Page from the Gnostic Gospel of Judas
The Contingent God of Armstrongism
by Neo
I do not believe that the human mind, no matter how much it might be augmented, is capable of deeply understanding God. So when we try to conceive of God, we always conceive of him differently than he actually is. God is mysterious. But this is not in tension with the idea that we may know God “through a glass darkly.” And this knowledge, though falling short of the reality, has definition. In this op-ed I will observe that the Armstrongist god belongs to a different class of being than the Christian God and is much more limited than the Christian God. This is best understood through recognizing that the Armstrongist god is a contingent being and the Christian God is a necessary being.
Contingency
A contingent being is one that in essential some way depends on external conditions for its existence. A necessary being has no such dependencies but is self-existent. This latter statement is brief and apophatic but I will focus on ontological contingency in this op-ed rather than God as a necessary being. Armstrongism has no document titled “The Doctrine of God.” Its ruminations on God are scattered through booklets, magazine articles, and homiletic messages. So I will rely on my 30 years of experience as an Armstrongist and some internet research to describe the Armstrongist notion of god.
The Armstrongist god is a contingent being. Under this proposition, imagine how the universe started. There was nothing but an empty universe – space with no contents. God lived there but in a spirit realm or dimension. He resided somewhere in the “sides of the north” as viewed from the location of the yet-to-be-created earth. God, in this scenario, is so much a part of the physical universe that GTA stated that you could get into a rocket ship and fly to where god is, if you had enough time. To theologians and philosophers, this means that the Armstrongist god is immanent in the universe but not transcendent.
God as creator populated the empty container of space with celestial bodies. One, in particular, earth, he made habitable for biological creatures. But an issue is that the empty space in which god lived already had properties. It just did not have material objects. It was dimensional and was pre-made to accommodate the laws of nature that we know. Empty space is not the same as nothingness. God did not create spacetime – he had always lived in spacetime. The Armstrongist god is then dependent on eternally existing spacetime – as if it were a divine uncreated environment. But now we know that spacetime is not divine but physical. Spacetime reacts to gravity. This dependency on the spacetime environment means that the Armstrongist god is a contingent god.
A further example is that Armstrongists assert that their god always had a body (see the Mystery of the Ages, pp. 46-47). The human body is patterned after the body of god. So, bodily parts were an inherent part of his eternal essence. This means that god had teeth before ever envisioning the idea of eating. It was like he wondered what the hard, white things were in the unusual orifice we call a “mouth”. So, he started with teeth which had no purpose, they had just always been, and had to make something that they could be used for. So he invented this idea of nutrition and made this stuff called food so that these hard things in his mouth could have something to cut and grind up. The surfaces of these eternally existing hard, white things were already designed to cut and grind. So the engineering design of the teeth encouraged him in a certain direction in his creation. So the Armstrongist god is contingent on an eternally existing bodily construction with its already engineered mechanics.
A myriad of such examples could be constructed but two should be sufficient to arouse some reflection and questioning in the minds of those who accept the notion of the Armstrongist god. But in summary, the Armstrongist god did not create his environment or his body but he is dependent on these external elements. This dependency makes the Armstrongist god not necessary but contingent. Armstrongism does not account for where these external and eternal elements, both highly engineered, might have originated or what their status is in the divine realm. Given the Armstrongist model of a contingent god, one might speculate these elements were created by another superordinate being who is necessary.
There is in Gnosticism a kind of postulated being that matches the description of this kind of contingent god. This category of this created but powerful being is called a Demiurge. The definition below is from the Wikipedia article on the Demiurge:
In the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy, the demiurge . . . is an artisan-like figure responsible for fashioning and maintaining the physical universe.
The Gnostics adopted the term demiurge. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily the same as the creator figure in the monotheistic sense, because the demiurge itself and the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are both considered consequences of something else. Depending on the system, they may be considered either uncreated and eternal or the product of some other entity.
Many human religions have adopted a demiurgic view of god. And this view is particularly popular among atheists like Dawkins and Dennett because it is a much easier target to attack. This is because their arguments are rooted in materialism and the demiurgic god is mostly involved with the material universe. But this contingent god is not God as understood in Christianity. Consequently, many atheists begin their pleadings with a category error.
A contingent being is one that in essential some way depends on external conditions for its existence. A necessary being has no such dependencies but is self-existent. This latter statement is brief and apophatic but I will focus on ontological contingency in this op-ed rather than God as a necessary being. Armstrongism has no document titled “The Doctrine of God.” Its ruminations on God are scattered through booklets, magazine articles, and homiletic messages. So I will rely on my 30 years of experience as an Armstrongist and some internet research to describe the Armstrongist notion of god.
The Armstrongist god is a contingent being. Under this proposition, imagine how the universe started. There was nothing but an empty universe – space with no contents. God lived there but in a spirit realm or dimension. He resided somewhere in the “sides of the north” as viewed from the location of the yet-to-be-created earth. God, in this scenario, is so much a part of the physical universe that GTA stated that you could get into a rocket ship and fly to where god is, if you had enough time. To theologians and philosophers, this means that the Armstrongist god is immanent in the universe but not transcendent.
God as creator populated the empty container of space with celestial bodies. One, in particular, earth, he made habitable for biological creatures. But an issue is that the empty space in which god lived already had properties. It just did not have material objects. It was dimensional and was pre-made to accommodate the laws of nature that we know. Empty space is not the same as nothingness. God did not create spacetime – he had always lived in spacetime. The Armstrongist god is then dependent on eternally existing spacetime – as if it were a divine uncreated environment. But now we know that spacetime is not divine but physical. Spacetime reacts to gravity. This dependency on the spacetime environment means that the Armstrongist god is a contingent god.
A further example is that Armstrongists assert that their god always had a body (see the Mystery of the Ages, pp. 46-47). The human body is patterned after the body of god. So, bodily parts were an inherent part of his eternal essence. This means that god had teeth before ever envisioning the idea of eating. It was like he wondered what the hard, white things were in the unusual orifice we call a “mouth”. So, he started with teeth which had no purpose, they had just always been, and had to make something that they could be used for. So he invented this idea of nutrition and made this stuff called food so that these hard things in his mouth could have something to cut and grind up. The surfaces of these eternally existing hard, white things were already designed to cut and grind. So the engineering design of the teeth encouraged him in a certain direction in his creation. So the Armstrongist god is contingent on an eternally existing bodily construction with its already engineered mechanics.
A myriad of such examples could be constructed but two should be sufficient to arouse some reflection and questioning in the minds of those who accept the notion of the Armstrongist god. But in summary, the Armstrongist god did not create his environment or his body but he is dependent on these external elements. This dependency makes the Armstrongist god not necessary but contingent. Armstrongism does not account for where these external and eternal elements, both highly engineered, might have originated or what their status is in the divine realm. Given the Armstrongist model of a contingent god, one might speculate these elements were created by another superordinate being who is necessary.
There is in Gnosticism a kind of postulated being that matches the description of this kind of contingent god. This category of this created but powerful being is called a Demiurge. The definition below is from the Wikipedia article on the Demiurge:
In the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy, the demiurge . . . is an artisan-like figure responsible for fashioning and maintaining the physical universe.
The Gnostics adopted the term demiurge. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily the same as the creator figure in the monotheistic sense, because the demiurge itself and the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are both considered consequences of something else. Depending on the system, they may be considered either uncreated and eternal or the product of some other entity.
Many human religions have adopted a demiurgic view of god. And this view is particularly popular among atheists like Dawkins and Dennett because it is a much easier target to attack. This is because their arguments are rooted in materialism and the demiurgic god is mostly involved with the material universe. But this contingent god is not God as understood in Christianity. Consequently, many atheists begin their pleadings with a category error.
Who Cares?
Humans have differing perceptions of god. Does this mean that how we conceive of the Christian God is a matter of choice? For instance, the God of Calvinists Christians is much different than the god of Arminian Christians. Also, sociologists Paul Froese and Christopher Bader (“America's Four Gods: What We Say About God--And What That Says About Us”, Oxford University Press, 2015) determined by a survey that Americans attribute one of four different personality profiles to god: The Authoritative God, Benevolent God, Critical God, and Distant God. Because the view of God, both theological and popular, is varied, this does not abnegate the fact that there is a revelation of God contained in scripture – a revelation that permits broad agreement in the Christian movement on important divine attributes. For example, Calvinists and Arminians both believe that God is not contingent but necessary.
From these varied views, one might conclude that the idea of god is indeterminate for most people and that any notion of god will do. And for that reason, the Armstrongist god is just as valid as the Christian god. But this rejects the broad areas of agreement, based on Biblical exegesis, among denominations in the Christian movement. Given the state of knowledge in contemporary theology, there is no reason for a denomination to adopt the retrograde idea of a contingent god. And the boundary between a necessary god and a contingent god is, perhaps, the lowest threshold separating Christianity from non- Christian religions. That is why this issue is worth caring about.
Progressive Revelation and Contingency
I believe it is likely that the ancient Hebrews believed that God had a body. I also believe that they cast him in the role of an ancient Semitic Warrior God or Storm God. We can now see, with the New Testament available, that God’s characterization by Old Testament writers was anthropomorphic but to them it was realistic and they wielded the pen. As Dr. Peter Enns has stated, “God let his children tell the story.” The Logos resolved this problem by coming to earth himself and delivering a message about the nature of God. For this reason, a progressive revelation of God can be seen across the Old Testament and New Testament with the final revelation in Jesus himself.
In these opposing views, we have God as spirit (John 4:24) in the New Testament at one pole and God with a body in the Old Testament at the other pole. Armstrong used a hermeneutic of integration, rather than the hermeneutic of progressive revelation, to reconcile these two strongly divergent viewpoints. Armstrong innovated a novel non-Biblical concept that made God contingent, perhaps inadvertently. Armstrong asserted that god was of “spirit composition” which made it seem like god was composed of some kind of ethereal substance. (This also gave God locality which contradicts the Christian belief that God is omnipresent.) God is not made of spirit but God is, rather, a spirit. The concept of “spirit composition” does not occur in the Bible.
God as a theophany may appear to human eyes but that appearance does not imply he is made of some kind of visible “spirit substance.” Does God require eyes composed of some kind of spirit substance in order to be able to see? First, eyes would be a limitation to God. His sensory capabilities transcend anything we know as humans with our five senses. Second, if he requires eyes, then he is like a sighted created being, dependent on the functioning of internal organs to live. To assert that God is composed out of spirit substance with various organs is to assert that he is contingent and not necessary.
In the last analysis, Armstrong integrated the Old Testament characterization of God as having a body with the New Testament revelation of God in Jesus. He did this instead of simply accepting Jesus and his word as the ultimate and final revelation of the necessary God. My guess is that he did not use this hermeneutic simply to create the heretical concept of a contingent god. I believe he did it to achieve consistency between the Old and New Testaments concerning the nature of god and inadvertently cast god as contingent. We are now unable to ask him about his decisions.
(For the terms “spirit composition” and “spirit substance” see, for instance, Armstrong’s booklet “What Science Can’t Discover About the Human Mind”, 1978. In his “Mystery of the Ages,” Armstrong wrote that god is “composed of spirit.” The verb “compose” is transitive, requires a subject and object, and leads to the question “Who composed God of spirit?”)
Closing Remarks
Nobody knows the scope of God’s grace that he would extend to those who believe in a mischaracterization of him. Any judgment is above our pay grade and involves factors that I have not addressed. One could make the “Thief on the Cross” argument. The thief knew nothing about contingency and necessity yet Christ received him. But how many of us are really in that thief’s circumstances?
Even though God is unknowable in his fullness, there are some obvious errors that can be avoided. For instance, is it reasonable, based on the Bible, that the Christian god could be contingent in view of John 1:3 that states “All things (panta, Greek, meaning “all”) came into being through him?” It only takes a little reflection to understand that God created spacetime and is not captive to it.
There are enough relevant and incisive questions concerning contingency that I believe that the Armstrongist groups should review their beliefs about God, with consideration given to existing Christian dogma, and that their doctrine of god should be documented. And they should start by understanding that God is a necessary being, not a contingent being.
Humans have differing perceptions of god. Does this mean that how we conceive of the Christian God is a matter of choice? For instance, the God of Calvinists Christians is much different than the god of Arminian Christians. Also, sociologists Paul Froese and Christopher Bader (“America's Four Gods: What We Say About God--And What That Says About Us”, Oxford University Press, 2015) determined by a survey that Americans attribute one of four different personality profiles to god: The Authoritative God, Benevolent God, Critical God, and Distant God. Because the view of God, both theological and popular, is varied, this does not abnegate the fact that there is a revelation of God contained in scripture – a revelation that permits broad agreement in the Christian movement on important divine attributes. For example, Calvinists and Arminians both believe that God is not contingent but necessary.
From these varied views, one might conclude that the idea of god is indeterminate for most people and that any notion of god will do. And for that reason, the Armstrongist god is just as valid as the Christian god. But this rejects the broad areas of agreement, based on Biblical exegesis, among denominations in the Christian movement. Given the state of knowledge in contemporary theology, there is no reason for a denomination to adopt the retrograde idea of a contingent god. And the boundary between a necessary god and a contingent god is, perhaps, the lowest threshold separating Christianity from non- Christian religions. That is why this issue is worth caring about.
Progressive Revelation and Contingency
I believe it is likely that the ancient Hebrews believed that God had a body. I also believe that they cast him in the role of an ancient Semitic Warrior God or Storm God. We can now see, with the New Testament available, that God’s characterization by Old Testament writers was anthropomorphic but to them it was realistic and they wielded the pen. As Dr. Peter Enns has stated, “God let his children tell the story.” The Logos resolved this problem by coming to earth himself and delivering a message about the nature of God. For this reason, a progressive revelation of God can be seen across the Old Testament and New Testament with the final revelation in Jesus himself.
In these opposing views, we have God as spirit (John 4:24) in the New Testament at one pole and God with a body in the Old Testament at the other pole. Armstrong used a hermeneutic of integration, rather than the hermeneutic of progressive revelation, to reconcile these two strongly divergent viewpoints. Armstrong innovated a novel non-Biblical concept that made God contingent, perhaps inadvertently. Armstrong asserted that god was of “spirit composition” which made it seem like god was composed of some kind of ethereal substance. (This also gave God locality which contradicts the Christian belief that God is omnipresent.) God is not made of spirit but God is, rather, a spirit. The concept of “spirit composition” does not occur in the Bible.
God as a theophany may appear to human eyes but that appearance does not imply he is made of some kind of visible “spirit substance.” Does God require eyes composed of some kind of spirit substance in order to be able to see? First, eyes would be a limitation to God. His sensory capabilities transcend anything we know as humans with our five senses. Second, if he requires eyes, then he is like a sighted created being, dependent on the functioning of internal organs to live. To assert that God is composed out of spirit substance with various organs is to assert that he is contingent and not necessary.
In the last analysis, Armstrong integrated the Old Testament characterization of God as having a body with the New Testament revelation of God in Jesus. He did this instead of simply accepting Jesus and his word as the ultimate and final revelation of the necessary God. My guess is that he did not use this hermeneutic simply to create the heretical concept of a contingent god. I believe he did it to achieve consistency between the Old and New Testaments concerning the nature of god and inadvertently cast god as contingent. We are now unable to ask him about his decisions.
(For the terms “spirit composition” and “spirit substance” see, for instance, Armstrong’s booklet “What Science Can’t Discover About the Human Mind”, 1978. In his “Mystery of the Ages,” Armstrong wrote that god is “composed of spirit.” The verb “compose” is transitive, requires a subject and object, and leads to the question “Who composed God of spirit?”)
Closing Remarks
Nobody knows the scope of God’s grace that he would extend to those who believe in a mischaracterization of him. Any judgment is above our pay grade and involves factors that I have not addressed. One could make the “Thief on the Cross” argument. The thief knew nothing about contingency and necessity yet Christ received him. But how many of us are really in that thief’s circumstances?
Even though God is unknowable in his fullness, there are some obvious errors that can be avoided. For instance, is it reasonable, based on the Bible, that the Christian god could be contingent in view of John 1:3 that states “All things (panta, Greek, meaning “all”) came into being through him?” It only takes a little reflection to understand that God created spacetime and is not captive to it.
There are enough relevant and incisive questions concerning contingency that I believe that the Armstrongist groups should review their beliefs about God, with consideration given to existing Christian dogma, and that their doctrine of god should be documented. And they should start by understanding that God is a necessary being, not a contingent being.
NEO now at it. I suppose these anti-God posts will be a tsunami because Passover is due.
ReplyDeleteNow this is really interesting. I’m sure many of us have had similar thoughts/questions. I don’t think we have the capacity to grasp these things, but God is revealed to us in terms we can relate to. Jesus came as one who shows us who the Father is, but while we wonder and guess we don’t know. What IS important, apparently, is that we grasp and understand Hod and His character as best we can through these physical means we can see. We are told the invisible things of God are known by the things ‘physical’ that we can see and experience.
ReplyDeleteJohn, Paul, and Ezekiel had trouble exposing what they saw in vision. Makes me wonder if what they saw was real or something directed toward them that they might partially understand and pass on the greatness of God.
We are amazed by the beauty and vastness of the universe that we can see, and rightly so. But so am reminded of that old movie Men In Black, where that Galaxy they were seeking that was about to plunge the universe into war, turned out to be a bell like thing attached to a cat’s collar! A whole civilization in such a small space. Reminds me of The prophet’s encounter with God, where He was not in the fire, powerful wind, etc., but there came a small, still voice. Maybe there is something we can learn there.
Humans always make God "in there own image", not the other way around!
ReplyDeleteThere are concerns also over the theology/christology of Tkach/GCI. Critics are saying he's syncretizing Armstrongism & orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (3:39) wrote: . . . I suppose these anti-God posts will be a tsunami . . .
ReplyDeleteIt is telling that you would think my post to be "anti-God." It is actually in praise of the Christian God. What is anti-God is to demote the necessary God to the level of a contingent being. HWA did this, I believe, erroneously and without malice. He was a laundry soap salesman who developed his ideas sitting in the Des Moines public library and maybe had read a little Wesleyan theology. Give him a break. Do not sustain his inadvertent error and become willfully complicit in the generation and preservation of heresy.
If acknowledging reality is a Pre-Passover trial for you, I think you need to sit down and review your spiritual and rational condition in this Passover season. Maybe for you personally that is the real message of my op-ed.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Full disclosure, I have discussed this topic with NEO prior to the appearance of this post (see https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2021/02/seeking-god.html). And, while I find myself in broad agreement with NEO's assessment of Armstrong's very imperfect and inadequate understanding of God, I continue to believe that this deeply flawed understanding of God does not disqualify Armstrong and his followers from being regarded as Christians.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, NEO admits in his opening statement he doesn't believe "that the human mind, no matter how much it might be augmented, is capable of deeply understanding God. So when we try to conceive of God, we always conceive of him differently than he actually is." Hence, while a better understanding of God than that which was promulgated by Armstrong is possible, that better understanding necessarily remains imperfect/inadequate/flawed. Consequently, we are left to argue that one view of God is more imperfect than another which, in turn, precludes its acceptance by the object of the belief (God) - a hard argument to defend.
Again, while I agree with NEO that the Armstrong view of God makes that entity contingent, we must also allow that Herbert and his followers don't see that - that they too would characterize God as essential (Herbert did emphasize repeatedly that God was self-existent). In this connection, it should also be noted that Armstrong believed that understanding was the most important hallmark in identifying a "TRUE" Christian - although understanding was clearly identified by the Apostle Paul as being inferior to love (and he left it out entirely as part of his list of evidences that one had God's Holy Spirit). Hence, my thesis that seeking is of infinitely greater importance than understanding.
NEO also rightly argues in favor of a progressive revelation of the nature of God. Thus, the Old Testament notion of a temple God with a bodily form was imperfect and flawed. Jesus Christ revealed what had only been hinted at by the ancient Israelites - a God who cannot be contained. Moreover, as the best revelation of God that humankind has ever had access to, Christ necessarily renders all previous revelations of him inadequate. Nevertheless, we are forced to ask: were the Israelites (with their flawed view of God) God's people or not?
Cataphatic and apophatic statements about God return to Armstrong's dualistic theological notions - the old either/or thing (or false dilemma). NEO admits that God is "unknowable in his fullness" in our present state. And, while I agree with him that "it only takes a little reflection to understand that God created spacetime and is not captive to it", I cannot agree that such cogitation is dispositive of one's acceptance or rejection by God. Our less flawed understanding gets us into God's Kingdom, while Herbert Armstrong's more flawed understanding disqualifies him? I think that it's more likely that Armstrong's failure to exhibit the fruits of God's Spirit would disqualify him from being considered a Christian.
There are mature thinkers in UCG leadership (also COGWA and even LCG) who would dispute NEO's cartoon-character oversimplification of "Armstronism's" view of God.
ReplyDeleteThe big problem in the ACOGs is that other doctrines such as "pay your tithes" and "obey the ministry" were developed with far more precision than the doctrine of "What is God?" This meant that men rose into leadership who agreed on matters like the role of the ministry and the importance of tithing and Sabbath-keeping and avoiding pork, but who didn't share a sophisticated understanding of the Bible's nuanced statements about God. As a result, for any ACOG to proclaim too much detail dogmatically would cause division, as some leaders and members do share the primitive understanding NEO describes, while others have integrated into the Armstrong theology the very points NEO mentions.
God "in their own image"
ReplyDeleteYes, I remember how the Genesis creation of man "in God's image" was always portrayed as "physical image", and so stated God must look like man.
There was a PT or GN article that, drawing largely on Psalms, took descriptions of God's actions (saw, heard, tasted, smelled...) and concluded God must have the appropriate body parts (eyes, ears, tongue, nose...).
One minister, when he announced baptisms, recalled there is rejoicing in Heaven when a sinner repents. At least once, he speculated that for the occasion God was drinking wine and wondered what kind He preferred.
Our minds are made in Gods mental image, so all this talk of not being able to deeply understand God is utter nonsense.
ReplyDeleteBelieving in God is a delusion no matter what say or what evidence you provide against the existence of God a lot of them will keep believing in God anyway if they the evidence is proof against God.
ReplyDeleteAgree.
DeleteEven better: God must have some sense of humor also, given that we have one.
ReplyDeleteTrying to convince the COG leaders of that isn’t funny though..
Anonymous (8:18) wrote ". . . others have integrated into the Armstrong theology the very points NEO mentions . . ."
ReplyDeleteI am very interested in this. You have given us very little information. Are you speaking of isolated personally held beliefs among ministers and congregants or are you saying that some splinter groups as a whole have adopted an orthodox doctrine of god? My guess is that it is the former and if these early adopters are outspoken, they will probably get disfellowshipped. If it were the latter I think it would be on the grape vine as a major departure from Armstrongism. I would appreciate it if you could pass along some information. I would like to know how they integrated the orthodox doctrine of god into Armstrongism.
I am glad you recognize the insufficiency of the Armstrongist conception of god, but I would not call it cartoonish. The Armstrongist deity has more content that that. It is just that he has to be classed as contingent.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
1Jn 1:3b and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteBTW NEO, do you believe in the “orthodox” doctrine of the trinity?
Miller, you wrote ". . . Armstrong's failure to exhibit the fruits of God's Spirit would disqualify him from being considered a Christian."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on this statement - there is much more to Christianity than understanding theology. There is the process of theosis and all that it entails through the working of Christ for each person. But I see that understanding as coming from the action of the Holy Spirit. Paul says in Ephesians 1:
"Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:"
Can we suppose that this knowledge does not go so far as to include the distinction between contingent and necessary? Maybe at the beginning. But the patristics and the ancient church were very advanced in the understanding of god. They understood things that the Western Church in North America seems to have lost - especially among evangelicals (see Mark Noll, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind"). And Armstrongism orbits evangelicalism at a distance.
This idea does not work quantitatively, I would guess. If you have a spectrum portraying the knowledge of god, there may be a boundary where Christianity is to the right of the boundary and non-Christian religions are to the left, for instance. It can't be that simple. Some judgement must be necessary. There has to be a gray zone surrounding that boundary. But we can tell when a religion is close to the boundary and when one is far away. There is not enough insight for a precise evaluation but there is enough for someone to say "I don't think I want to be a part of this."
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
When the “God Is” booklet came out, one person I new liked to emphasize that God doesn’t need a “body.” I don’t know if this is true, but I am not unhappy with it, due to typology of the human experience.
ReplyDeleteHos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
Using Second Temple exegesis Matthew could apply this Scripture to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the representative Israelite. The three relationships of Israel, the individual and community, with God, is (1) Lord-Servant; (2) Father-Son; and (3) Husband-Wife. In regard to (2) and (3), the latter is associated with THE “creation”.
Ge 2:20b but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Ge 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Ge 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Ge 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Typology, at least to me, suggests that Adam and Eve are an antitype (vertical typology) of God and the Word. Adam was ‘created’ without Eve as this reflected God before the Word. And just as the Eve was ‘taken’ from Adam so the Word was ‘taken’ from God.
Hence no room for a Trinity.
The implication for me is that every husband and wife are antitypes of God and the Word - women are generally classed as ‘verbalisers’ and men as ‘non-verbalisers’.
A single adult male or female has considerable ‘freedoms’ to do as they please. But when they get married and have children (an antitype of THE “creation”) they give up these ‘freedoms’ for arguably a great good.
Da 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
From human typology then God may have given up “freedoms” for a great good which may have required Him to have a spiritual body.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him
Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam...
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam...
"In v.27 it is stated twice that man was created (bara') in God's image and a third time that man was created (bara') "male and female." The same pattern is found in Genesis 5:1-2a... The singular man ('adam) is created as a plurality, "male and female"... in a similar way the one God ... created man through an expression of his plurality (..."let us make man in our image"). Following this clue the divine plurality expressed in v.26 is seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of the man and woman, thus casting the human relationship between man and woman in the role reflecting God's own relationship with himself [and the Word, my input]" (John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, EBC., Vol.2, p.38).
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
"However disappointing the fact may be to a devoted father, there is something unique in the relationship between a mother and a baby. No known society replaces the mother as a primary provider of care... Female attachment to an infant seems to be innate, male attachment a function of social learning. Mothers are natural parents; men, with the best will in the world, are not...(Anne Moir and David Jessel, BrainSex, p.141).
It is suggested that there is a typological connection between a mother and a baby and Christ and the saints following being born-again.
Erratum:
ReplyDeleteI should have enclosed the text below in quotation marks. The entire passage was from Wikipedia:
"In the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy, the demiurge . . . is an artisan-like figure responsible for fashioning and maintaining the physical universe. The Gnostics adopted the term demiurge. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily the same as the creator figure in the monotheistic sense, because the demiurge itself and the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are both considered consequences of something else. Depending on the system, they may be considered either uncreated and eternal or the product of some other entity."
Sorry, too, for my usual collection of typos and transpositions. I have a little dyslexia.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Not mentioned in this article or posts is that there is a whole field of study dedicated to studying the mind of God. It's called psychology.
ReplyDeleteIt's shunned or reviled since it's bully morality that rules supreme in the ACOGs. Eg, "church government" is the ministers dominating the sheep. That Christ is called the Good Shepherd and not the Good Tyrant is ignored.
I wholeheartedly agree with Anon 9:46 comment. Utter nonesense.
ReplyDeleteMoses was called a friend of God. Why would God, our creator, not create human beings that can understand Him. NEO and gang are into spiritual psyco-babble. Desiring to be "spiritual Pope's" that are the only ones to have this unique deep understanding. Notice the underlying, subtle and condecending attitude in the writing. They assume this and assume that about the idiots in the pews and pulpits.
Interesting analysis. Even a cursory study of the universe reveals that it is temporary. It came into existence. That is one big difference between Genesis and the typical ancient creation story. I personally find this very encouraging. If you believe that your future will be with God, then your future is not limited to a physical universe that we can, at least partly, observe, describe and comprehend. That is why eye has not seen nor ear heard- we wouldn't be able to understand it.
ReplyDeleteA few of the comments in this thread reflect the lack of humility which Herbert Armstrong brought to the whole notion of understanding God. He declared that only he and his church understood who and what God is! Not only was that NOT true - Armstrong's understanding of God was inferior to the understanding of most mainstream Christians (as NEO skillfully articulated in this piece). And, Armstrong's notions about our degree of understanding reflecting who is and isn't a Christian continues to plague many of the folks who've left and most of the folks who've remained in one of the splinters!
ReplyDeleteAgain, humility is what is required in this instance - especially in light of Scriptures like these: “My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9 and "Oh, how great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways! For who can know the Lord’s thoughts? Who knows enough to give him advice?" Romans 11:33-34
We must remember that the only information which is essential for a Christian is his/her understanding of the fact that Jesus Christ sacrificed himself for his/her sins, and his/her acceptance of that fact is sufficient to save his/her soul! Yes, we are expected to grow in grace and knowledge, but it is very clear that we start out and end up in different places relative to our individual understanding of God and "His" will/plans. Paul said that WE CHRISTIANS see through a glass darkly - we DON'T have all the answers - we DON'T have everything figured out.
We forget that during the course of a brief conversation with an Ethiopian eunuch (and without the benefit of any New Testament) Philip was able to explain Christ sufficiently to the man so that he was immediately baptized after accepting Christ as his Savior (see Acts 8:26-38). We forget that Apollos had already been an enthusiastic evangelist for Christ when Priscilla and Aquila had to explain the way of God more accurately to him (see Acts 18:24-26). Christ said that his followers would be identified by the love which they had for each other - not their store of theological understanding! Paul said that a Christian would be known by the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control that the Holy Spirit produced in their lives - NOT the degree to which they understood the nature of God! Yes, we Christians should be seeking to grow in grace AND KNOWLEDGE; but let's remember that that is a lifelong process and we DON'T have a monopoly on the truth.
Anonymous (2:35)
ReplyDeleteI think you have misapprehended this idea of "understanding" god. I am not asserting that God is totally nonsensical to us. You can understand God to the degree that he wants you to understand him. That is all the farther that we can go. All you know about God is what he has revealed to you - and maybe you didn't even accept that. And I believe we will understand more and more about him as eons pass. But as created beings we will never exhaust the knowledge about God. And our ability to comprehend him will never be at parity with his.
If you need a scripture - Romans 11:33-36:
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
My point was that though God is inscrutable, there is some minimal level of knowledge and understanding of him that we must have to be classed as Christians. One should recognize that understanding the small amount that God has told you about himself is not the same as knowing him comprehensively. What we have is really just a working knowledge of God. If you think you can read Armstrong's "Mystery of the Ages", Chapter 1 and that's all you need to know, then you have been befallen by presumption.
The idea that God does not transcend our understanding may be an outgrowth of Armstrong's concept of a limited and contingent god. If you can fully understand God, and I rather imagine you are not asserting this, then your God is too small.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Off again on a condescending road trip. Who wallows in MOA booklet? Not I. Christians know God through Him working in their lives, through prayer and supplication. Through living and relying on God through faith.
DeleteMiller Jones
ReplyDeleteThe "my thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are far superior to your ways" is God addressing evil people if the context is considered. His superior way is the ten commandments. It is NOT an invalidation of what little understanding most people have. This interpretation is pure murder. I have experienced this from two vile ministers who demanded that I ditch my mind and blindly believe them. So much for proving all things.
Comments spot on Anon 3:22. Ditching your mind and blindly believing them and allowing them unwavering control is always wrapped up in unity propaganda. Crown stealers wanting the ultimate power and control goal- a person's mind. Beware it's the fox talking to the chickens.
DeleteAnonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete“Notice the underlying, subtle and condecending attitude in the writing.”
Yes I have noticed this in NEO’s writings.
Take for instance the response at 9:04:
“All you know about God is what he has revealed to you - and maybe you didn't even accept that.”
It seems that NEO can’t resist making condescending comments to people who don’t go along with his narrative.
NEO would be at home in the LCG ministry.
I concur Anon 2:51 AM.
DeleteAnonymous 3/21 @ 3:22,
ReplyDeleteI have no desire for you to ditch your mind and blindly accept anything I've written, but I must correct your murderous interpretation of Scripture for the benefit of those who are following this thread with an open mind! For those operating in the spirit of the Bereans, lets look at all of the verses which proceed the ones I quoted and decide for yourself:
“Is anyone thirsty? Come and drink— even if you have no money! Come, take your choice of wine or milk— it’s all free! Why spend your money on food that does not give you strength? Why pay for food that does you no good? Listen to me, and you will eat what is good. You will enjoy the finest food. “Come to me with your ears wide open. Listen, and you will find life. I will make an everlasting covenant with you. I will give you all the unfailing love I promised to David. See how I used him to display my power among the peoples. I made him a leader among the nations. You also will command nations you do not know, and peoples unknown to you will come running to obey, because I, the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, have made you glorious.” Seek the Lord while you can find him. Call on him now while he is near. Let the wicked change their ways and banish the very thought of doing wrong. Let them turn to the Lord that he may have mercy on them. Yes, turn to our God, for he will forgive generously. - Isaiah 55:1-7
I may be wrong, but it sure sounds like an invitation to receive salvation to me - an opportunity for both the righteous and the wicked to have a relationship with their Creator. In this context, the following verses offer an insight/revelation into the entity who's making the offer! “My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts." So, yes, when we consider the FULL context (not just the verse immediately preceding the passage), the meaning becomes clearer! And, you never addressed the other quote from Paul's letter to the Romans - what about that one? What about some of the statements in the books of Job and Psalms about the God who cannot be contained or fully comprehended by humans?
Miller Jones
ReplyDeleteIsaiah 55;7 "Let the wicked man forsake his ways and the unrighteous man his thoughts.."
God is speaking to the wicked when He continues stating that His ways are higher than their ways. It's the perfect rebuke to bullies and abusive ACOGs ministers who believe that their ways are warranted since the end end justifies the means, especially since Gods Mr Nice-guy ways "aren't practicle." Many of these same abusive ministers fancy that "God understands" and will give them top positions in His kingdom. They are morally in the gutter and don't even see it. I know since I had a work boss like that.
Anonymous (2:35,2:51, 9:27) regarding condescension
ReplyDelete"NEO and gang are into spiritual psyco-babble."
"NEO would be at home in the LCG ministry."
Those statements could really hurt a guy. Especially the second one. If I had feelings they would be hurt right now.
I believe my statements are much more polite than yours. It is odd that you would allege something about me and then commit the same category of indiscretion that you allege but in a much much more offensive form. What ethics are you not using to arrive at that?
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NEO you assume both comments being made by the same person. That is incorrect.
DeleteThat is very strange to write 'if I had feelings..' I feel sorry for you.
Anonymous 3/22 @ 10:24 (wish you guys/gals would adopt some kind of moniker to differentiate yourselves from each other),
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of this discussion, I'm going to assume that you are a righteous person. God's ways and thoughts are still vastly superior to yours and mine (and outstrip our ability to fully comprehend them/him). Yes, the wicked are even further removed from God, and their repentance will bring them closer to God. Remember, Samuel was a righteous/Godly man, but he still couldn't discern God's pick for the throne on his own! Humility, we need more humility.
And, from where I'm sitting, NEO's take on the scope of God's mind and abilities seems much more humble/down-to-earth than the views expressed by his very arrogant critics (He accepts that it is completely beyond the capacity of what's contained in our human craniums - even with the assistance of God's Holy Spirit). I would NEVER advocate accepting what ANY minister or individual teaches, but humility is being willing to listen and entertain what they have to say. Being open-minded requires research and thought - it doesn't mean that we swallow hook, line and sinker everything that comes down the pike (or reflexively reject it)!
Anonymous (4:35)
ReplyDeleteI see that you have bi-theistic beliefs so I can anticipate the issue. Yes, I believe in the Trinity. God consists of three centers of personality in a single essence. How that is to me is a mystery. But it is very different from God being composed of internal parts which are required for him to function. The anthropomorphic language of the Old Testament states:
"The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart"
Does this mean that god has a heart on which he depends, like us, and if his heart, for some reason beyond our knowing, quits beating, he will die? If we claim that God is in our image (this is really what HWA did - the equating of physical images), then god is dependent on a beating heart to live, hence, he is contingent like you and me.
The three persons of the Trinity possess aseity though they co-inhere in the same essence. So to speak, they are simple beings with no internal working parts. Lest you scoff at the term "simple", this is defined in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas as follows:
"God is not composed or divisible by any physical or metaphysical means. Simplicity of God refers to the fact that he has no parts . . . One consequence of this teaching is the fact that since God is simple, he must be a pure spirit."
And John says this explicitly in John 4:24. It was HWA that transformed, in his religious philosophy, God from a spirit to a contingent being made of a kind of eternal, spirit substance. Since this substance has retains form (substance doesn't mean essence in HWA's language but it is kind of like an eternally durable, malleable material) God can have various external and internal parts fashioned (by whom?) out of this substance. Which is an attempt at reconciling John's claim and the anthropomorphic language of the Old Testament. But phenomenon of the eternally durable material and a composite God does not agree with John. It is a concocted bridge between the two views of God. It is not integration but, rather, conflation. Because in HWA's process of reconciliation, he lost, maybe inadvertently, the fact that God is a necessary being.
I just summarized my article. I guess I have said that enough.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Thanks, NEO, for answering my question.
ReplyDelete