Professing Polytheism

If you are in one of the Church of God splinters that came out of Herbert W Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, then I have some unpleasant news for you - you are a polytheist!

Don't tell me that surprises you. (It sure was a surprise to me when I first found out.)

This whole post got started while we were reviewing the COGWA's "Origin of Easter" article and we noticed the author belittling the idea of polytheism and associating it with paganism. We chuckled at first until we realized that he was serious. But ...then the COGWA was really belittling itself. So here we are today to demonstrate that Armstrongism is indeed polytheistic and so COGWA shouldn't be pretending like that's not a fact, and most certainly should not be pointing fingers at others and insinuating others are pagans for their polytheism.

SEMI-ARIAN

I love history, and this is my blog post, so we're starting with some history. I promise to keep it simple.

Back in the early 200s AD there started an idea that says there is only one God, while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just three different ways that this one God presents Himself to us; "modes" if you will. This idea is called by many names today, among which are Sabellianism, Modalism, Monarchianism, Patripassionism, and etc. One of the main teachers of this view was Sabellius. If you are new to Christianity or maybe you are really trying to get away from the Trinity doctrine, this view of God might even make logical sense to you. Good thing most people eventually give this up. Maybe some day we will go into detail on why this view of God cannot work. If you really want something right away, read Tertullian's "Against Praxaes" and Hippolytus' "Against Noetus" (and keep clearly in mind that these were written in the early 200s). But for the purposes of this blog post, let's just say that the early church was very much opposed to this view.

In the early 300's, along comes a guy named Arius. Arius was one of many Christian leaders around the world who were passionately opposed to Sabellius and his Modalism. So Arius came up with his own view to oppose Sabellius. He went too far in the other direction. According to Arius, Jesus is a created being and is completely separate being from the Father. This view of God started to attract attention and eventually Christianity was split over the nature of God between those who agreed with Arius and those who had a more Trinitarian position. Both halves were opposed to Sabellius. It was this division that motivated Constantine to call the Council of Nicea to settle the issue and reunite Christians. Arius actually accused Niceans of Sabellianism. The decision came down against Arius.

After Nicea, Arianism changed and blended with Trinitarianism. Since all were required to abide by the decision at Nicea, people who still held to Arianism (including Arius) had to try and force their views to make peace with the decision of the Council - at least on the surface. This new view has the Father and the Son as separate beings, but they share a similar substance. The Son is like the Father. They are two separate Gods who consist of the same kind of stuff. This new view is given the name Semi-Arianism. The West held to Nicea but there were so many people in the East holding to this new Semi-Arian view in violation of Nicea that another Council was called, this time at Constantinople.
And the view was indeed new to the fourth century. It was not old or original by any means, as some COG writers might have us believe. Such a claim is simply not true.

In summary, anyone who believes that the Father and the Son are two separate God beings but consist of the same sort of stuff fall into the Semi-Arian category. This is the official view of Armstrongism. The COGs teach the Father and the Son are two completely separate beings made of the same stuff, and the same stuff that the Father and the Son consist of is called the Holy Spirit. I want to point out that there are two Holy Spirits here - the Father's and the Son's.

Armstrongism is Semi-Arian.

BASIC MATH

The Jews truly believe in one God. They are monotheists. Islam, which seems to be a combination of Ebionite Christianity and Gnosticism, believe in one God. They are also monotheists.

When Jesus arrived and demonstrated that He is both God and distinct from the Father, using language like "the Father and I are one" and "My God! Why have You forsaken Me?" the issue became complicated. How can Christianity be monotheistic, like Judaism, but still recognize the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit)? The answer that the early church offered is Trinitarianism. There is only one God being of one substance, but three personalities or minds. One God in three persons. Trinitarian Christianity is monotheistic. One God.

Semi-Arianism has two Gods, the Father and the Son, who are truly separate from one another. "God" is a family.
This can be seen in the way Armstrongism teaches how Jesus took on human flesh. According to Armstrongism, God the Son completely divested Himself of Godhood and became 100% man in every way. (This is called Monophysitism.) Yet, the Father was utterly unaffected by this because He is a separate God being. So, how many Gods do we have here? Two! Is that monotheism? No. Is is Binitarianism? No. Despite how some COGs writers try to use the phrases Binity and Semi-Arian as synonyms, they most certainly are not synonymous at all. A Binity is monotheistic; one God in two persons. We don't have that here. We have Semi-Arianism. Two distinct Gods. Armstrongism would condemn Binitarianism. Armstrongism does not have one God; it has two.

Two Gods = Polytheism.

IS THAT SO?

Yes.

Back in August 2010 we wrote a piece called "Primer to the Trinity Doctrine." In this article we tried to explain the Trinity. Please don't be afraid of that article! We made it pretty clear that we weren't trying to push the idea, just show our readers what the Trinity Doctrine really says. The post came from us recognizing that we had a great deal of misinformation fed to us over the years about what the Trinity doctrine actually is. So we tried to clear it up a little. Very basic stuff.

We thought we would compare and contrast views. To represent the Armstrong view we figured what could possibly be a better comparison than the "Is God A Trinity?" booklet. This was the premier booklet on the subject. Everyone was referred to it back in those days. Much of the current COG material comes from it. But as we read through it again, something really stuck out at us that none of us had ever noticed before. The COGs were polytheistic, and they admitted as much!

"The ancient idea of monotheism was shattered by the sudden appearance of Jesus Christ on the earth. Here was someone who claimed He was the Son of God. But how could He be? The Jewish people believed for centuries that there was only one God. If the claims of "this Jesus" were accepted, then in their minds their belief would be no different from that of the polytheistic pagans around them. If He were the Son of God, their whole system of monotheism would disintegrate. 
When Jesus plainly told certain Jews of His day that He was the Son of God, some were ready to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:33). To get around the problem of a plurality in the God head, the Jewish community simply rejected Jesus."

-George L. Johnson, "Is God A Trinity?", 1973, p.15 

If monotheism disintegrates we are left with what? That's right. Polytheism.

But who is George L. Johnson? It's not like Herbert W Armstrong came out and said this kind of thing, right?

"Only ONE God - More Than One Person!"
"One Family. God IS a Family. That Family is ONE GOD."
-Herbert Armstrong, "The Incredible Human Potential", 1978, p.62

I just want to point out that Armstrong is trying to have it both ways here. But he just can't quite seem to make a plural singular. That polytheism shines right through.

"Likewise, there is but ONE God - but GOD is the family name, and there is more than one person in the ONE Family."
-Herbert Armstrong, "The Incredible Human Potential", 1978, p.64

Oh yes. Herbert Armstrong did come out and say this kind of thing. When he says "person" he is not using accepted theological language. He really does mean there are two Gods - two minds and two substances and two beings - in one family. Even when he says there is "but ONE God", he still says there is more than one God, because "ONE God" is in reference to the family not the beings. This is doublespeak. The Father and the Son are no more one God in his view than you are one human with your parents.

Notice that these quotes aren't from the "Is God A Trinity" booklet. No, they are from THE book - "The Incredible Human Potential." This book was Armstrongism's magnum opus. It was said to be the last book of the Bible. If Herbert Armstrong will talk polytheism here, then absolutely nowhere can be more official.

Herbert Armstrong once was required to describe himself under oath in court. Here is what he said about himself:

"I am the founder, Pastor General, and spiritual and temporal leader of defendant Worldwide Church of God, Inc. (" Worldwide") . In addition, I am chief executive officer, chairman of the board of directors and chairman of the board of trustees ... I am the appointed Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and, as such, have been both the spiritual and temporal leader of the Church from its inception."-Herbert Armstrong, Pastor's Report, pp. 28-29, Jan. 8, 1979

The prime leader in the prime material. Cannot be topped. If this guy, the founder, Pastor General, appointed Apostle, Chairman and CEO, and spiritual and temporal leader of the Church of God on earth says the COGs have more than one God being, within the pages of his most important publications, with one of them being the last book of the Bible, then the COGs have more than one God.

Polytheism confirmed. Yes, it's so.

ISSUES ARISE

While Armstrongism is quite comfortable with its polytheistic view of God, there are issues with Semi-Arianism. To be completely forthcoming, there are issues with every attempt mankind has ever made to explain God. All views have issues, even monotheism, because God is far beyond our understanding. But let's explore a few problems with Armstrongism's Semi-Arianist doctrine.

>>It's polytheistic.

This is the main topic of this post. Polytheism is a dirty word in the COGs. It's too pagan. The obvious link with paganism is precisely why the author of "Origin of Easter" article was using the word. He wanted to cast aspersions. But mote meet beam!

>>The Son cannot fully know the Father.

Because they are two separate beings, and the Son is lesser than the Father (to a great degree), the Jesus of Armstrongism cannot truly, fully know the Father. The Son may know the Father a lot better than anyone else besides the Father, but He cannot fully know the Father. The Son would be on a journey of discovery just like everyone else. This would also make Him less than omniscient. If we say the Son is omniscient and omnipotent, then we must abandon the idea of Him being less than the Father.

>>Jesus had an end.

We just pointed out that Jesus is without beginning or end. But that is wrong too. Armstrongism teaches soul sleep. In the Armstrongist view, Jesus had an end. God the Son completely emptied Himself of Godhood. Therefore, the God was gone. Then there was a three day period where even Jesus did not exist except for a dead corpse and a memory in the Father's mind. So He cannot be without end in the Armstrongist system.

>>God the Father and Son are still a closed system.

One of the main objections that Armstrongists have voiced over the years against the Trinity is that it makes God a closed system. "How can God add to His family if He is a Trinity? You can't add to a Trinity." But I want to point out that Armstrongism does not teach that mankind will become the Father or the Son. They aren't adding to the Father or the Son either. So this point is moot.

Bear in mind that Trinitarianism does not in any way exclude being part of God's family. The Orthodox church has had this idea for several hundred years. The word for this is Theosis. Even though the Catholic church doesn't make such a prominent case about Theosis, they too believe we all have an opportunity to "partake in the Divine nature."
My point is, the Semi-Arian view isn't really coming to the rescue here. In all reality it's just fighting a straw man.

>>Many Holy Spirits.

In all my years as a member of the COGs, I never gave a second's thought to the fact that if the Father and Son are separate then by necessity there had to be more than one Holy Spirit. In Armstrongism, the Holy Spirit is a force, a power, without a mind of its own. The Holy Spirit is not itself a God, but it is what God is made of. We as humans aren't told how God works, probably because we couldn't grasp it anyway, but if the Holy Spirit is what the Father and the Son are made of then this demands there must be multiple Holy Spirits. This is a real issue because throughout the Bible the Holy Spirit is singular.

>>Monophysite Holy Spirit??

Remember how Armstrongism teaches Monophysitism - where Jesus completely emptied Himself of Godhood and became 100% man, and has only one nature of either God or man but not both at the same time? OK. So, when the Son completely divested Himself of divinity and became 100% the man Jesus, what did He do with the Holy Spirit? Did He put it in a box and save it for later? Was it destroyed? Was it absorbed into the Father? If the Son's mind left His substance, did the Holy Spirit die?

I am not going to go into any more issues today because we already have an article on the biggest issue, "Jesus' Death Under Trinitarianism." I think we've brought up enough issues for now. I only wanted to point out that there are issues - real issues - and the puzzle is not neatly arranged in the COG doctrine with all answers found and all loose ends tied. Many people join Armstrongism because they are looking for some answer or the other, but they just don't like the answers in mainstream Christianity as they understand them. Armstrongism claims to have an answer for most everything. But as always, when we truly dig, we find that things just do not work as well as advertised. A spray-on theology just doesn't cover that unsightly bald spot.

I know a lot of people are opposed to the Trinity because it doesn't make sense to them. It's fine that things don't always make sense. God invites us to investigate but He didn't hand us the answer in a tidy box, so not making sense is going to be part of this. But I don't see how Semi-Arianism makes any more sense once we start critically investigating it. I suspect that not making sense is more of an excuse to avoid the issue. It was for me! Mea culpa!

CONCLUSION

Polytheism. Just like the pagan Babylonians, you have it.

All we are doing in this article is pointing out what has been forgotten. Really, we are asking the same question George Johnson asked:

"Is God one, or are there two separate Gods and is Christianity, therefore, polytheistic?"-George L. Johnson, "Is God A Trinity?", 1973, p.41  

In the COG's Semi-Arian view of God the answer is polytheistic. As Johnson said, "no different from that of the polytheistic pagans around them."

Perhaps someone will say they believe in only one God Family, therefore they are monotheistic.
No. It doesn't work that way. There is no way around this. Armstrongism is inescapably polytheistic.

I am going to assume that many of our readers are still questioning and could use a little more assistance. I would like to recommend to you Martha's article "Rainbows and Earthworms, Or Making Sense of God's Nature." God doesn't always make sense. We don't need to force Him to.

If for any reason you are a member at a Church of God splinter group and you do not agree that you are a polytheist, then we would be glad to welcome you into mainstream Christianity ...because you aren't an Armstrongist anymore at this point anyway.

But if you are comfortable with being just like the pagans and don't mind polytheism, please tell the COGWA leadership that they ought to stop talking down to polytheists.

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

Rainbows and Earthworms, or Making Sense of God's Nature

When it comes to Protestant doctrines the COGs despise, the Trinity has to be in the top five. And the belief that the Holy Spirit is a person - not the power of God - goes hand in hand with it. I always accepted both as false because it was what I was taught as long as I can remember. But I never understood the deep loathing many (mostly Ambassador College grads) felt for them. Something about how the Trinity had pagan roots (didn't everything?) and how it was a closed system that didn't allow for more members in the God family. Sounded plausible, I guess.

Over the past year, I've wrestled to understand beliefs about the Trinity and the Holy Spirit. While my COG upbringing created a barrier, it's not like I had any personal antipathy toward them. I just didn't get it. I've read the Bible and I've read theology textbooks. One of my best, sweetest friends even tried to explain it by showing me a pamphlet with a picture of a triangle. Right. That cleared things up in a jiffy.

It only took twelve months to penetrate my thick skull, but I am starting to see that what maybe Protestants have been telling me - that the Trinity can't be explained by human logic - isn't so crazy. I still haven't found any secret diagram, and I'm done trying to put God in a box. Frankly, it's silly to insist that humans can fully understand everything about God's nature and how He works.

This probably sounds like a cop out to you, because it always did to me. I remember having a conversation with a Protestant pastor whom God brought into my circle of friends last year. The son of Irish missionaries, this man studied at one of the most prestigious seminaries in the United States. He is bilingual and has served God in countries I've never heard of. He is wise beyond his years. But when I asked him to explain the Trinity to me logically, he told me it was not possible.

"How can man fully understand God?" he asked me. "It would be like explaining a rainbow to an earthworm. Even if he could see it, would it ever make sense to him?".

Mildly irritated, I wondered why on earth I was listening to this "man of God" who couldn't even explain his belief about His Creator's nature. But as I mulled over the conversation later, I realized maybe he wasn't just being poetic. Several scriptures describe man as a worm in comparison to God. In Job 25:6, Job opines that man is nothing more than a maggot before God. David similarly describes himself in Psalm 22:6. Even God uses this comparison in Isaiah 41:14.

Once I was done being annoyed, the humility of his answer struck me. He wasn't afraid to say, "I don't know." His answer was unpretentious, unlike many recent responses I'd gotten from COG ministers, who often made something up or changed the subject in response to my difficult questions. If you're reading this blog, you might have already discovered these are some of the tactics COG ministers use when questioning members approach them. Many COG doctrines come from proof-texted scriptures these ministers use in isolation to discredit certain Protestant doctrines that don't have simple answers. In the COGs, we are used to having a simple explanation for everything, even if the explanation is a dumb one. Come on, you know it's true. Only the things Herbert W. Armstrong said must be taken on faith are allowed to be illogical.

This post isn't intended to prove the Trinity is true, or even to fully examine the nature of the Holy Spirit. If that's what you're looking for, take a look at Primer to the Trinity Doctrine.

I am simply trying to take the mystery out of a couple topics where I know many struggle, even after exiting the COGs.

When Protestants say they believe in the Trinity, they don't mean that they can perfectly explain, label and diagram how God manifests Himself. What they mean is that the Bible tells us there is one God (Deuteronomy 4:35) and never will be any more gods (Isaiah 43:10). That the Father is God, that the Son is God and that the Holy Spirit is God (more on that Holy Spirit thing in a minute). They are simply reading scripture and making the best sense of it that they can, and accepting that explanation on faith. Because, at the end of the day, there is nothing equal to God and nothing to which we can adequately compare Him (Isaiah 40:25).

But the Trinity doesn't make sense, and God has to make sense, one frustrated relative told me. Really? How much that happened in scripture can you explain logically? Please explain to me how God created matter out of nothing. How someone immortal can become mortal. How we exist in Him (ACT. 17: 28) but the universe is not God. If you're still unsure of my point, read Job 38 through 42.

When you boil it down, we already take many things about God on faith. Teachings about the Trinity are no different. We are only uncomfortable with them because we have been taught that they are wrong, and that God's nature must be explainable according to the rules of logic in our tangible, material world. Why is it any more irrational to believe the doctrine of one God in three persons than the COG doctrine that claims to be monotheistic, yet believe two God beings exist and that a whole pantheon more is on the way (a belief that is problematic in light of Isaiah 43:10).

But the word "Trinity" isn't found in the Bible! Well, neither is the word "Bible!" The words "reproduction analogy" or "God in embryo" aren't in there, either, but HWA didn't have qualms about fleshing out a teaching he felt scripture supported. HWA did the same thing Trinitarian theologians do - piece together scripture in efforts to get a clearer picture of a concept they believe is portrayed in the Bible.

Hold on, you say, doesn't the Trinity have its roots in pagan religion? It was only recently that I realized a very important voice was noticeably absent from the COG's anti-trinity teachings - that of Alexander Hislop. Hislop was a nineteenth-century Scottish Presbyterian minister who wrote extensively about what he believed were pagan worship practices carried forward into Catholicism and Protestant Christianity. Hislop's theories have been widely discredited, but the COGs still quote him extensively as a source on all things pagan (UCG considers his book The Two Babylons "a definitive work on pagan customs that survive in today's religious practices," according to a recent article, "Christians Who Don't Celebrate Easter - What Do They Know?").

So Hislop is their trusted expert, except when it comes to the Trinity. In The Two Babylons, Hislop posited that the three-in-one tradition consistently appeared in pagan religions because it was a true concept deeply ingrained in mankind from the time of creation.

"While overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a Trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world, proving how deep-rooted in the human race was the primeval doctrine on this subject, which comes out so distinctly in Genesis,"
-Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, p. 17

If the COGs revere Hislop as their authority on paganism, you'd think his belief that the Trinity isn't pagan would carry more weight with them. Instead, the COGs try to pin the origins of the Trinity on the Greeks, primarily Plato, and find a way to tie church fathers who promoted the Trinity to Greek philosophy, geography or religion. Remember Zeus and all his crazy kids? Yikes! Nothing that comes out Greece can be good.

Unless HWA gives it his stamp of approval, like he did with tabula rasa, the Greek philosopher Aristotle's theory that humans enter the world neutral as babies. HWA endorsed Aristotle's idea and wrote about it in his book, The Incredible Human Potential (Chapter 11). This theory is unbiblical, has implications for salvation, and is easily disproven by scripture (like Jeremiah 17:9, Psalm 51:6, Job 14:4 and Psalm 58:3, for starters), even according to some COG ministers, but UCG and other groups still embrace this idea in their literature today.

I hope you are starting to notice a pattern. To the GOG's, Hislop is the definitive authority on paganism in modern Christianity, except when he disagrees with HWA. On that point, Hislop was deceived. Greek philosophy is rooted in paganism and not to be trusted. Except where it supports HWA's conclusions. Then it provides brilliant insight into the human psyche. The Bible is the inerrant word of God, except for where it disagrees with HWA. Then rogue translators inserted their personal beliefs. Jesus was the Son of God, the great I AM, all knowing - except where His description of the Holy Spirit disagrees with what HWA taught. When Jesus describes the Holy Spirit in terms of personhood - as a Comforter who will guide and teach believers (John 14:6), it is biased translators speaking. When Jesus uses parallel structure to put the Holy Spirit on par with Himself and the Father (Matthew 28:19), He cannot be taken at His word, and must be redefined until He comes into alignment with HWA. And when Peter tells us that to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God in Acts 5:3-4, HWA tells us this same passage could be used to prove Peter was part of the Trinity.

The truth is, HWA set himself up as the authoritative voice above everything and everyone. We all know he set himself up as the final authority in the Worldwide Church of God. He broke apart families through his divorce and remarriage policy, and then married a divorcee when it suited him. He discouraged medical treatment in the WCG membership, then sought advanced medical treatment himself when his own health hung in the balance. He forbade, then allowed, wearing makeup and celebrating birthdays almost on a whim. So it's appalling, but not surprising, that when HWA disagreed with Jesus Christ and certain passages in the Bible, HWA's belief came out on top. Even today, decades after his death, when HWA's teachings seem inconsistent with scripture, we have all been conditioned to pull out our COG lexicon and put on our COG prescription glasses to see words and explanations that aren't there. HWA often said not to believe him, but to believe our Bibles. Well, it's time we started doing that.

• Acts 13:2 tells us the Holy Spirit spoke to a group of prophets and teachers fasting and worshiping God at Antioch. The Holy Spirit told the group to set Barnabas and Saul aside for a work to which He called them. Can a power speak? The Holy Spirit is also recorded as speaking to Philip in Acts 8:29 and to Peter in Acts 10:19. A prophet named Agabus quotes the Holy Spirit in Acts 21:11.

• Ephesians 4:30 tells us that we can grieve the Holy Spirit, presumably when we exhibit traits like bitterness, anger and malice (and others, according to verse 31). Isaiah 63:10 also indicates humans can grieve the Holy Spirit. Can one grieve a force? Does a power have emotions?

• Romans 8:27 describes the Holy Spirit as making intercession for the saints. This verse is doubly problematic for the spirit-is-a-power viewpoint. Can a power intercede with the Father on our behalf? Also, this verse seems to indicate a distinction between the Father, who hears the intercession, and the Spirit, who makes intercession. This verse makes no sense if the Spirit is simply a power or force.

• In Acts 16:6-7, the Holy Spirit forbade Paul and Silas to preach the gospel in Asia, and did not allow them to go into Bithynia. Aside from creating a science-fiction force field, how does a power accomplish these things? On the flip side of the coin, the Holy Spirit appears to endorse the decisions of the Acts 15 conference in verse 28 of the same chapter. How does a power communicate approval?

• Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10 tell us that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the only sin that will not be forgiven. Can one blaspheme a power or force, or does the word blaspheme refer specifically to an act toward God?

• Many verses would be redundant if the Holy Spirit were simply a power. Consider Acts 10:38, where I've taken the liberty of inserting the words "power of God" for the words "Holy Spirit": "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the power of God and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him." Try the same exercise with Luke 4:14, Romans 15:13 and 1 Corinthians 2:4. They make no sense.

• John 14:26, 15:26 and 16:13-14 all use the masculine pronoun he to refer to the Holy Spirit in the original Greek text. This contradicts HWA's claim that only neuter words appear in the original text (such as pneuma, the Greek word for "spirit") and shows he was mistaken when he insisted the Holy Spirit should always be referred to with the pronoun it.

So why does this matter? Does it really make a difference whether you believe the Holy Spirit is the power of God instead of a person? I could make a case either way. On the one hand, the point of this whole post is that we can't fully understand God. On the flip side, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin. Does calling the Holy Spirit a force if He is a person qualify as blasphemy? I'm not sure.

The bigger issue, as I see it, is the fruit the belief produces in our lives. In the COGs, where we believe the Holy Spirit is a force, we are taught to use the Holy Spirit to change ourselves. Sure, there is some talk of submitting to it or following its promptings, but it usually is described as a power tool for us to wield to blast the sin out of us. You have the power of God within you, at your disposal! Come on, people, get with it! That was the message a large percentage of sermons drove home.

Unfortunately, this approach leaves us vacillating between self-righteousness for all we have accomplished and despair for what we haven't. That's because it puts us in the driver's seat of a process we were never meant to lead. When we combine this view with the COGs' misunderstandings about what it means to be justified and born again, we are set up to fail. Don't get me wrong, we should refrain from sinning as much as we possibly can. It's a noble goal to try to eliminate sin from our lives, but it's also an exercise in futility.

The mainstream Christian view is that the Holy Spirit is a being living inside us, guiding us and changing us from the inside out. The goodness in us is His goodness and not our own. The light in us that we shine is Him. We are responsible to obey, to submit to His prompting and to cooperate with Him, but we are not in the driver's seat. In this view, it's all about Him and what He does within us.
The COG belief about the Holy Spirit teaches us to look to ourselves and rely on our efforts, somehow grabbing hold of the Holy Spirit to amplify those efforts, to make our goodness more like His goodness and our light more like His light. In this view, it's all about us and what we do with Him.
The Protestant belief teaches us to focus on God instead of ourselves, placing our faith in Him completely for both sanctification (removing sin) and salvation, instead of depending partially upon our own efforts. The distinction may seem subtle, but it makes all the difference in the world.

Yes, I know that the earliest church leaders didn't overtly teach the Trinity, and debated about the Holy Spirit. Neither became official church teaching until the 4th century, although the concepts were being discussed much earlier. I don't have a problem with that. It makes total sense that the Church didn't start speculating about these things until long after Jesus' death. Christians were too busy being hunted down and martyred to argue in-depth about abstract theories. I have a hard time picturing brethren having fractious debates about these things while hiding in the catacombs. Once they emerged in relative safety, that is when the deep discussions started, and that is when ideas starting taking off in every direction. As with most things, the motion to definitively settle a matter doesn't arise until there is a true need. The new explosion of incompatible speculation on all sorts of topics, not just the nature of the Holy Spirit, is what created that need.

Most people who have studied sociology have heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. This theory asserts that man can only address higher levels of human need once physiological needs and safety have been addressed. I can see this applying to the early church - different theories on God's nature were discussed, but it was only once Christians were no longer on the run and had their physical needs consistently met that they had time or desire to sit and debate these abstract concepts. Besides, those who cry foul because of the doctrinal time-frame are the ones who accept HWA's claim that God allowed the truth to be suppressed for 1900 years. You would think those same people wouldn't get all bent out of shape over a couple of centuries. The door swings both ways.

I know it feels good to think we have God all figured out. Remember, I was in your shoes for decades. I prefer for things to be logical, easily explained and in their proper spot. I can try to put God in my neat, clearly-marked box, but I'll have to shave off some of His infinite nature to make Him fit. Then I'm no better than Aaron, fashioning my own golden calf, making a form that better meets my needs and preconceived notions.

God is who He is, and He doesn't always make sense. It doesn't make sense that 90-year-old Sarah gave birth to Isaac. It doesn't make sense for God to turn the heart of a prostitute and make her part of our Savior's lineage. Who would suspect that Christianity's greatest persecutor, Saul, would become Christ's greatest missionary, Paul? Most importantly, what rational being would submit Himself to a brutal death to save us while we were still His enemies?

No, God doesn't always make sense. And we should be thankful that He doesn't.

************
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' Death under Trinitarianism

One of our fine readers (we think you are all outstanding) wrote in to me and asked about how Jesus' death works within Trinitarianism. I found that question so fascinating, and so important to be answered, that I thought I'd drop everything and answer it.

[Note: if you are currently in or have come from a Church of God group, you might want to first read our article "A Primer on the Trinity Doctrine" so that you can be certain that you understand the basics of what we're talking about here. Armstrongism has a bad habit of not teaching the Trinity Doctrine accurately. That article will help to clear up some basics.]

So, today I would like to discuss how Jesus' death works under Trinitarianism. We will look at some similarities that you might not have known were there, and at least one distinction. Hopefully this won't be too in-depth. I want this to be easily understandable.
And, as always when I speak on Trinitarianism, I am not demanding that anyone adopt Trinitarianism. I simply feel that the majority of Armstrongists are terribly misinformed about the doctrine and most of the issues over the Trinity really come from misunderstanding the doctrine. People really should be educated on it. Perhaps then most of these issues would be cleared up and we could have true dialogue.

Jesus Has Two Natures

From the earliest years of the church it was understood that Jesus is one being that has two distinct natures - God and man. He is truly God and He is truly man.

(ACT. 2: 30) Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne

See that there? “According to the flesh”. Jesus was the son of David, according to the flesh. That is to say that the physical body which God the Son took onto Himself came from the descent of David. Romans 1: 3 confirms this. Romans 9: 5 also confirms that Christ, according to the flesh, that is His human nature, was descended from the patriarchs of old. These verses (and others) speak of his human nature in contrast to His Spirit nature. One being; two distinct natures.

Having two natures, or more, at one time is not unheard of.
We have two natures when we are married. We are truly ourselves but truly one flesh with our spouse. This is akin to how we also have two natures when we accept Jesus. We are truly a person in our own right, but truly one with Christ. Truly in the old body that passes away, but truly spiritual with the spiritual body that is renewed daily.

Herbert Armstrong never denied that Jesus had two natures. 

"And, being DIVINE as well as human - being God as well as man, He in the person of Christ would be able to avoid sinning."
-Herbert Armstrong, "The Incredible Human Potential", 1978, p.67

Both Trinitarians and Armstrongists completely agree that Jesus did indeed have two natures.

Only The Flesh Needed To Die

God the Son took upon Himself a human nature which was given the name Jesus. While in the flesh, Jesus received and accepted worship. Thus it is not a stretch to say that, Spirit or not, even though He was in the flesh, He was still to be respected and worshipped as God – because He was God… in the flesh.
In order to be a propitiation for our sins and to pay our ransom, this fleshly nature had to be more valuable than all creation. Only if the flesh was God in the flesh could this be true. The Creator of all flesh adopted flesh and was more valuable than all that He had created, even though the flesh itself was no different than any other human’s flesh. The difference is God.
This one human nature was completely satisfactory for the salvation of mankind. And that is apart from the Spirit nature of God.

This human nature was adopted specifically for the purpose of sharing in our experiences, suffering, dying, and being resurrected. The God nature, being fully Spirit, could not suffer through beatings nor be crucified. That is why a human nature had to be adopted. By man came sin, so by man had to come salvation. As God in the Spirit only, this could not be done. The Spirit cannot die. God had to adopt flesh to solve this problem. So, the flesh of God was crucified for us. 

This one man Jesus was both truly man and truly God. That is why they call Mary the "mother of God" in Catholicism or "bearer of God" (Theotokos) in the Orthodox Church. She only bore the human nature in her womb, but it was the human nature of God the Son. God the Son was present in her womb and did exit that womb in the process of "birth". So she did bear God.

As a deep thought, ponder this -- 
God the Son is one but has two distinct natures. They are distinct - the Spirit cannot be beaten and crucified while His flesh can and did - yet there is no way to completely separate the two natures because there is one Son of God. What affected His flesh affected Him at His core. What I mean to say is, even though the Spirit nature was not beaten and crucified, God the Son still fully experienced the passion. All the way down to the core of His being. We can definitively say that the Son of God suffered and died. It isn't as if He could withdraw His mind into His Spirit nature and abandon His human nature as the human nature experienced the passion. He is truly Spirit and He is truly man. He felt every moment of it. 

It was sufficient for our salvation that He put on the nature of a man, taking the human nature upon Himself (forever more), physically suffered through it, and through it experienced death and resurrection from the dead. He did not have to completely cease to exist as both Spirit and flesh for His death to be our salvation. Only the human nature had to be crucified and it was sufficient.

If you only take one thing away from everything I just said, take this: it was not necessary that God in the Spirit should physically suffer and physically die; only the flesh. The suffering of beatings, crucifixion, and resurrection of the flesh was sufficient. Both Trinitarianism and Armstrongism are in agreement on this point.

The Crux of the Issue

Herbert Armstrong said that God the Son ceased to be God in Spirit entirely and became entirely man. So, in Armstrongism, it is not that God the Son set aside His Godly authority and prerogatives, no. In Armstrongism, God the Son entirely ceased to be God in a Spirit nature, and became wholly man in nature. [This is called Ebionism by theologists. The Ebionites were Gnostics.]

The reason I reiterate this is to point out that Armstrongism and Trinitarianism agree completely that the suffering, death, and resurrection of the fleshly nature was all that was needed for our salvation. Neither system requires suffering, death, and resurrection of Spirit nature.

If anything, since Armstrong taught that Jesus was wholly man and the Spirit nature wasn't even there at the time, then this point is arguably even more true in Armstrongism than Trinitarianism.

And the reason that is so important to make clear is because an Armstrongist will take issue with Trinitarianism, pointing out that if Jesus was truly God and truly man then the God nature never suffered scourging nor died nor was resurrected, then assert this somehow disqualifies our salvation. When in reality this same thing is true of both systems. Neither system ever demanded that the Spirit nature of God the Son had to suffer, die, and be resurrected. Both systems only ever required that the flesh alone had to suffer, die, and be resurrected.
So what, then, is the real complaint?? In all actuality there is none. Does the fact that God the Son’s Spirit nature never was scourged and crucified in either system then disqualify His sacrifice for our salvation in just the Trinitarian system? How can it? Is that not demanding something of someone else that one doesn’t demand of their own self?

I’m certain someone would continue to plead this further, regardless of what we’ve just seen, by saying, “But if the Spirit didn’t die along with the flesh, then Jesus didn’t actually die.” This is really nothing other than a different way to state the same issue. 
The Spirit (which cannot die) never died under either scenario, so again what is the real complaint? There is none. 

Here is the crux of the issue: how we define death.

There is much more of a difference here between the Adventist doctrine of Soul-Sleep versus the mainstream doctrine of life after death than anything else. To put it plainly, the real issue here is only in two ways of understanding what death is. That the Son of God experienced death even while His Spirit nature continued on is incredibly detrimental to the doctrine of Soul-Sleep.
But that’s a discussion for another day. How to define death is outside the scope of this article.

Some Questions On Armstrong's View

Let’s pause briefly and ask about Jesus only having one nature at a time. The teaching of Herbert Armstrong on this topic leaves questions.

What, then, of God the Son's Spirit nature? What did He do with it when He put it off? Where did it go? If He is infinite, unchangeable, eternal God, then how can He simply cease to be? I’d say it’s a pretty massive change to the very fabric of reality to have infinite, unchanging, eternal God suddenly ceasing to be infinite, unchanging, or eternal. Was His substance absorbed by God the Father and His mind implanted into the embryo in Mary's womb? (If you really, really want to get deep into this you will find that you are giving evidence that there really is a difference between the mind of God and the substance of God, precisely as Trinitarian doctrine attests.)

Now, we all know that Spirit cannot die. It has life in itself. What’s more – it IS life. In all my years I never heard it taught in Armstrongism that God the Son "died" as a Spirit being in order to become a man and die as a physical being. But! Doesn’t ceasing to be constitute death from an Armstrongist viewpoint? How can we explain that God the Son in Spirit ceased to be when He became man, but at the same time that Spirit nature did not die? How can we define death as ceasing to be, but exclude the Spirit from death when it ceased to be? So, if ceasing to be is the definition of death, then God the Son in Spirit did die? Twice?? He died before He was born? Now how do we explain that God in the Spirit cannot die when at the same time we in effect claim He died in the Spirit? Is this not a massive contradiction?

If we say His Spirit nature did not cease to be, then we have to ask where His Spirit nature went. If He kept it, then He is truly God and truly man at once, and we agree with the Trinitarian view. Did the Father absorb it? Then we agree two God beings can share one substance, and we agree with the Trinitarian view. But if we say His Spirit nature did cease to be, then we teach that God in Spirit is not eternal and unchanging, and can die, and did so before He was ever born. Thus, we contradict the eternal and unchanging nature of God.

Now what of His nature after the resurrection? If He put off His prior Spirit nature, where did His current Spirit nature come from? So, is He now fully God in Spirit once again and not man at all anymore? Why then the missing body from the tomb? Why then the holes in his hands and side post-resurrection? Were they just for show? Is the human nature gone forever? Why then His statement that He had flesh and bone (LUK 24: 39)? So, does this show He is both man and God at the same time after all? Does that not prove that He can have both a Spirit-God nature and a human nature at the same time? Therefore it’s not a great stretch of the imagination that He should be both God and man at the same time. 
The two sides only differ by some 33 years on when this happened.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both Trinitarians and Armstrongists agree that Jesus had two natures: Spirit and human. Both sides agree that Jesus can and now does have both natures at the same time.  Both sides agree that only the flesh nature had to suffer, die, and be resurrected for our salvation – not the Spirit nature.

What is the difference? Armstrongism, in contradiction to its own beliefs and for whatever reason (I suppose it is a difference regarding Soul-Sleep) insists that God the Son’s Spirit nature had to die in order for Trinitarianism to be true. Mind you, they don’t demand this of their own system, only others’.

If you wonder how Jesus’ death works under Trinitarianism, the short answer is “in much the same way as it does in Armstrongism.”

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