p. 7.

"'Born again' should not be relegated to merely a catchy phrase or slogan. It is meant to convey a message much deeper than a phrase some associate with a mostly emotional experience." (UCG, Study Paper on "Born Again", p. 18)

"Many believe conversion is just accepting Jesus into your heart or professing Jesus with your mouth or giving your heart to the Lord. If you say the word “Jesus,” does that mean that from then on you are a born again Christian?" (Arnold Hampton, Christian Conversion, Church of God, a Worldwide Association, lifehopeandtruth.com)

These authors are continuing their mentor's time-honored tradition of misunderstanding, misinterpreting and slandering their "so-called Christian" neighbors. Want an example?  Well, Armstrong asserted that Catholics believe they have entered the Kingdom of God once they embrace the Catholic faith, with no mention of an earthly kingdom. Never mind the fact that the Nicene Creed is recited at each Catholic mass - a creed which discusses Jesus' return in glory to judge the living and dead and His never-ending Kingdom.

Further, HWA taught his followers that Protestants largely inherited this "error" from Catholicism, except for those who are even more foolish, believing the Kingdom of God is something ethereal, something 'set up in men's hearts." (HWA, Just what do you mean born again, p. 35). I'm not sure where HWA became so familiar with Protestant doctrine (as if there is one monolithic set of beliefs). But I can say with 100 percent certainty that there are Protestant churches that teach that Jesus will literally return to earth and establish His kingdom, because the one that I attend does. And it's not small denomination, either. There are millions of members, which means that millions of your deceived, false Christian neighbors believe Jesus will literally return and set up His Kingdom on earth. And that's just ONE denomination. I know that not all denominations believe in a literal return, but it's a total fabrication to say that the churches of God are the only ones who do.

So, with all that being said, are you sure know what your "so-called Christian" neighbors believe about being "born again"?

That's what I thought. So I'll get to the point.

Most traditional Christians believe that regeneration, or what some call being "born again", is an act in which God imparts new spiritual life through the Holy Spirit (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, p. 699). When this regeneration takes place, humans who were once spiritually dead in their sins, dead to God (Ephesians 2:1) are made spiritually alive (Ephesians 2:5, Colossians 2:13, Romans 8:10).

In HWA's model, Christians are begotten of God at baptism and "born again" at the resurrection, at Christ's return. Human effort factors into whether we "make it" from conception to birth, or whether we become an abortion (HWA, Just What Do You Mean Born Again, p. 45).

In contrast, traditional Christians believe humans play an active role in other steps of the redemption process, but we play no active role in regeneration. Just as we did not choose to be made physically alive, we do not choose to be spiritually born, either (James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:3). Analogies like Ezekiel 36:26-27 seem to indicate man is entirely passive in regeneration. It is entirely an act of God. It is not something that occurs at baptism, as the United Church of God explains in its 2002 study paper on "Born Again." (p. 7). The "washing of regeneration" mentioned in Titus 3:4-5 does not indicate a literal washing, but a cleansing performed by the spirit. Consider Ezekiel 36:25-26, which foreshadows such a time:

"Ezekiel is prophesying that God will give an internal cleansing from the pollution of sin in the heart at the same time as he awakens new spiritual life within his people." (Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 702, footnote 7).

So when Jesus discusses being born of water and spirit in John 3, He is most likely talking about a spiritual cleansing from sin, not baptism. Baptism and other physical rites are not being discussed in this passage, and Christian baptism did not start until Pentecost. This series is not intended to explore the issue of baptism at length, but suffice it to say that many scriptures contradict UCG's teachings about so-called "baptismal regeneration" based on Titus 3:4-5. Baptism is a positive rite of Christianity,  but is not absolutely necessary for salvation. Consider Acts 16:14, which tells us that the Lord opened Lydia's heart to understand Paul's teachings, and THEN she was baptized. Salvation comes through faith, not through physical actions. UCG's teachings on baptism foreshadow the church's greater misunderstanding of the human condition and the need for regeneration.

Different schools of theology debate exactly when regeneration happens - immediately before, simultaneously or immediately after a Christian responds to effective calling by repenting and placing their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. It seems  appear these appeared almost simultaneously in Acts 10:44, when the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and others listening to Peter while he was still speaking. Regardless of the exact sequence of events, traditional Christians are regenerated or "born-again" at the outset of their Christian walk, not at its culmination. We are new creations now.

(2 Corinthians 5:17) Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new."

We don't know exactly how God regenerates us. The change is internal and invisible, as Jesus alluded to Nicodemus in John 3:8. The wind is invisible and moves secretly, but we see can see its effects in objects around us - blowing leaves, tree limbs and flags. Similarly, humans who have been regenerated will show evidence of new spiritual life through patterns of behavior and desires that are pleasing to God (Systematic Theology, 702). Traditional Christianity calls this process "sanctification," and see it is as evidence of regeneration, not the process through which we secure our "rebirth."

Verses like 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 5:3-4 are in keeping with this line of thought, not indicators that Christians must achieve sinless perfection. Those who are born again will not continue in a pattern of sin - God has given them the ability to overcome the pressures and temptations that would otherwise keep us from obedience. Through our faith in Christ, we can overcome. (link to previous post).

John emphasizes that things like obedience and brotherly love will be the necessarily results in the lives of those who have been born again. Similarly, in Galatians 5:22-23, Paul writes about the traits that the Holy Spirit will produce in Christians' lives over time. If there is true regeneration, these elements will become more and more evident in one's life.

"Neither Jesus nor Paul nor John point to activity in the church or miracles as evidence of regeneration. They rather point to character traits in life." (Grudem, Systematic Theology, pp. 705-706.)

(Of course this begs the question of whether traditional Christians believe those who have been "born again" can lose their salvation. Some teach that God is so powerful that He is able to prevent believers from falling away; thus one who turns from God must never have been truly regenerated. Others argue that Scripture demonstrates one can lose his salvation. Even those who teach this believe it can only happen through deliberate, willful rejection of Jesus and renunciation of faith, not through failing to achieve a particular level of spiritual growth.)

According to Matthew 7:22, prophecy, exorcisms, miracles and other mighty works in Jesus' name do not indicate a person has been born again. Years of intensive church activity do not indicate a person has been born again. Apparently all these things can be produced when a natural man or woman "plays church" on his or her own strength.

"But genuine love for God and his people, heartfelt obedience to his commands, and the Christ-like character traits that Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit, demonstrated consistently over a period of time in a person's life, simply cannot be produced by the natural man or woman working in his or her own strength. These can only come about by the spirit of God working within and giving us new life." (Systematic Theology, p. 706).

The kind of transformation traditional Christianity associates with being "born again" isn't as flashy or exciting as HWA's description. But it's certainly not vague, meaningless or namby-pamby. It's even more important because it allows a transformation of man's real problem - his heart.

Armstrong taught that humans are born morally neutral, and that negative traits like self-centeredness, anger, jealousy, lust and greed are acquired from the devil or the environment. They are not an inherent part of the human heart. Satan, the Prince of the Power of the air, broadcasts his attitude to the world like radio signals, and that the human spirit is tuned in to his wavelength (HWA, The Incredible Human Potential, pp. 146-152). Almost all the COGs still teach this theory of tabula rasa (Latin for "blank slate") today.

The problem is, the idea originated with Aristotle, not the Bible. Scripture paints a much different view of the human heart - according to verses like Psalm 51:5, Job 14:4 and Psalm 58:3. Jeremiah 17:9 puts it best:

"The heart is desperately wicked, who can know it?"

Our hearts are more than just tuned in to the wrong channel. Consider your own words, your own thoughts. You could duct-tape your mouth shut, but the thoughts would still be there. The real problem is the heart from which your words and thoughts spring.  As Jesus said, out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34).

And really, this is why the whole issue matters. If our sin-slate is wiped clean at baptism, and we can simply "change the channel" to God's frequency using the Holy Spirit as a power tool, then all is well in the COGs. The fact that your church teaches your eternal destiny depends on whether you can change enough to avoid spiritual abortion shouldn't be an issue. But if the problem with your heart is deeper than a matter of will, well, that's a different story.

So do you have the spiritual sniffles, or is your heart desperately ill? Are you making good progress at overcoming your sin? Is the antibiotic of the Holy Spirit giving you an extra boost to fight the sin in your life? Or are you in need of something stronger? Do you love your neighbor as yourself, even when it's inconvenient? Do you struggle with faith, even though God has come through for you every time before? Do you struggle to contain your angry reactions when your pride is hurt? Do you bite your tongue, only to have the bitter words burn in your throat? You know, all the duct tape in the world won't keep the hateful feelings from bubbling up inside of you. And even more importantly, do you believe your Creator, who sees all your reactions and knows all your thoughts, thinks you have changed enough to qualify for eternal life?

Let's face it. You don't need a spiritual vitamin. You need a total heart transplant - a complete regeneration . The job is too big for you, but it's not too much for the Great Physician. Jesus came to heal those who know they are sinners, not those who think they are righteous (Mark 2:17, NASB). Step into the New Covenant and accept the true healing that only comes by grace through faith in the shed blood of the Christ alone.

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************

Loose Ends on "Born Again"

After taking a break for the spring days, today, we'd like to tie up some loose ends from our analysis of Herbert Armstrong's Booklet, Just What Do You Mean Born Again.

You're probably thinking, "Finally!" We know the feeling. Though this study is meant to address the major doctrinal flaws in the booklet, we know it does not address each and every page. Still, we think we've covered enough ground to at least establish reasonable doubt of Armstrong's take on "born again."

Maybe you're still wondering why, in 2015, we would rehash a publication last updated in 1972. Well, the booklet may be more than 40 years old, but many of its false conclusions are alive and well in today's Churches of God. The Living Church of God; Church of God, a Worldwide Association; United Church of God; Philadelphia Church of God; Church of God, an International Community and many others still teach Armstrong's basic doctrines about salvation based on his reproduction analogy. (Incidentally, UCG still affirms HWA's teachings on "born again" out of one side of their mouth, while the other side quietly whispered he was wrong in their 2002 study paper on "Born Again.")

In fact, the only group we know of in the Church of God community that has rejected this false teaching is John Ritenbaugh's Church of the Great God. Ritenbaugh is the church's founder and pastor, and has taken considerable effort to refute HWA's traditional teachings on regeneration in his series, "Born Again or Begotten?".  Last time, Ritenbaugh helped us debunk HWA's interpretation of John 3:8. Today, he'll help us address Armstrong's misinterpretations of 1 John 3, which HWA supported through his faulty interpretation of John 3:8.

First John 3:2 describes Christians as children of God, but also states that our final form has not yet been revealed. Armstrong points out that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50), and the rest of the passage (verses 42-54) tells us that glorified humans will resemble "the image of the heavenly Man." (verse 49). What is that image? Armstrong directs our attention to the description in Revelation 1:14-15, which he snidely notes does not fit today's so-called "born again" Christian.

"We shall appear like him at the second coming to earth.  What will he be like? Like the glorified Christ - his eyes blaze like fire, feet like burnished brass, face shines like the sun," Armstrong said. "And that is the way you and I shall look, if and when we are finally born of God! These deceived people who talk about having had a "born-again" experience certainly don't look like THAT!" (Just What Do You Mean Born Again, p. 40).

Voila! Your Methodist neighbor clearly doesn't look like that now. That settles it. Believers are literally "born again" into the Kingdom of God at Christ's return. Game over. Or maybe not.

But Paul, the author of 1 Corinthians, never mentions being "born again" in the context of a resurrection, in 1 Corinthians or anywhere else, Ritenbaugh points out. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 5:8, Paul uses the word "born" in terms of his calling. Throughout the Bible, the final step of the process is consistently described in terms of glorification, change or transformation through resurrection, not a birth (1 Corinthians 15:51-54, Philippians 3:21, 2 Corinthians 3:17-18). And Romans 1:4, another scripture HWA used to "prove" Christ was born again at His resurrection, in reality, indicates the resurrection proved Christ was who He said He was. In other words, the resurrection was the evidence - the reason - that we have faith in Christ. Not the thing that made Him the Christ.

He Cannot Sin

The final argument from the booklet I'd like to address is from I John 3:9:

"Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God."

Armstrong juxtaposed this verse with 1 John 1:8, which tells us that we deceive ourselves if we think we have no sin. Do the two verses contradict one another, or is there another explanation, HWA mused.  Naturally, he has an explanation. First John 1:8-9 plainly tells us that converted Christians do sin, though not habitually, deliberately or willfully.

So what about 1 John 3:9, which tells us it's impossible for Christians to sin? It must mean that those who have been born of God cannot sin. Do you still sin? Then you are not born of God yet, HWA argues, and won't be until the resurrection.

Other theologians agree that 1 John 1:8 and 1 John 3:9 do not contradict one another, but for another reason. The latter verse uses the Greek perfect tense, indicating an ongoing lifestyle, not an individual occurrence, according to evangelical theologian, professor and author Wayne Grudem. Grudem explains that John means that the Holy Spirit will keep the regenerated man for living a sinful lifestyle, not prevent him from individual lapses (Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, p. 704).

Even if you don't like that explanation, HWA's reasoning contradicts itself within the context verse 9 in isolation (not to mention the entire passage).

(I John 3:9) Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

Suppose this verse really does discuss Christians who have been resurrected, or "literally born" into God's Kingdom. Then why would God's "seed" remain in one who has been born? According to HWA's analogy, we are no longer talking about someone who's only "begotten"  at this point. But seed indicates a conceptual, fetal, incomplete status.

If that's not enough, the whole passage is exhorting and instructing brethren to show love to one another in this life. Explaining that love is evidence of true Christianity. Why would John fast-forward to the resurrection in verse 9, when the context of the passage indicates he is talking about current conduct?

UCG's 2002 study paper on "born again" even takes this position:

"The context of I John chapter 3 is unmistakably referring to the present Christian life. It is not referring to the future life in the resurrection." (Born Again, p. 18)

Conclusion:
While we plan to spend one more post explaining what "so-called Christians" believe about this topic, we'd like to close with a few statements from Ritenbaugh's and UCG's writings on "born again". Our comments are in bold.

"In the end, the begotten-again analogy is found completely lacking in describing what happens to begin our spiritual life. What has not changed in the least is its practical application to Christian life. However, what has been clarified should impress upon us even more forcefully is that, because our names are already entered into the Book of Life, we are already in God's Family Kingdom with our citizenship already issued, and there is every reason we should make it to the end. Therefore, we should be all the more responsible and urgent to bring glory to our God." (Ritenbaugh, Born Again or Begotten, Part 3)  The analogy is completely lacking, but still has practical application in our lives? Hmmmm...

"The analogy of being begotten and in the womb of the church is not only scripturally wrong, it is totally inadequate when God commands us to do practical activities normal to Christian life" (such as pray, fast, sacrifice, repent, forgive, show mercy and many others)." (Ritenbaugh, Born Again or Begotten, Part 3). Again, it is scripturally wrong and totally inadequate, but it still applies to us how?

"The individual is not literally reborn at the time of conversion. On the other hand, a significant chance takes place in this life - so significant that it can be considered the beginning of a new life." (UCG, Born Again, p. 6) Um.  The beginning of a new life usually is called a birth. 

"Therefore, while the fetal analogy is not found specifically in the Bible as an application to Christians, it is helpful to understanding the salvation process." (UCG, Born Again, p. 30). Why cling to an analogy that is not found in the Bible to explain a Biblical process? Especially when there is a perfectly good biblical analogy several New Testament writer used to explain the process. Which, again, many within the COG community admit is biblically sound. 

"This (the fetal analogy) is a good analogy and it is theologically sound." (UCG, Born Again, p. 28). Wait. They just said this analogy is not found in the Bible. How can it be theologically sound?  

"It may be difficult to distinguish from the context between that which takes place at conversion and that which takes place at the time of the resurrection. But why should we attempt to do so if both apply?" (UCG, Born Again, p. 16). Because the man who founded your church ridiculed "so-called Christians" who accepted this conclusion as false brethren; and because you continue to do so today. Because your church makes it a litmus test for true Christians. It is disingenuous to straddle the fence now to try to simultaneously attempt to preserve your tithe base and save face, theologically speaking.  

After reading these statements, one must infer that UCG and the many former UCG ministers who lead other COG organizations today hold onto their teaching largely because allegiance to Armstrong's ideas and writings are at least as dear to them than the ideas and writings of John, Peter and Paul. How about you? Is your allegiance to a man's extra-biblical teachings or to the Word of God?

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************

Blowing in the Wind

A few weeks ago, I was up during the night with one of my children during a storm. When daylight came, there were branches down all over the yard. My husband, who was blissfully unaware of either disruption, saw the tree carnage the next morning and asked me, "did it rain or something last night?"

I was a bit tired the next day, but I was thankful for the experience. It helped me understand a scripture that I had been wrestling with for weeks, from the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3.

(JON. 3: 8) The wind blows where it wishes, and you can hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the spirit.

Though I had left the Churches of God a while ago, I had a hard time viewing this scripture through any lens besides Herbert Armstrong's. The storm helped illustrate a concept people had been telling me for a while. My husband didn't see or hear the storm, but the broken limbs all over the yard was evidence it had blown through.

Armstrong and most of today's COGs believe this passage refers to humans who are "born again" as spirit beings when they are resurrected at Christ's return. Just like the wind, spirit beings are invisible -  you can't tell where they come from or where they go.

This, of course, wreaks havoc with other teachings. The explanation for John 3: 8 pictures the resurrected church as invisible spirit beings only able to be detected indirectly. At the exact same time, one of the most fundamental teachings about the resurrected church during the Millennium is that they will be visible, tangible, audible, literal - and so will Jesus Christ. Verses such as Isaiah 30: 20-21, the parable of the Minas in Luke 19, Zechariah 14: 3, 12, 16-21, Revelation 2: 27 and many others besides were used to proof-text this idea out. (For more just read "The Wonderful World Tomorrow What Will It Be Like" by Herbert and Garner Ted Armstrong.)

Sermon after sermon delved in great detail about how the world would see the resurrected church with their own eyes and despair. The entire purpose of the church being resurrected at the start of the Millennium was for the church to be visible and accessible to the unchanged humans who survive the Great Tribulation, to rule over them and teach them alongside Christ. Therefore the stock explanation of John 3: 8 is contradictory. If humans are seeing resurrected church members and interacting with them, then likening them to the wind is a poor simile. So why would Jesus liken a resurrected church member to the undetectable wind when the promises and point of it all is for them to be precisely the opposite of that? It makes very little sense. Is there any other explanation that makes far better sense? Yes.

John Ritenbaugh, pastor of Church of the Great God, teaches that Jesus is describing the Holy Spirit, not a resurrected spirit being. We agree. Much like the wind, one cannot see the Holy Spirit, but we can see the effects. Per chance it was a breezy night and Jesus grasped the opportunity for a teachable moment. We cannot see the Holy Spirit making a person more and more like Jesus Christ each day. No one exclaims to a Christian, "Can you tell the Holy Spirit to stop making so much noise in your heart? I can't concentrate!" But when the Holy Spirit is at work in a person, the results are recognizable to all. We can't explain exactly how God works in our lives and hearts, but we can see His fruit.

"We can witness the changes that He produces in people by noting that the formerly sinful person is becoming holy; the immoral person is becoming moral; the stubborn, obstinate person is becoming gentle, thoughtful and helpful," Ritenbaugh says. "In other words, just as with the wind, we see the effects of an invisible cause. The Father grants regeneration and repentance, and He reveals Himself, bestowing His Spirit and spiritual growth on whomever He will. He does these things at the times and in the ways that please Him."

This explanation actually does make sense outside of the COG lens, and it has support elsewhere in scripture. Consider Ecclesiastes 11:5, which I discovered only recently.

(ECC. 11: 5) As you do not know what is the way of the wind, or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, so you do not know the works of God who makes everything.

This passage links the blowing wind with the work of God, lending support to Ritenbaugh's interpretation of John 3:8. Also consider the description of the Holy Spirit's arrival on Pentecost in Acts 2:2, which describes "a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind." It seems more likely that Jesus was drawing on scriptural examples, as well as His own knowledge of the Holy Spirit, to describe how one is born again, not their material state (or lack thereof) in the resurrection.

The Jews of Jesus' day consistently failed to grasp the spiritual significance what He said because they assumed He was speaking in physical terms, Ritenbaugh notes. (Part 1). If we repeat this mistake with John 3, we cannot help but misunderstand being "born again."

We have one definite advantage the Jews do not - that we can read Ephesians 2:1-6, which shows that we were once spiritually dead, but made alive in Christ. Luke 9:60 seems to confirm Paul's description of how God perceives unbelievers - as spiritually dead. But we also know that God gives life to the dead (Romans 4:17). For exactly this same reason Jesus said to the Apostles:

(JON. 16: 12-14) 12 I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.

With that in mind, let's turn back to John 3. Nicodemus, like the other Jews, is thinking in physical terms. His reply shows he has no clue that, despite being physically alive, he is a spiritually dead man and can only get the spiritual life he needs from God. He would have been shocked if he comprehended that even he, as a high ranking Pharisee, one of "God's chosen people," was a foreigner to the Kingdom of God unless he was made spiritually alive. (Ritenbaugh, Part 1).

Ritenbaugh notes that the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus focuses on how men are made alive spiritually, not how men should live. It would seem that being born again must be the basis and starting point for a believer's transformation into Christ's image. Neither a fetus nor a corpse is capable of faith and obedience.

"It is as if everything regarding our spiritual future beings and proceeds from this point," Ritenbaugh says.

This is in agreement with what the early church believed. Everything regarding our spiritual future proceeds from this point. And "this point" for them was baptism. The importance of baptism was not missed by them. Over and over they quote John 3 verse 5:

(JON. 3: 5) Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The early church understood "of water" to be a reference to water baptism.

As far as this single verse is concerned, Herbert Armstrong glossed completely over the mention of water and went straight on to spirit. He missed a full half of the equation in this verse because baptism doesn't figure in to how the resurrected humans will appear. But baptism is in this verse, so it cannot simply be ignored. Except the resurrected saints are not born of water. Only a new Christian is born of water and Spirit, in the act of baptism. Therefore this lends credence to the notion that Jesus was not referring to how Nicodemus will appear when he is resurrected. Jesus was referring to a death and rebirth now. Colossians 2: 12 clearly relates baptism to a symbolic death and rebirth. Symbolic, yes, as water itself does nothing, but necessary as an act of initiation.

(I PET. 3: 21) There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

(We are not attempting to flesh out whether regeneration starts at baptism or at confession of faith. We are just attempting to show that Herbert Armstrong's proof texting of John 3 is illogical in several ways.)

Like Nicodemus, Armstrong failed to discern that Jesus was speaking figuratively and spiritually. Armstrong intuited literal processes into spiritual examples, and spiritual processes into physical examples. He was like the Pharisees in John 2, mentally calculating the hours of labor that went into building the temple and scoffing at Jesus. In fact, scoffing was something HWA did quite well. Consider some of his concluding thoughts from Just What Do You Mean Born Again:

"That true born-again experience will be incomparably more glorious than the false, vague, meaningless, so called 'born-again experience' that deceived thousands think they have had now."
                                -Herbert Armstrong, Just What Do You Mean Born Again, p. 45

Consider - if John Ritenbaugh and all who agree with him are correct, then Herbert Armstrong is blaspheming the Holy Spirit, calling His participation in us "false, meaningless, so called" and etc. Do not, dear reader, simply gloss over this. What most people call "born again" is nothing less than the power and presence of the Holy Spirit within them. Therefore, if Herbert Armstrong is wrong on this point, then what he refers to as "false, meaningless, so called" is nothing less than the power and presence of the Holy Spirit.

Sadly, the spiritual, the humble and the small things take a back seat to the literal, the grandiose and the dramatic. Such is typical where HWA is concerned.

"We shall appear like him at the second coming to earth.  What will he be like? Like the glorified Christ - his eyes blaze like fire, feet like burnished brass, face shines like the sun, And that is the way you and I shall look, if and when we are finally born of God! These deceived people who talk about having had a "born-again" experience certainly don't look like THAT!"
                                - Herbert Armstrong, Just What Do You Mean Born Again, p. 40

Consider - Herbert Armstrong describes what appearance the resurrected saints will have. The invisible saints. If the saints were truly invisible, they would not look like anything. So, are they visible or invisible? Like the wind, or like the sun?

First Corinthians 2:14 tells us that one without the Holy Spirit finds things from the Spirit of God to be foolish. After all, those things can only be discerned through the Spirit. So it would make sense for someone who was "in the flesh" to consider teachings on regeneration to be vague and meaningless. Hypothetically speaking, of course. When we take a step back from accepting something simply because we have an ideological commitment to what the COGs teach, and just allow ourselves to contemplate other possible explanations, does the traditional COG teaching make the best sense? Not to us it doesn't. And not to several modern COG members including John Ritenbaugh. The mainstream understanding of "born again" is the superior explanation. People in the COGs are beginning to realize and accept this.

We are now governed by the Spirit, not the flesh, if The Spirit of God lives in us. Though our bodies are still mortal, we have life now through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9-10). The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God, His ways are foolishness to such a mind. The hostility HWA displayed concerns me, and it should concern you, too, if you are following his followers. Like the Jews, HWA failed to see the figurative and scoffed at the spiritual. Much like Israel of old, to this day, among the COGs, when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts." 2 Corinthians 3:15. This veil was put in place by their founder, a man who couldn't see behind it himself.

"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?" (John 3:10, NIV)

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************

Jesus: Qualified to be Firstborn?

Do you remember your high school chemistry classes? If you're anything like me, experiment days were the worst. They never worked. Ever. As a teenager who was stronger in language arts, science was not my forte. I rarely got the results I was supposed to get. While other students got cool smoke or flames, I got a lecture from the teacher. Looking back, I'm sure I wasn't paying as close attention to the variables as I should have been.

Understanding doctrine can be a little like those science experiment. If you go into the equation with a variable that's off, you can't help but come to a wrong conclusion.

In recent weeks, we've been considering Herbert W Armstrong's teachings on "born again," which have largely been carried forward into the modern-day Churches of God. Today, we'll consider how some of HWA's beliefs about Jesus and what He accomplished at His first coming contributed to these flawed conclusions on when Christians are "born again."

In short, HWA taught that Jesus Himself was "born again" as a son of God when He was resurrected from the dead (of course, after being born the first time as a human). He claimed that Christians would likewise be "born again" when they are resurrected at Christ's return. Armstrong described Jesus as a pioneer who showed the example of how we humans can also be born as God's children.

"Jesus had to be the FIRST to be BORN of God - the FIRST-BORN of many brethren. That was His second birth, as the resurrection will be ours." (Just What Do You Mean Born Again, p. 29). 

"He was only the first to be so born of God, of many brethren, We are to be in his same image - as He is, now! We are to be put on His same plane - as His brethren - to be also born of God - to become God's sons!"
-Herbert Armstrong, Just What Do You Mean Born Again, p. 42-43

Most of today's Churches of God have preserved Armstrong's teachings on this matter. One voice in the COG community, however, takes issue with his logic. John Ritenbaugh, founder and pastor of the Church of the Great God, has taken considerable effort to refute HWA's traditional teachings on regeneration in his series, "Born Again or Begotten?".

Unlike you and I, Jesus had no need to be "born again," Ritenbaugh says. Jesus had no need to be regenerated. He was our Savior, not a mere trailblazer.

"Since He never went through, or needed, a spiritual birth, His title of "firstborn from the dead" is not an instruction on how a Christian is spiritually born," Ritenbaugh says. "He was not born again by a resurrection, and thus the resurrection from the dead is not the model for how we are born again either."

HWA's misunderstanding greatly skews the way members of the Churches of God understand Jesus, the Kingdom of God and their role in attaining salvation. This is most dramatically illustrated in Armstrong's last book, Mystery of the Ages. Published the year before Armstrong's death, this book can hardly be waved off as ancient COG history (plus, UCG's Aaron Dean was a large contributor to the book).

HWA taught that Jesus came to "wrest the throne of the earth from Satan," (MOTA, p. 211), to qualify to replace the devil and set up the Kingdom of God. This quote from page 219 of MOTA, which follows a narrative of Jesus' encounter with Satan in the wilderness, gives us insight into Armstrong's gross misconceptions about Christ's role and humanity's role in salvation:

"Jesus Christ, the second Adam, had qualified! Never until that minute could the good news of the coming kingdom of God be announced to the world. Now the Son of God resisted and conquered Satan  had qualified to reestablish God's government and set up the Kingdom of God on earth! But now the church must also qualify to rule with him!"

Never until that minute could the good news be announced? The Bible is replete with verses that indicate otherwise. Though dramatic and inspiring, the incarnation was hardly history's greatest nail-biter.

•Genesis 3: 15: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.” A prophecy of the victory of Jesus over Satan. The good news was announced at the outset.
•Revelation 13:8: "... whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Scripture tells us that the outcome was determined since creation.

•1 Peter 1:20: "He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world..." Again, Christ's purpose and victory were foreordained.
•John 3:14-15: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." Christ's sacrifice and victory on the Cross were foreshadowed in this episode that occurred shortly after the Exodus.
•Isaiah 53:4-5: "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed." A favorite COG Passover passage, this Old Testament prophecy declared Christ's victory long before Jesus' incarnation.
•Genesis 15:6: "And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness." The righteousness imputed to Abraham, made available through Christ's sacrifice, was assured long before Israel was a nation, the Sinai Covenant was established or Christ was born.

Scripture plainly shows that Herbert Armstrong was wrong on this point. What else might he have misunderstood about Jesus and what He accomplished? And if his teaching on a subject this foundational is demonstrably off the mark, how does it affect his other teachings on salvation? For example, his belief that Jesus "was only the first to be born so of God," leads him to the belief that glorified church members will be called "co-saviors with Christ" (Mystery of the Ages, p. 240). Or for another example, his belief that Jesus has more to accomplish leads him to the belief that our sins will be placed on Satan's head (as the sins of Israel were placed on the head of the Azazel goat, which Armstrong claimed represented Satan) - in effect giving Satan the Devil a prominent role in our salvation and the remission of our sins. Find either of these details disturbing, possibly borderline blasphemy? We certainly do.

Jesus did not have to qualify "for the executive administration of the Government of God" to replace Satan as earth's ruler (Just What Do You Mean Born Again, p. 8-9). God was always in control. Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. Satan could only attack Job within the parameters God allowed. His request to sift Peter like wheat was denied. Jesus could have called down angels to protect Him. When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, he could offer Jesus nothing that He didn't already possess. The earth is the Lord's and everything in it (Exodus 9:29), as are those who dwell upon it (Psalm 24:1). In no way was Satan in control. It was simply the place to which he fell. When Jesus refers to Satan as "the god of this world" do not mistake that as a claim that Satan is legitimately a god. He is not. When we take all of the evidence of the Bible and the universe into consideration we see that this statement was not a remark of the greatness or authority of Satan. No. It was a remark on the wickedness of the hearts of mankind. Our fallen hearts are so given to evil that we follow en masse after the lies of Satan rather than the love and charity of our true God - Jesus Christ. Satan is not a rightful ruler; he is a usurper. We make Satan into a god.

There's no doubt that the Bible associates Jesus with being a firstborn, Ritenbaugh admits. We agree. He was Mary's firstborn (Matthew 1:25), and Romans 8:29 calls him the firstborn among many brethren. He is called the firstborn from the dead in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:15. But the Bible often discusses the concept of a firstborn in spiritual or figurative terms. Many verses aren't even talking about a literal birth, so placing undue emphasis on Christ as a literal firstborn can give rise to additional doctrinal problems, Ritenbaugh says.

Christ is called the "firstborn over all creation" in Colossians 1:15-20. If this is literal, then we must determine whose womb was opened so Jesus could be firstborn over creation? (Ritenbaugh, part 3). Likewise, whose womb was opened so He could be the firstborn from the dead? (ibid). God gave Israel His definition of firstborn in Exodus 13:12, which involves the first offspring to open the womb.

In Hebrew culture, the title "firstborn" indicated a position of strength, distinction and sanctity. It frequently referred to the son to whom the leadership of the family would pass when the father died.o

Further, as we examine the scriptures, we see that the one named as the "firstborn" is not always the one chronologically born first. Abraham passed the rights of the firstborn on to Jacob, not Ishmael. Jacob was not Isaac's firstborn, Esau was. Joseph was given firstborn status after Reuben disqualified himself; Jacob did not pass that honor chronologically to Simeon. Likewise, Manasseh was the firstborn, but Jacob gave Ephraim prominence. God does not necessarily follow the traditions of Hebrew culture, but sometimes awards prominence to the one prepared for the responsibility.

God Himself sometimes uses the term "firstborn" figuratively, as when He commanded Moses to tell Pharaoh Israel was His firstborn son (Exodus 4:22). Later, in Jeremiah, God describes Himself as Israel's father and calls Ephraim His firstborn.

In fact, the Bible sometimes uses the term "firstborn" in situations unrelated to birth. For instance, in Job 18:13 Job's friend Bildad the Shuhite is likely talking about a disease like leprosy when he says that the "firstborn of death" consumes one's limbs. In a message  to Philistia, Isaiah 14:30 says that the firstborn of the poor will be fed. Most scholars believe this phrase is talking about the poorest of the poor, not the literal firstborn of an indigent person.

So we can see that the word "firstborn" doesn't always mean literally, chronologically first. In many of the instances just listed, we see firstborn used to indicate a superlative quality, preeminence or significance to God. In referring to Jesus Christ, the term implies preferential status, priority, sovereignty and oneness with God. (Ritenbaugh, part 3). His relationship to God the Father, creation and His brethren are unique and cannot be forced to fit such a literal, finite definition.

Jesus always had been and always would be God. He existed before all creation, and was firstborn, or preeminent over all because He was the Creator, not because of a metaphysical birth order (Colossians 1:15-17). He was called the Son before His incarnation (Psalm 2:12) and certainly before His resurrection (Mark 1:11, John 5:19-27, John 15:10). He is firstborn, or preeminent among believers because of his role as Savior and Redeemer (Colossians 1:18-20).

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************

Gennao: Just What Does It Mean?

Several months ago, we published a post titled Word Games demonstrating how COGWA, an Armstrongist splinter of the Worldwide Church of God, twisted Greek words to support their problematic doctrines. But please don't think we were picking on COGWA alone. The leadership of COGWA, LCG, UCG and other WCG splinters all learned from the master how to spin Greek definitions at Herbert W Armstrong's Ambassador College.

This is nowhere more evident than in HWA's writings about the Greek word gennao, with regards to his teachings on "born again". Today, we'll consider the use of this word as we continue our look at the COG's traditional teachings on "born again. (Click here for parts one and two of the series).

The crux of Armstrong's teachings on "born again" hinged upon the interpretation of gennao. The word truly can be translated both as "begotten" (as in siring or impregnation) and "born." But HWA claimed that Catholic, and later, Protestant doctrines influenced translators to render the English word incorrectly in order to to support their "false teachings" on regeneration.

"This led to translating gennao into the English term born in many instances where it rightly should be translated begotten," 

"They simply chose the English term which conformed to their erroneous belief."
-Herbert Armstrong, Just What Do You Mean Born Again, p 35-36.

This is sad news for the "King James Version Only" crowd. According to Herbert Armstrong, who preferred the RSV, your KJV Bible is sorely mistranslated.

Before we go any further, let's look at what Spiros Zodhiates' Complete World Study of the New Testament has to say about the definition. We assume the COGs find this resource trustworthy since UCG references the book in its "born again" study paper, as well as many COG Ministers throughout the splinter-sphere use it as a reference.

Gennao can mean "to beget," as in men begetting children, "to be born," as in women conceiving, and sometimes delivering children. It can be used allegorically and metaphorically. And it can refer to the impartation of spiritual life. (p. 891)

So, according to Zohiates, gennao definitely can mean born. Armstrong does not say that born is an invalid translation. He tentatively admits that it is valid. He simply asserts that the mainstream translators make a contextual error. So that is precisely where we will focus: context. Does the context better support the idea of "begotten" or "born?"

(In case you aren't super familiar with the rather dated word "begotten," Merriam-Webster defines it as to procreate as the father, to sire, or to produce as an effect.)

Armstrong insisted that in nearly every instance where gennao referred to Christians who had received the Holy Spirit, the word should be translated as "begotten" (Just What Do You Mean, Born Again, 36), and that when the word was used in a present tense, it referred to a fetal state (ibid, 34). The exception is the future. Armstrong agreed that the key gennao in John 3 was correctly interpreted as "born again" because he believed that John 3 looks to a future time when Christians literally will be born again with spirit bodies at Jesus' return. But in general, he asserted that other scriptures were mistranslated.

Since we grew up in Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, we've heard this gennao issue tossed around for decades. It has been a contentious issue in some of our extended families. To tell the truth, looking at the issue was a little intimidating. After all, HWA must have had SOME good reason, some leg to stand on. It's a major pillar of his teachings on salvation.

In short, he didn't. It would seem that he did exactly what he accused translators of doing - he chose an English term that supported his erroneous belief.

We claim his was the erroneous choice. Can we support that claim? Yes.

For example, let's consider 1 John 2:29, which reads: "If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him." According to HWA's logic, the verse should read "everyone who practices righteousness is begotten of Him," with the implication that they will be born later.

Does this translation fit in the context of what John wrote? Not at all. Just look at the verse that immediately precedes it.

(1 JOHN 2: 28) And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming.

Why would John mix metaphors? John referred to the readers as children just one sentence earlier. It is clear even in Armstrongist interpretation that John was not writing to literal little children, but he was speaking metaphorically. These are spiritual little children; John's disciples. Jesus is to come later, but we are little children now. The Greek word translated "little children" literally means infants. The context supports "born" as the proper translation.

Let's turn a few pages ahead to 1 John 5:1-2:

(1 JOHN 5: 1-2) 1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves Him who is begotten of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments.

Verse 1 actually does use the word "begotten" for gennao. Let's keep in mind that gennao does mean "to father," but does not refer exclusively to the gestation period. According to Armstrong, gennao should refer exclusively to the gestation period.

When we take a look at verse 2, we can see that John is exhorting us to show love to the born children of God, not the fetuses of God.

(As an aside, the scope of this study does not encompass the exposition of the term "commandments" in verse 2. See our FAQ for more on that detail. We also have several articles on this topic, such as "If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments". A list of these can be found in the Categories page.)

We will explore 1 John 5:18 and 1 John 3:9 in more depth later in this study. Suffice it to say we have found that Armstrong's statements about these verses are neither consistent with the Bible nor his own teachings about what gennao must mean in this context.

HWA insisted gennao should be translated "begotten," as in a fetal state, in scriptures where Christians had received the Holy Spirit. But I'd like to visit some other New Testament scriptures that use gennao to give you an idea just how out-of-step Armstrong's claims were.

• Matthew 1:2-16 - the "begats" includes a long list of paternal lineage. This passage does not indicate a fetal state. All of these men were born and sired another generation.
• Matthew 26:24 - "it would have been good for that man if he had not been born." Clearly he was born, given the context.
• Luke 1:22 - "and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son..." This is clearly a future tense, as Zodhiates indicates.
• Luke 23:29 - "blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore..." This passage refers to a time of trouble, when it would be a blessing not to have children to worry about or provide for. Barrenness was considered a curse in that day, so this statement would have gotten attention. And must refer to pregnancies that resulted in a live birth, or else there would be no child to worry about in this time of trouble.
• John 1:12-13 - "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name; who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." If we are only begotten according to Armstrong's theory, we do not have the right to become children. We have a possibility if all goes well, but not a right.
• John 8:41 - "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father - God." This verse technically would still make sense if it were interpreted "begotten," but that is clearly not the implication in context.
• John 9:2 - "who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Blindness does not directly have anything to do with how someone was sired. True, something likely went wrong with the man's eyes during his gestation, but this was not known until birth anyway in that day. Nor does the context indicate this was what anyone meant.
• John 16:21 - "but as soon as she has given birth to the child, she no longer remembers the anguish..." Clearly indicates delivery, not gestation.
• John 18:37 - "for this cause I was born." Yes, Jesus technically was conceived for the same cause, but gestation alone would not achieve the cause.
• Acts 7:8 - "Abraham begot Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day." Though interpreted "begot," no one can circumcise a fetus. Birth is clearly insinuated. In this verse being sired and the act of birth are both in mind. It must refer to the complete process.
• Acts 22:3 - "born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city..." Paul technically could have been conceived in Tarsus, but the language here indicates he is contrasting his birthplace with the city in which he was raised.
• Romans 9:11 - "for the children not yet being born..." Yes, this passage does refer to unborn fetuses as children but gennao clearly is in reference to the act of birth. If they had yet to be sired, there would be no children, no fetuses, no nothing of which to write.

Even the United Church of God uses the term "unfortunate" to describe the belief that "beget" can only mean "conceived," not "born."

Gennao has different connotations when it describes men's and women's roles in producing children, but the word did not have two different definitions, according to UCG's 2002 study paper on Born Again. This study paper clearly tries to play both sides - appealing to those who realize HWA's theory was flawed while trying to calm the anxiety of Armstrong loyalists who feared UCG was changing doctrine. While the paper loudly shouted it wasn't changing anything, it also whispered the conclusion that gennao cannot be dissected into stages of the reproductive process - it refers to the completed process. So, they aren't changing anything; they're just changing everything.

"Gennao relates to the completed process in both cases and the definitions bear this out," according to the paper (UCG, page 10).

John Ritenbaugh, founder of the Church of the Great God, also agrees that the weight of scripture heavily indicates gennao means "born", not "begotten", even in contexts far removed from the John 3 controversy.

John 3
Since Ritenbaugh brought it up, we probably should turn to John 3. It's really the whole point of the discussion anyway.

(JOHN 3: 1-4) 1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with Him." 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

In spite of what I JUST quoted, about what UCG wrote concerning gennao, the 2002 study paper criticizes those who translate the word's John 3:3 occurrence as born, "Probably because the term born again is so deeply entrenched in mainstream Christianity." (UCG, page 10). Wait, I thought we couldn't parse the process? So I repeat, they play both sides.

Ritenbaugh sides with the Bible translators that "born again" is the correct translation for John 3. Ritenbaugh indicates that birth, not conception, is how other passages should be properly translated in English as well. The term is most correctly translated "born again," not "begotten again," especially when combined with anothen, as it is in both John 3 and in Titus 3:5.

We need not parse words. Let's ask the audience what they understood. Ritenbaugh points out that Nicodemus gleaned "birth," not "begotten" from the conversation.

"This is why Nicodemus responds by saying in verse 4, 'How . . . can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born [also in the passive voice]?' He does not say, 'How can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be begotten?'"
-John Ritenbaugh, Born Again or Begotten? (Part One), CGG.org

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if this is to be rendered 'begotten again,' then it isn't the mother one would re-enter, but rather the father.

Ironically, HWA too believed that "born again" was the correct translation here, because according to his view it spoke of a future time when believers would be given spirit bodies. But the grammar doesn't support that idea. The word is correctly translated "cannot," combining the Greek dunamis (to have the ability, permission or power to do something) with ou (which indicates the absolute negative of the previous word). It is in the present indicative tense. It is not future-looking. To reiterate, Armstrong's "born again in the distant future" claim is not supportable by the Greek here. The Greek does not support the future, but the present. Nicodemus' present, to be precise.

Then we add anothen, the word that follows gennao. Zodhiates explains that anothen can mean "again," "anew" or "from above." It is derived from ano, which means "upward."

Not surprisingly, UCG favors the rendering "from above." Either way, they conclude Jesus appears to be focused on the divine source of the child, not on a literal delivery. (UCG, p 12).

We're actually fine with UCG's rendering. It makes sense, especially when you consider gennao is a variation of the Greek word genos, which has overtones related to country, generation or national stock. In fact, it's far more descriptive - our new identity, our heritage, our nationality comes from above, from God. But the fact that UCG gets anothen right doesn't change the fact that we are talking about a birth that takes place now, not the far future.

Additionally, they admit that John 3 and other verses use gennao metaphorically "to refer to the divine origin of our new life in Christ. This new beginning is also referred to as a 'new creation' in 2 Corinthians 5:17, but is not a new birth in a bodily sense." (UCG, p 11). Ok, well, what if mainstream Christians agree that this new birth is not bodily?

HWA or Peter: Who do You Believe?
Need further evidence that HWA tried to cram his belief into the Bible wherever he could? Let's turn to the book of 1 Peter. Written to a troubled, scattered church, this book is intended to remind Christians that their present sufferings are nothing compared to their heritage in Christ. In 1 Peter 1:23, the author reminds believers that they have been born again of incorruptible seed. The word used here is anagennao. Adding ana to gennao indicates repetition of gennao.

Just a few verses later, the author continues the metaphor he began in verse 23:

(1 PETER 2: 1-3) 1 Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy and evil speaking, 2 as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

This passage gives us a word picture of infants newly born, eagerly seeking milk to sustain and grow them. If indeed, they have tasted that the Lord is good - if, in fact, they have been born again, been fathered from above, however you would like to translate it.

No matter how you word it, the timing is now.

HWA explains away this passage by claiming Peter refers to the gestation process having started within us with the incorruptible spirit of God. Peter shows that the God has imparted the presence of eternal life within us, Armstrong claims, not that we are already born again. Quite a feat of linguistic acrobatics!

Further, HWA would have us believe Peter chose to use a newborn instead of a fetus in his comparison simply because it would be awkward to compare it to a physical embryo or fetus.

"He is not saying we are already born babes in God's Kingdom - but as - or like newborn human babes,"
-Herbert Armstrong, Just What Do you mean Born Again, p 27).

But this is not merely a preferential translation of Peter on Armstrong's part, it's a complete rewrite. This isn't a simple reading from the Bible. Armstrong is changing the Bible to put information into it. As if to say, "It doesn't matter what Peter did say. This is what Peter should have said."

Then he goes on to remind us that Peter's example is an analogy, which he notes Webster's Dictionary explains as a comparison between two things, "consisting in the resemblance not of the things themselves, but of two or more attributes, circumstances or effects."

Oh wait. You mean that an analogy is only a comparison? It doesn't mean the two things being compared are literal counterparts? So HWA would have us believe Peter's scriptural passage is just an analogy, while HWA's preferred explanation is factual? Peter's scriptural example is deemed an analogy, to be taken figuratively, because it's awkward jutxaposted with Armstrong's extra-biblical description of reality? What's wrong with this picture?

The only thing that's awkward here is Armstrong's interpretation, according to Ritenbaugh's analysis.

"The apostle makes quite clear in 1 Peter 2:1-2 that he considers those he is writing to as already born, rather than unborn and within a womb. Only a child already born would feed on milk, or Peter's metaphor would be totally wrong."
-John Ritenbaugh, Born Again or Begotten? (Part Three), CGG.org

Hebrews 5:12-14 and 1 Corinthians 3:1-2 both chide brethren for still needing milk when they should have been able to handle solid food, spiritually speaking. As a mother, I can assure you that the "solid food" stage comes after, not before, a child is born.

We have seen that Herbert Armstrong had no leg to stand on and no good reason for his insistence on "begotten" over "born." We have shown that the UCG and CGG splinters both understand this. Not only that, but we have established that Nicodemus understood matters in this way as well. In fact, in order for John 3: 4 to be translated as "begotten," Nicodemus would have to ask Jesus how a man can re-enter his father to be begotten again. We have amply demonstrated that it was in fact Herbert Armstrong who was practicing preferential reinterpretation of the Bible, while pointing the finger at Bible translators and accusing them of bias.

Why is this so? Why do so many of Armstrong's doctrines absolutely depend upon rewriting the Bible? A little snip here. A little edit there. How many people have to be wrong for Armstrongism to be right? Nicodemus is wrong. Peter is wrong. John is wrong. Bible translators are wrong. Bible commentators are wrong. You and I are wrong. Who are you going to believe, Armstrong or your lyin' eyes?

After exploring the word gennao, we have to conclude the only reason Armstrong would read "gestation" into scripture is because of misunderstandings about who Jesus was and what He did. We will consider those next time.

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************

"Born Again" and the Kingdom of God

Maybe you've seen this one, or maybe it's only popular among overscheduled mothers:

A woman is stuck in traffic on her way home from work. She'll be lucky to get dinner on the table before bedtime at this rate. She leaves her husband a frantic voicemail, asking him to put some spaghetti on the stove for dinner. She comes home to find this:

So what on earth does this have to do with the Kingdom of God? We're glad you asked!

Today we'll continue examining Herbert W Armstrong's teachings on "born again." In our first post on this topic, we looked at HWA's reproduction analogy, sometimes called the "fetal analogy" in today's Churches of God. Today, we'll learn from the poor guy in our example who took literally words his wife meant to be understood figuratively. Let's make sure we aren't showing a similar lack of discernment in spiritual matters.

Since many readers from the Churches of God might be wary of those who has "left the fold" to join the ranks of "deceived Christianity," we are referencing commentary from John Ritenbaugh, founder and pastor of Church of the Great God, to narrate this series. Ritenbaugh is a COG minister who has written an extensive series, "Born Again or Begotten," which challenges Armstrong's teachings on "born again." For more background on Ritenbaugh, please see part one of this series.

See the Kingdom

Herbert Armstrong equated being "born again" with being transformed into a spirit body when the Kingdom of God is fully ushered in on earth at Jesus' second coming (Just What Do You Mean Born Again, p. 17). Humans are undeniably composed of matter, not spirit. And flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, according to 1 Corinthians 15:50, he noted. Therefore he concluded that we cannot be born again until we receive spirit bodies at Jesus' return.

Armstrong linked these two concepts - transformation of our bodies and the Kingdom - using Jesus' conversation with the Pharisee Nicodemus recorded in John 3. He taught that the Kingdom of God is solely something to be literally seen, according to verse 3. Armstrong explained his belief that verses 5 and 6 meant that one who was literally flesh and blood could not enter the Kingdom, and that Christians will remain physically human until the return of Christ.

"The Church is composed of human, flesh-and-blood children of God. And, flesh and blood cannot see, cannot enter into, cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is made up of spirit -composed children of God. The Spirit-begotten human in the Church is in the process of being born of God, but he has not yet entered into the Kingdom. He has not yet been born again. He is in the gestation state toward spirit-birth, but not yet born of the spirit."
-Herbert Armstrong, Just What Do You Mean Born Again, pp 22-23

Ritenbaugh, however, disagrees that "seeing" the Kingdom is solely a literal, visual observation. The Greek word used here is eido, which can also mean "to perceive with the mind" or "understand," according to Spiros Zodhiates' Complete Word Study of the New Testament. For way of illustration, Ritenbaugh explains in Born Again or Begotten, Part 1, the apostle Paul made a total change when he "saw" or perceived that he was a hardened sinner. He was not physically observing his arm or leg, rather, he understood his behavior.

(As a side note, we are not aware of any word the Bible uses to describe Paul's moment of enlightenment - this self-perception is implied because of his complete reversal in behavior. We assume Ritenbaugh includes this explanation in case anyone is unfamiliar with the figurative use of the word "see.")

Regardless, the Bible indicates the Kingdom is something a person can enter before Jesus' return, Ritenbaugh concludes.  It is at the same time a present and future reality. Jesus tells us in John 18:36 that His Kingdom is not of this world, but He also warns in Mark 1:15 that time is fulfilled and the Kingdom is at hand. It would seem one can enter the Kingdom at once when God's most basic requirement is fulfilled - being born again (in this life). (Ritenbaugh, Born Again or Begotten, part one).

Armstrong also frequently made the point that this world belonged to Satan the Devil - he is its god. He made heavy use of such verses as II Corinthians 4: 4, Matthew 4: 9 and John 14: 30 to make his case.

This point is granted. No one argues that Satan has an overwhelming degree of influence and even control in the world, as we see it presently. This much is clear. However, this is not the whole story. There exist some who are in this world but are not of it. Verses such as John 14: 17, Romans 12: 2, Galatians 4: 26 and many others make the clear case that these are separate and distinct. The point we make is that there are two kingdoms here on this earth. One from above and one from below. One in bondage and one free. One dead and one alive. One from Satan and one from God. The one from God exists here as a witness to the one from Satan, that those who accept the witness can be set free from their bondage and be born again, now, into the Kingdom of God.

(JOHN 17:9-21) 9 I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. 20 I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

Another point: if there is no Kingdom now, the ambassador analogy HWA rehearsed so frequently makes no sense, Ritenbaugh notes. We cannot currently be ambassadors for a kingdom that doesn't exist. Nor can we be ambassadors for a kingdom that we are not part of. Therefore, verses like Ephesians 1:3-5, 7, 11, 13 and 14 must indicate that the Kingdom must exist in some form today, and that Christians are born again upon receiving the Holy Spirit.

(EPHESIANS 1:11-14) 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

In other words, we have obtained an inheritance of salvation in Christ. Now. The proof of that inheritance, that salvation, is the Holy Spirit dwelling within us.

We know right now some of you are thinking, what's the big deal?  You are saying the same thing as us. We both believe we have the Holy Spirit as a down-payment on our salvation.

No, that's not what we're saying at all. The Holy Spirit is not merely a down payment, leaving us to wonder if the balance will be paid off in the future or - even worse  - making us responsible for paying the balance ourselves. No. It is a receipt, a proof of purchase, a guarantee.

As the story goes, there once was a wealthy man who went house shopping. He found a house that he liked and told the Realtor that he intended to buy but could not take possession of the house now. He indicated that he wanted the Realtor to hold the house for him until he returned. The Realtor replied that the down payment to hold the house was $100,000. The wealthy man wrote the Realtor a check for one billion dollars and went on his way.

Now, do you suppose that the wealthy man will not return to take possession of the house, having left a down payment far in excess of the full cost of the house? Of course he will. It is guaranteed. Is Christ's sacrifice worth much more than one billion dollars?

God will make good on His investment. Those whom God has regenerated and given the Holy Spirit will increasingly demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit, through the process known as sanctification. This is not law by our effort, this is grace by God's effort. When we see a "professing" Christian who doesn't show this fruit consistently over time, we must wonder whether they really have been regenerated, whether the Holy Spirit truly lives in him, or whether they have been "playing church" all this time. Not whether they have been "trying hard enough."

HWA, however, prefers to embrace the "trying hard enough" model, warning his followers that they will be a spiritual abortion if they aren't good enough (Just What Do You Mean, Born Again, p. 45).
He brushed past Ephesians 1, instead turning to 1 Corinthians 15:50, which describes the current state as heirs to the Kingdom, not inheritors. This focus on our tenuous status with God, all dependent upon our righteousness quotient, seems like another of HWA's thinly veiled attempts to control his followers. The problem is, an heir does not indicate a fetal state.

Consider Abraham's discussion with God in Genesis 15 - Abraham was troubled that he had no heir, and that a servant would inherit his wealth when he died. He lamented that he did not have a child. An heir can be, and usually is, one who is alive. It is the state of the one who possesses the estate - not the heir himself - that determines whether one is an heir or an inheritor.

Colossians 1:13 tells us that Christians have already been delivered "from the power of darkness and conveyed (us) into the Kingdom of the Son of His love." We can't be conveyed into a Kingdom that does not yet exist. We are told over and over again, in Luke 17:20-21, Acts 2:29-36 and Revelation 1:5, to name a few, that Jesus already reigns from His throne. We simply lack the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

Jesus already considered Himself to be king in John 18:37. He didn't tell Pilate that He would be a king if He qualified for the throne by making it through the next eight hours without sinning. He didn't tell Pilate that He would be a King when He returned a few millennia later. He told him, "You say rightly that I am a king."

So when Jesus told the scribe in Mark 12:28-34 he was not far from the Kingdom of God, he meant the man was not far from being converted and entering the Kingdom of God (Born Again or Begotten, Part 1). Though this Kingdom is not fully established on earth yet, "Scripture proves it is a present, earthly reality having earth-bound, flesh-and-blood citizens who are, in the Bible's terms, 'spiritually minded' or 'in the spirit'," he explains.

"Currently, the Kingdom of God is made up of those who are part of it, recognize and submit to the rule of the Father and Son," Ritenbaugh says. "A person becomes part of it by being born again, and those who are born again become sons of God."
-John Ritenbaugh, Born Again or Begotten, Part 1.

Ritenbaugh sees obedience to the Old Covenant law by our own efforts (ie. "submitting to the rules")  - mainly the Sabbath, holy days, tithing, and foods laws - as the natural outcome of being born again. We disagree. We believe the key is faith in Jesus Christ and the natural outcome of that is the Holy Spirit in you, guiding you to acts of charity and virtue rather than law. It is by faith from first to last (Romans 1: 17). We would reword his phrase as such:

"Currently, the Kingdom of God is made up of those who are part of it, who have faith in the victory of Jesus Christ on the cross and surrender their lives to the leadership of the Holy Spirit..."

Even if we reword, the essence is that we are born again into the kingdom now. And in this essential point we are in total agreement.

Still skeptical? Consider the what Jesus Himself said about the Kingdom in the parables of the growing seed, the parable of the mustard seed and the parable of the leaven:

(MARK 4: 26-29) 26 And He said, "The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground, 27 and should sleep by night and rise by day, and the seed should sprout and grow, he himself does not know how. 28 For the earth yields crops by itself. First the blade, then the head, after that the full grain in the head. 29 But when the grain ripens, immediately he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come."

(MARK 4: 30-32) 30 Then He said, 'to what shall we liken the Kingdom of God? Or with what parable shall we picture it? 31 It is like a mustard seed which, when it is sown on the ground, is smaller than all the seeds on the earth; 32 but when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all herbs, and shoots out large branches, so that the birds of the air may nest under its shade.'

(MATTHEW 13: 33) Another parable He spoke to them: 'The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened.'

In all three parables, the kingdom was something that came quietly, secretly and hidden. It grew to be something large, spectacular and dramatic, but it didn't start that way. Incidentally, we will see this concept again when we look at John 3:8.

Armstrong, like the Pharisees, was confused by Jesus' teachings about the Kingdom because he was looking for a spectacular, visible establishment of Jesus' Kingdom. Such a fulfillment will come in the future. Jesus will bring His kingdom to the earth in dramatic fashion in the future. That is when it will exist here in full. But that does not in any way prevent it from existing right here right now. It exists here in part right now, today, within each of His own. Scripture, including the teachings of the King Himself, clearly indicate this reality. If God is in you, if you are one with Him by faith, if Jesus Christ is your Lord, and you are His Temple and even a member of the very body of Christ, then His Kingdom has come to you. Abide in it. The misinterpretation only comes in via Armstrong's singular focus on future prophecy. He was so intently pointed at the future millennium that he failed to see it in the present.

(JOHN 3: 3) Jesus answered and said to him, 'most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God'.

Next time, we will consider what Armstrong had to say about the Greek word gennao - the definition of which he largely hung his doctrine. Spoiler alert: Ritenbaugh and the United Church of God agree with us that HWA was mistaken.

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
***********