The Hierarchy
Armstrongism and the Theology of Autocratic Hierarchy
By Krischan
The Hierarchy
If someone views God as a hierarchy, the gravitas is such that this concept will permeate that person’s worldview. It becomes a foundational philosophy about how reality works. It becomes The Hierarchy with a capital “H.” How the concept of a hierarchical God actually developed in HWA’s mind is a matter of conjecture. It is likely that it was not a simple transfer of doctrine from the Church of God Seventh Day to Armstrongism. For instance, the Church of God Seventh Day was Arian at the time that HWA associated with them based on a statement by Robert Coulter, former President of the General Conference of the Church of God Seventh Day, in an interview with Dixon Cartwright. They did not believe that Jesus was God. This belief seems not to have transferred to Armstrongism in a direct way as if HWA just copied the belief. But Coulter further said, “Arianism tends to degrade the position of Christ …”. There may have been a residue of this view that did transfer into Armstrongism.
So, in Armstrongism we find examples of The Hierarchy everywhere. Church government is a hierarchy, local congregations are hierarchies, Ambassador College was a hierarchy, SEP was a hierarchy and Spokesman Club was a hierarchy.
So, in Armstrongism we find examples of The Hierarchy everywhere. Church government is a hierarchy, local congregations are hierarchies, Ambassador College was a hierarchy, SEP was a hierarchy and Spokesman Club was a hierarchy.
Where Hierarchy Should Not Be
There are those who say the world is full of hierarchies and that is the way that things get done. The military, schools, and hospitals are all hierarchies. It is true that some human operations could not be successful without a hierarchical structure.
The error occurs when the hierarchical approach to managing physical processes is applied to human worth and lives. This is what Armstrongism has done. The Armstrongist approach is inapt because the Bible and theology are about human life and not accounting departments, printing shops or college faculties. The distasteful idea is that human beings can be sorted into categories of importance and privilege. The social mode that is engendered by this view is that there are patrician echelons and then there are echelons comprised of "church trash" - "the cream of the crud" as one evangelist notably stated. And the treatment of people in these two categories is widely divergent. This approach was promulgated by Ambassador College. But the approach was not learned in Ambassador College classrooms but in the treatment and valuation of people in the conduct of its functions and operations - the real classroom. So, there is no syllabus for this education. It is a matter of observation of empirical data rather than drawing on documentation. You had to be there. And many were.
Human beings should not be sorted into important and unimportant classes. But this is where The Hierarchy leads. God created everyone for a grand and profound ultimate purpose. Christ’s atonement is unlimited and values every person as a child of God. Even those who do not fit the model of the media glitterati. Blessed are the meek he says.
A Case in Point – Church Services
Every seven days Armstrongists receive a dose of hierarchy. They attend strictly hierarchical church services. The order of services is a denominational decision and there is freedom of religion in this country. But it should not get out of perspective. It is just a denominational decision and may only reflect the preferences or personalities of church leaders. The rigid order of services found in Armstrongism, and many other religions, is not based on a Biblical mandate. In fact, the Bible gives a much different picture of First-Century Christian Services. From the book titled “Pagan Christianity?” by Frank Viola and George Barna:
“The meetings of the early church were marked by every-member functioning, spontaneity, freedom, vibrancy, and open participation (see for example, 1 Corinthians 14:1-33 and Hebrews 10:25). The first-century church meeting was a fluid gathering, not a static ritual. And it was often unpredictable, unlike the contemporary church service…Further, the first-century church meeting was not patterned after the Jewish synagogue services as some recent authors have suggested. Instead, it was totally unique to the culture.”
I know something about this. My family has been Quaker for generations, from the inception of Quakerism back in England. I have attended Quaker services and if I wanted to say something I could have taken the floor and made a statement. HWA, descended from Quakers, was also familiar with this service format as well. It is much closer to the Biblical format than modern Armstrongist services.
If you are an Armstrongist and the idea of The Hierarchy seems ethereal and unimportant, when you show up for your next dose of hierarchical indoctrination, during services take the floor and give a testimonial like in the first-century church – maybe between the Sermonette and the Sermon. And see what The Hierarchy does to you. I think you will find The Hierarchy suddenly palpable.
If you are an Armstrongist and the idea of The Hierarchy seems ethereal and unimportant, when you show up for your next dose of hierarchical indoctrination, during services take the floor and give a testimonial like in the first-century church – maybe between the Sermonette and the Sermon. And see what The Hierarchy does to you. I think you will find The Hierarchy suddenly palpable.
Summary StatementWhile hierarchies organize humanistic efforts in the physical realm, God is not a hierarchy but three Persons committed to each other in co-equal status. God is not a hierarchy in ontology although God may be a hierarchy in economy. This means that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not unequal in what they are but are different in what they do. The ontology of God is a direct statement that it is anathema to sort people out by their perceived value – into the categories of the important and the unimportant – into echelons of the elite and “church trash.” Christ died for all.
Very interesting article. I mentioned in my comments yesterday that there are three basic fundamentals every genuine Christian denomination agrees upon. The triune God, the Gospel of our salvation and the preeminence of Scripture. Those three basic, common points of agreement have been around, in writing, since the Canonization of Scripture. Read the Didache, for example. The evidence is conclusively there that 1st and 2nd century Christians met on Sunday, understood that believers (whether Jew or Gentile) were NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW and the co-equal, co-eternal Godhead of three Personages, of same substance, in the One Triune God. Neither three gods, nor modalism. God is not CEO, Jesus is not the lesser VP of paperclips and the Holy Spirit, treasurer?, Secretary? No. God is One, in being, ontology, eternality, substance, power and in Him is life, underived, uncreated, self sustaining forever.
ReplyDeleteThese are the reasons why I have never understood why Armstrongism considers itself Christian. They do not affirm any of these. They are far closer to ancient, preincarnation Judaism. God is not a hierarchy and HWA did a tremendous disservice to all the members who swallowed his heretical nonsense. Evidence of the effects of his nonsense can be seen in every splinter and their particular downstream doctries. Genuinely disgraceful to call yourself a "minister" of God, yet have no idea Who He is, much less disseminate that tragic misunderstanding to thousands of believing Acog members. To call yourself a "minister" yet not know if Jesus is Alighty God? Call the Holy Spirit "like electricity"? No wonder it is in the state it is in, on its' last legs. These positions cannot withstand Biblical scrutiny.
Finally, I ask how is this hierarchical set up any different than Rome? HWA was the Pope and so on. He determined all doctrines and daily administration of "church" matters. How, pray tell is that any different from the Catholic church they all vehemently denounce and denigrate all the time?
HWA in his autobiography spoke of himself as a young kid going by homes of elite robber barron types, and admiring them.
ReplyDeleteI his early ministry, Armstrong lost many fellowship plants , and the money flow from them, viewing this as a type of sheep stealing.
Thus HWA had to create an exclusive franchise , with him at the top, and everyone not within that structure being "Sardis" or the like. Up until his death, HWA constantly criticized the Church of God 7th Day, and constantly called them Sardis.
The main motivator in all of this , besides just power, (and perhaps most importantly) was the money flow. There is nary a church that has all monies collected at just one central location. Most churches have local money control, with perhaps some small percentage of that going to a denominational conference. The COGs are unique in their money flow control.
When Ray Wooten proposed a decentralized money flow system for the UCG, he soon was rustled out , as there was NO WAY that the ministers were going to have financial accountability to their local flocks.
Armstrong created an unaccountability hierarchy to make sure that all the money would come under his supervision and control. Power played a part, but I believe the money thing was always first priority, as many coworker and member letters from HWA would attest.
Agreed. This "governmental" system that Herb and his minions set up is very similar to leadership structures in communist countries. I did read somewhere that Herb did study this government before applying it to his church. Not sure how accurate that is. But it only works if he convinces people that this is God's government in action.
ReplyDeleteduring services take the floor and give a testimonial like in the first-century church – maybe between the Sermonette and the Sermon.
ReplyDelete...and the people in charge likely will cite another section of I Corinthians 14. Verses 26-33.
This article is wrong. All societies (the ultra egalitarian Spartans might have been an exception) are status based. The greater their contribution to the group, the higher their status, respect and esteem. Which is why a carpenter is the old wooden ships had prestige that ordinary sailors lacked. It's simple cause and effect.
ReplyDeleteAre some people trash? The old testament (eg proverbs 6:12-22) calls wicked people worthless.
Anon @3:19. There is a difference between society writ large, egalitarian or not, and church. You might argue that one reflects the other, but that falls flat because they are not meant to be organized in the same manner. In many ways, they are wholly and diametrically opposed. One is under the Authority of the Creator and the other is hostage to the intelligence and will of its' citizens, mere mortal, created beings.
ReplyDeleteThe whole "government of God" cliche that HWA proliferated is absolute nonsense. My ways are not your ways, My thoughts are not your thoughts" ring any bells? The thought that we sinful, mortal, finite, created beings could somehow even begin to grasp the authority and infinite everything of our Creator, is laughable. The cog leaders who continue this one liner of HWAs (which he only employed in order to control everyone) only goes to prove who they serve and worship...and it is not God. We have a brief outline of church administrative positions in the N.T. and a slightly fuller picture of Israel's system in the O.T. Neither are remotely complete, not to mention the fact that we have no idea how it will all be changed once Jesus comes again and PERFECT JUSTICE, PERFECT KNOWLEDGE, PERFECT LOVE rules the world. What men have done in governing the nation's only goes to prove how desperately we erring, fallible people have no bloody idea what we are doing.
We must remember that God is Sovereign, and is above all His creatures and His creation, lest we become bloated with pride and arrogance like Dave, Bob, Gerry, et al!
A church organization needs a hierarchy in order to function. If the hierarchy is holding back your growth, go find another one or strike out on your own.
ReplyDeleteExcellent post and comments. Thank you all!
ReplyDeleteThe greater their contribution to the group, the higher their status, respect and esteem.
ReplyDeleteThat's how it is supposed to work. Unfortunately, organizations often get corrupted, and no good deed goes unpunished.
Krischan aka “Christian?” Wrote:
ReplyDelete“Though I have found no written account,”
Well, then, as usual on this site, there is much more assumption and personal opinion than fact. Good start???
“ I would imagine that Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA) was very irritated the first time he had to confront the doctrine of the Trinity.”
Why, of course, why didn’t we all IMAGINE that? Why, such proof is unimpeachable, right?
“The idea of God as three co-equal, co-inherent Persons who submitted to one another in love would not have been compatible with his aspirations.”
Why, of course, we all could claim that especially after admitting it is only something that “would not have been”… a pure biased supposition. Such irrefutable proof. Why didn’t we think of that?
“The hierarchical God of the Church of God Seventh Day was a better fit. There was the Father at the top in charge of everything and there was the Son occupying a subordinate position. And the Holy Spirit did not matter in this context because it was a spiritual force emanating from God and not a Person at all.”
Wow, sing that song again, and make sure you give us the proof.
“While there is much to be said about all of this, it is the notion of a hierarchical God that is the point of departure for this opinion piece.”
Oh, I get it, you have no proof, just YOUR OPINION. By the way, do you write “science” papers too?
What is your personal and private experience with the person you are slobbering all over? I never spent any time with the man you describe in your “opinion piece.” I prefer facts, not innuendos, rumor, etc..
Sorry, but most of this is nonsense. Of course, none of you know, and bring up the real problems. Instead, we see stories about Loma’s death, and blame HWA. And other exaggerations. No one here explains how to pay hundreds of employees every month, or massive utility bills, insurance coverage, and much much more. Why?? Because nobody here knows how to do it, or has what it takes, but we sure are good at criticizing someone who did what folks here can’t do. If you can, show us you can do it, I am waiting with bated breath!!!!
3:19
ReplyDeleteYou are making the same error that Armstrongist leaders make. You apprehend how things are done in this world and then apply that to the valuation of human beings. Referring to the sailors and carpenter of a ship is a category error. Physical processes sometimes operate best as hierarchies. But creating a hierarchy by saying by fiat "you people are better than those people" using some highly subjective standard is a direct attack on human dignity and contradicts the words and actions of Jesus. Jesus who died for everyone. "God so loved the world..."
But Armstrongists have pushed in the past the preeminence of the ministry. An AC Pasadena graduate told me that in one of his classes they were taught that the organization of the church would be reflected in the Kingdom of God. In other words, the men in charge in the WCG at that time would also be in charge in the Kingdom. So as a lay member you will be subservient to the WCG ministry in the Kingdom. Forever. I do not have the documentation to support this. It exists somewhere as lecture notes but I doubt that anyone can find them.
While the AC grad's statement gives precise definition to the idea, this idea can be deduced otherwise. The ministry was always held up as the superior example. (I never heard HWA criticize or correct the ministry. He probably would never do that in front of church trash. I am not sure what he did behind closed doors.) The reason they had the the big salary, the big authority, the fleet car, the $800 suit and the nice house was simply because they were better than us spiritually - better in God's sight - qualifying higher. Could any of us doubt that they would always occupy an echelon well above us just like they are well above us in this life? Think what an ego trip it must be for them.
There was always that story about the widow and her mite who would qualify high above anybody else. I heard it in local congregations more than once. I don't think that anyone in the ministry remotely believed that was true. It certainly did not get any air time from anyone of rank.
Krischan
4:32
ReplyDeleteUnderstand that I am not saying that physical processes or secular organizations should not be hierarchical. I am saying that hierarchy should not be applied to the valuation of human beings. You have to think about this for a while.
Krischan
The W.A.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary. That passages illustrates a great egalitarianism at services. Paul starts by saying, "...each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation" etc. Paul even accommodates the idea that someone sitting in services might receive a revelation on the spot and rise to speak. He is advocating orderliness in presentation not that only certain ordained people might speak. Likewise, Viola and Barna are not advocating chaos. They are just noting the diversity of expression and the freedom of everyone to speak.
In Quaker services, you do not have a bunch of people speaking at the same time. Each person speaks in turn. It is quite orderly. The meeting leader starts the service and ends the service but there is time for everyone who wants to participate. Armstrongists follow the standard and staid Protestant model. There is nothing wrong with that. People just need to recognize that this is a model decided on by men - probably men who are enamored of hierarchy.
Krischan
There are plenty of Christian denominations that have imposed a hierarchical structure within their organizations that also believe in the trinity. Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, and others have all adopted hierarchical structures within their respective organizations. The Catholics notably justify the authority of the Pope as Vicar of Christ with the Primacy of Peter doctrine.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that God has one human representative on earth that carries absolute authority and the subsequent corruption and abuse which came from the implementation of that church teaching and structure is at least in part what led to the Protestant Reformation.
Over time HWA came to implement the same type of structure within World Wide, simply replacing the Pope, or Vicar of Christ with "God's Apostle" and by the 1970s and 80s he even adopted the Primacy of Peter doctrine himself, and preached it.
"The surname Peter had for centuries been a surname or TITLE, designating a religious LEADER, HEAD or HEADQUARTERS. Peter was the first and chief apostle." Mystery of the Ages
Many within the COGs still adhere to some form of this doctrine, with the leadership in the more extreme branches claiming to have inherited the "mantle" of HWA. They use this claim to justify their own form of papal authority and bully others into submission. Others use the blanket term "Government of God" to justify their authority, which they claim comes directly from God through an unbroken line of ordination, from the Apostles forward, which also incidentally is a Catholic doctrine, called the doctrine of "Apostolic Succession."
Concerned Sister
Well said
Delete4.06 PM
ReplyDeleteFirst, if the context is considered, the "My ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts" is God addressing evil people. God's higher ways is the ten commandments. ACOGs have always used this verse to murderously invalidate all that members believe in order to gain lording power over the flock. The "hierarchy" that exists in the ACOGs is street gang morality whereby those with church titles can peck on and abuse those under them. And this abuse includes treating others as rightless chattel. This is wrong since there is no such thing as the "right to sin."
You seem to have mentally merged two different concepts. In a just society, there are status levels based on merit WITHOUT anyone being mistreated.
Wow. Excellent article and very thought-provoking. Prior to my parents' assimilation by "the borg" (Armstrongism), I did not have any sort of hierarchical consciousness. God, Jesus, and the police were our friends. People were people, and I saw them in terms of their relationship to me. We were not from a military family, and discipline and punishment were fairly rare occurrences. Others around us did what they did, and there were various causes and effects. My parents signed on at a time when most of the brethren were scattered. Even then, if there were any authority over us, it became The Plain Truth, the World Tomorrow Program, and the booklets. Gradually, as the church grew, and there were local services, church government came into our lives, we learned the meaning of authority, and it seemed that everyone in the church wanted some. Part of the reason for such cravings was that one had to respect and obey authority, or it would inflict pain. This universally produces a phenomenon known as conditional love. So having authority became an antidote or a counter-balance to it. It's the only way you can feel the conditional love. As I observed the often arbitrary pain meted out, I began to realize that in the wrong hands, authority was a very bad thing. I didn't want it, in fact I began my attempts to fly below the radar, and to avoid attracting its attention. Not to want or seek authority was a cardinal sin in Armstrongism, a system in which becoming kings and priests was the carrot dangled in front of us as as our reward. So, my views of authority, especially arbitrary authority, were better off kept to myself. When I escaped the borg, I was still conscious of authority, but just saw it as being kind of lame, and something I was duty-bound to rebel against whenever it inflicted injustice.
ReplyDeleteAt some point, I realized that in the surrounding world, success came to people who knew how to manage and work with the authority structures surrounding us, something one could not do within the governance of Armstrongism in which the only acceptable alternative was to obey. As the light bulbs surrounding this new discovery came on, I became aware of the value of negotiation, something one simply did not do in the WCG. Through therapy, I learned to take control, because the reality was that others only have authority if we chose to submit to it. It was at that point that career began to trend upwards. I believe that most people committed to hierarchies never reach this point in growth.
Last segment of this comment involves my relationship twenty years ago, with a little school teacher, who was simultaneously the best of the best in women in my life, and the worst of the worst. Amongst best was her worldview. She saw humanity as an ecology system in equilibrium, with everything and everyone being an important part of that symbiosis. It was our job to take part in ways beneficial to ourselves, and others, to build and improve. She took delight in molding and shaping young lives, and was very good at it. It was a marvel to watch. Unfortunately, during her hours off the clock, she also had a dark side. She was drawn to rebel outlaws, but as a molder and shaper, wanting to change, reshape, and repurpose them, yet still have them be outlaws. Exemplars of cognitive dissonance. As many tragic figures have discovered, you cannot be both. To preserve sanity, cognitive dissonance must resolve. But, from our doomed Shakespearean relationship, I managed to salvage the one life changing nugget: The worldview of humanity as an ecology system. It works so much better than the old hierarchical system we learned from HWA, because even in its flawed state today, it still reflects the designs and purpose of God. It is a place in which we can flourish and grow just as do the plants and animals. It's even Biblical. The proverbial Good Shepherd was a master of ecology.
“ (I never heard HWA criticize or correct the ministry. He probably would never do that in front of church trash. I am not sure what he did behind closed doors.”
ReplyDeleteIt might help if one were to do some real research. There was/is ? A video on YouTube where HWA publicly criticizes the ministry. Even saying most were not converted and should never have been ordained.
Seems it is more important to criticize what one doesn’t know a thing about, than to do the required research and present real facts.
Just sayin’.
Mere mention of the three members of the deity can often trigger powerful memories, and Krischan certainly evoked one of them. I was in the parking lot of a supermarket one Sunday, years ago, about mid day, when I suddenly heard some gospel music coming from somebody's car stereo, and believe me, it was loud, at concert volume, as some ex-member readers who actually have been brave enough to go to rock concerts will understand. When the car finally came into view, the driver, a pretty lady of color could no longer help herself! As she emerged from the car, the door still open, she began dancing. But, it wasn't sexy dancing, it was church dancing! Once or twice, she tried to get back in the car, but she obviously had that compelling Holy Spirit buzz still going on, left over from church services, and continued to dance. It was perfectly magnetic, but I did not approach her because I realized what was happening. This was a form of prayer, and I did not want to break her concentration or interrupt her prayer. Best I could do was to continue the mood was to crank up my best of Wilson Pickett CD when I got home!
ReplyDeleteAnybody from Pasadena in the '60s knows that the Press, Imperial Gymnasium, and Transportation Dept. were all part of HWA's "urban renewal" program. He had built them in what had formerly been a ghetto area, the 'hood, just east of the AC Campus. There was an old brick church across the street from the Press, with a predominantly black congregation, and when some of us pulled overtime on Sundays, making sure you guys' Plain Truths and Tomorrows' Worlds got printed, bound, and mailed, I discovered that right about ten o'clock break time, I could catch part of the musical portion of the services, and it was awesome! This was before the Blues Brothers movie came out and exposed gospel music more widely to white people.
I believe that there have been many Christians over the years who understood things that we Armstrongites missed out on, and couldn't even begin to fathom. And this praise music was part of that! Anyhoo, don't die wondering! Go to you tube and check out Sister Rosetta Tharpe! She plays that old white Gibson SG of hers in ways that put many acclaimed rock guitarists to shame!
10.20, it's not as simple as you claim. HWAs church leaders often used hedging remarks, the equivalent of an insurance policy. Meaning that they would state a truth to morally cover themselves, and then swamp that truth by frequently stating the opposite. It's an abusive cult ploy.
ReplyDeleteSo the odd comment by HWA is meaningless unless one considers all that he taught and how frequently he repeated any point.
What was Paul learning from Jesus when he was in Arabia for three years prior to meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem? The same things that Moses learned on Mt. Sinai. How a group were to live together and how they were to worship God.
ReplyDeleteWho wrote more about the leadership of the church, the organization of the church, who appointed elders to the church, format of worship service, etc. than any other apostle? Paul. Hmm. Sounds as if Paul was taught How to live as God's People and How to organize a church and Worship God from Jesus, much like Moses did years earlier.
Paul urged the church members to recognize leaders from within their groups. Churches were independent. Churches were led by a plurality of elders, not one dictator. Every member had a gift and a ministry within the congregation. The role of deacons, the role of elders, the meaning of the Lord's Supper, etc. were spoken of more by Paul than any apostle. Armstrong chose to have a top-down structure with him in total control because that was what he wanted, not what Scripture taught.
Hierarchy is the antithesis of what Christ taught about leadership within his Church. He taught his disciples that the humility of children was his standard (Matthew 18:1-4). Jesus also said that his disciples should eschew titles, and that "the greatest among you must be a servant" (Matthew 23:8-12). Finally, when his disciples were squabbling among themselves about leadership, Christ told them: "You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must become your slave. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28)
ReplyDeleteThe human concept of leadership which stresses authority and hierarchy is anathema to God. In Scripture, this model is equated with ALL of the great human empires and is epitomized in prophecy as Babylon! In other words, the very thing which God's Kingdom means to exterminate and replace!
10:20 "It might help if one were to do some real research."
ReplyDeleteMy research essentially consist of 30 years as an avid member of the WCG. Some of this experience is supported by documentation and some of it is not. There is nothing about hierarchy being the principal education of Ambassador College but I know that is true. I can make a highly credible argument. So use of documentation is not the only research methodology.
I float some credible data for which I have no ready documentation and no time to research to see if someone knows of some documentation somewhere to support the data. Thank you that you supplied the data about HWA criticizing the ministry. In thirty years, I never heard him do such a thing. I would like to know more about the circumstances. If you can find the material please post how to find it in a comment.
Krischan
I see the concept of respect is completely left out of this article. Doesn't surprise me in the least.
ReplyDeleteThe opposite of idolatry of hirearchy is character. It's always a question of character, always has been and always will be.
6:12 "Sorry, but most of this is nonsense. Of course, none of you know, and bring up the real problems."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but you seem to be asking for a black and white world. Lots of luck. I labelled my essay an "opinion piece." Would it have been more credible to have labelled it an "essay?" I am open to the fact that I might be wrong and would certain consider alternative views. But you have offered nothing substantive as a counterpoint. If I have trodden on your Armstrongist toes, that is what I intended to do. But my hope was to get a well reasoned response not inanity.
Krischan
It is a valid claim that there are Christian, Trinitarian denominations out there that also have been mesermerized by hierachy. The particular species of hierarchy that we find in Armstrongism is autocratic. I believe this is the worst of the worst. It is one person making all the decisions. That one, autocratic person represents a failure point. The one person model can work if the one person is God and not a fallible human being. Better the idea that in the multitude of counselors is wisdom. HWA cited the multitude of counselors principle but one has doubts about how he applied it. HWA stated that he made the final decisions. Were the counselors a genuine resource or just a rubber stamp? What would HWA's persona tell you about this?
ReplyDeleteMiller Jones cites the Biblical principles that inveigh against autocratic hierarchy. His exegetical argument is unassailable. HWA made much of the putative autocratic leadership of Peter (Let us set aside for a moment whether HWA was really and apostle and focus on the autocratic leadership element). I remember him at the pulpit in the Field House in Big Sandy saying that wherever we look in the New Testament with find "Peter, Peter, Peter" in a harsh and angry voice. Instead we find that Peter dissembled before The Circumcision Party and Paul said "But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." Can you imagine someone opposing HWA to his face? An autocratic hierarchy does not permit such appraisal. Even if Peter were Chief Apostle, it is clear from scripture that Peter was not a refractory micro-managing autocrat.
Krischan
Anon1020,
ReplyDeleteYou reference that regarding the ministry HWA said: "most were not converted and should never have been ordained."
For HWA who called WCG "the church", this is so over the top for him to say. But, what does it actually mean? Did people leave thinking the ministry are largely unconverted? Unfortunately, no. Not something they even considered...probably just something to be take as rhetorical.
Overbroad statements can easily be cast aside as just trying to make a point. Most would look at his comment and probably think this applied to those few ministers that might soon leave wcg or those with Garner Ted Armstrong or the like.
What is a real criticism is addressing a specific situation and stating the action taken by a minister/ministry and showing why it was wrong. This I never heard.
Well, unless there was a split brewing; then, a minister, evangelist, or hwa would say the very worst about a minister.
Anon1020,
ReplyDeleteYou reference that regarding the ministry HWA said: "most were not converted and should never have been ordained."
For HWA who called WCG "the church", this is so over the top for him to say. But, what does it actually mean? Did people leave thinking the ministry are largely unconverted? Unfortunately, no. Not something they even considered...probably just something to be take as rhetorical.
Overbroad statements can easily be cast aside as just trying to make a point. Most would look at his comment and probably think this applied to those few ministers that might soon leave wcg or those with Garner Ted Armstrong or the like.
What is a real criticism is addressing a specific situation and stating the action taken by a minister/ministry and showing why it was wrong. This I never heard.
Well, unless there was a split brewing; then, a minister, evangelist, or hwa would say the very worst about a minister.
I knew when I first set eyes on this opinion piece or essay that: 1) Some would not read it. 2) Practicing truth seekers would read and ponder it, because some really relevant and poignant ideas were discussed, and that 3) Those who believe that they have arrived at truth, are no longer actively searching for truth, and are now programmed to repel new information or lines of thought which differ from their beliefs would immediately erect their barriers and reject it, not because it is provably false, but because it directly conflicts with what they have been taught.
ReplyDeleteThere is another factor involved, however. For some, and I've watched this over the years, the information presented on this site has a cumulative effect on people. It is not only fun to read, but is also thought provoking, and sometimes penetrates the skulls of the most obstinate readers. Why do you think your minister forbids you to read here? Why did the ministry of classic WCG discourage members from reading "outside" literature, or getting second opinions.
The thing is, I can foresee some future discussion, in which someone asks, "So what finally made you leave Armstrongism?"
And the response might be, "Oh about five years ago I read an article by this Asian dude, Kris Chan, who explained the whole hierarchic government system, and the damage it can do when it is misapplied in Christianity. I began testing his theory by making a couple of simple changes in my life, and soon realized that it was my church's managerial style that was really suppressing and preventing all of our personal growth. It was a whole new beginning for me!"
10:20 here….
ReplyDeleteTypical responses. Lots of puffed rice and no meat.
As for taking all into account, I wish you folks would, but most seem to know the rest of the story, and certainly don’t understand what HWA actually taught.
So, first: HWA never criticized the ministry.
Response: Yes he did, big time.
Reaction: Well, an offhand remark from him means nothing.
Typical protect my biased uninformed bias at all costs.
Then comes the ad hominem, “…sorry if I stepped on your Armstrongist toes.”
Wow, that’s all you got? Yes, Rumorists have nothing but gripes, groans, and gnashing of teeth with no bite.
Did/does the WCG original, and the splinters, and HWA have problems? Of course. But most of the gripes here don’t come close to the real problems, not even close. Mostly misconceptions, distortions, personal dislikes over authority, and of course MONEY.
Be nice to hear some real fact problems, suggested corrections, and a viable alternative, and of course lots of the “Christian love, kindness, understanding, love your enemy, etc.” so often brought up here but never practiced here, not even good examples of those attributes, including low class gutter language which the Bible advises should not cross one’s lips.
Seems the kettle is no different from the pot.
But that cold all change. Maybe the “4 year Bible class” mentioned by a certain person should be taught here. Ya think?
After reading John 10:29 and 14:28 and Acts 1:8 you may want to revise your ontology.
ReplyDelete10:09
ReplyDeleteI am sorry that they played with your mind. It is the worst thing that can happen to a person. I cannot fix you. Maybe somebody can. Other people read the essay and can understand it. You can't.
Maybe if you isolate one point and state it well and explain why you support the view you have, I can make a response.
Krischan
Mein Vorname, natürlich fiktiv
10.09 AM, you claim that HWA criticized the ministry "big time." What exactly did he say? Since close to his death, he kept writing that "government is everything," it doesn't sound like he criticized them for lording it over their congregation. If he criticized them for mistreating members in any way, why didn't he, like Christ, tell his members to be on guard against church Pharisees?
ReplyDeleteLooking at the body of evidence, your claim doesn't make sense.
1:33, you just did respond. And, it said lots without saying a thing.
ReplyDeleteThe diatribe you wrote speaks for itself. Sorry if I stepped on your Rumorist toes.
By the way, my toes are fine. They stand on scripture, and personal experience by being there to see and hear, not biased, poorly informed assumptive information. Rumor mongers don’t seem to care about the truth. And,oh, they aren’t even close to “Armstrongist toes.” You assume way too much my friend. Try getting your facts right for a change, it’s quite up lifting.
Oh, if HWA was so bad as you try to make out, how in the world could such a rotten person build and maintain a multimillion dollar entity on his own. If the folks here are so perfect would just one of you step up and do the same for us to see.
There are too many things here that are conveniently left out in order to continue these witch-hunt diatribes that are so mentally stimulating to lovers of rumors. Rumorists all?
Maybe I will make a list of those things never considered here. Or,…. Nah, that would be too easy for the “don’t have time to research “ excusers.
Truth will always win out. Sometimes it isn’t pretty.
All is well… just keep looking.
You people are hopelessly confused. Most people just rationalize what they want to believe.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts exactly, very confused people here. It's the simplicity that is carefully concealed in the Christ. Not the confusion you have here.
Delete11:35
ReplyDeleteThe answer is "No, I do not want to change my statement on ontology." For the following reasons:
The way that Arianists (Zum Beispiel, the early Church of God Seventh Day) and Armstrongists retain the concepts of hierarchy and the subordination of Jesus is to ideologically keep Jesus imprisoned inside of Kenosis. John 10:29 is one of the scripture used in this approach. When Jesus spoke this he had emptied himself of his glory to become one of us (Philippians 2:6-7). And he was glorified, re-glorified if you will, after his resurrection and the condition of Kenosis was reversed. As Christ said, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Further, in Philippians 2 Paul states in v. 6 "who, though he was in the form of God did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." He willing and temporarily gave up his equality with God. But Armstrongists, in order to preserve their dedication to autocratic hierarchy, keep Jesus locked up inside of Kenosis. In so doing, they deny the God who brought salvation.
As for the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:8, I think you are saying the Holy Spirit is to be equated with a “power” rather than being a personal being. In Matthew 26:64, this same term is used to refer to God the Father. Does this make him and impersonal force? The Holy Spirit “intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.” A non-sentient, impersonal force cannot intercede for anyone.
This is Christology 101. It is not difficult to link the chain of events together to show that Jesus pre-existed as God, through Kenosis he made himself able to be sacrificed and at his resurrection he was glorified again. For some reason, HWA could not do this. The scriptures that support Arianism are the ones that pertain to the Kenosis stage. This is a theme throughoutMillerism. Why the Millerites found this non-exegetical state of affairs so comfortable, one can only guess.
Beste Grüße,
Krischan
There are MANY statements by Herbert Armstrong that support Krischan's assertion that he instituted an authoritarian and hierarchical government within the old Worldwide Church of God. Let this excerpt from the "Good News" Magazine of September 1979 serve as an example of that government in action:
ReplyDeleteWhen the massive invasion by the state of California struck the Church on Jan. 3, Wayne Cole and David Antion called me on a telephone conference call - with both of them on the phone. They raised their voices to me, DEMANDING that I fire Stanley Rader and allow the attorney who brought this evil suit against us to select our defense attorney. This was the last straw. I immediately disfellowshipped both from the Church. It has developed also what I felt sure of - Wayne Cole was "IN" on this whole conspiracy to bring on the unconstitutional attack by the state of California. Only he kept his name out of it.
In the emergency, I set Roderick Meredith as head of the ministry until I could decide how to eliminate this POWER BLOC by having a man as "head of the ministry" - which is virtually the same as being head of the Church and the entire Work. Such an office simply does not belong in God's Church.
Therefore I am ABOLISHING that office entirely, Christ's apostle is the human head over the ministry and MUST NOT BE CUT OFF FROM THE MINISTERS! Mr. Meredith is being transferred back as dean of the faculty of Ambassador College.
5:05
ReplyDelete"Oh, if HWA was so bad as you try to make out, how in the world could such a rotten person build and maintain a multimillion dollar entity on his own."
Do you live in a fantasy land where saints, honest people, and holy men run all the multimillion dollar entities in the world? Which splinter cult are you in charge of? PKG? CCOG? COGE? RCG?
Exactly. Bernie Madoff ran a 64 billion dollar entity on his own.
ReplyDeleteWRONG!
ReplyDeleteThis post has NOTHING to do with Madoff. Just more crap to take away from article.
10.10 pm, had you read the above post, my Madoff reference was to the claim that "how in the world could such a rotten person build and maintain a multimillion dollar entity on his own." People responding to the previous post in this way is common on this blog. Think before you lash out.
ReplyDeleteI think that the quote Lonnie shared from the Good News illustrates HWA's evil perfectly. I almost felt as if I was reading Trump's description of the FBI's visit to and search of Mar a Lago.
ReplyDeleteThe Holy Spirit could not be given until Jesus was re-glorified after His physical earthy visit, which indicates the Holy Spirit was not a separate being - John 7:39.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 11:13:00 AM PDT,
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean that Jesus could not be a separate being because he had to be born as a human and die for our sins? (Hebrews 2:14-18) Does that mean that the Father cannot be a separate entity because we couldn't be reconciled to him until Christ accomplished what he did? (II Corinthians 5:19) In other words, doesn't Scripture indicate that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit operate together and are essential to our connection to all three of them?
Have you ever wondered why the majority of the Christian community embraces the trinity? Do you think that this doctrine was invented out of thin air? This has been the standard of the Christian community for most of the last two thousand years for a reason. Check out these passages: II Corinthians 13:14 - The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 10:30 - I and my Father are one.
Colossians 2:9 - For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Matthew 3:16-17 - And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
John 14:26 - But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Since the Trinity doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies, I would say it is suspect at best, regardless of who believes in it now. Besides, I'm not a big fan of "majority" rules!
ReplyDeleteAlso Lonnie, most of your scriptural references listed would also support a binitarian view of the Godhead!
11:13
ReplyDeleteJohn 7:39 refers to the fact that the Holy Spirit was not given in the way that results in Christian conversion or the indwelling presence of the Spirit until the glorification of Jesus. This observation alone does not demonstrate that the Spirit was or was not a personal being. The statement in John 7:39 could be true in either case. Since the statement is indeterminate, it is necessary to call upon more Biblical data.
It is not easy to exegete the nature of the Holy Spirit. The controversy centers on whether certain language describing the Holy Spirit is literal or metaphorical. The Holy Spirit has always been a problem to people who see God as a hierarchy. The hierarchists have a ready relationship between Father and Son, superordinate to subordinate, to support their view. But what do you do with the Holy Spirit. If he is a Person, then there are no clear hierarchical relationships about this Person provided in scripture. The Holy Spirit is a kind of free agent. The hierarchists don't know where he fits. And it suggests that hierarchism is not a valid description of God. So it is easier to develop a theology that casts the Holy Spirit as a force or power in order to retain hierarchy. But then you are left with all those scriptures that indicate that the Holy Spirit is a sentient being and carries out functions that are God functions.
The question we should really ask ourselves is "Why is hierarchy so important to some people?" Do they represent a certain kind of larger viewpoint? In fact, most of the people who have issues with the Personhood of the Holy Spirit are to be found in churches that began with the Restorationist Movement - Armstrongists, Christadelphians, Mormons and Russellites. There is something more to this than a flawed exegesis.
Krischan
Look. We know two things for certain. One is that it is impossible for humans to comprehend God in totality. We're limited, like the three blind men attempting to perceive an elephant, based on their remaining senses. Alright?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, there are three elements of God consistently mentioned throughout the Bible: Father God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, or Spirit. Do the math! Unitarian, binitarian, and trinitarian are human words and concepts coined in an attempt to describe the unfathomable nature of God! You cannot derive an absolute, fundamentalist construct or concept which perfectly explains the nature of God and becomes a standard for salvation from the sparse words of the Bible! If you think you can, and judge others by it, I'm sorry, you are lost!
There seem to be three basic types of Christian churches. There are those based on Father God, emphasizing the Torah. There are those emphasizing the Holy Spirit (Pentecostal). And there are those devoted to Jesus Christ. (Savior). I'm not saying this is right! It's what man did in his limited understanding! Jesus taught the unity of the members of the deity, not that we should pick one of the three and worship them!
Armstrongism was puffed up about their understanding and used it to judge and invalidate all other believers on the planet. Is this Christlike, or something that Jesus would do? Call the trinity pagan? Label the source of most of the founding beliefs as Sardis? dead). Imdin't think so!!!
"My Father is greater than I" -- Jesus, the SON of the FATHER. Hierarchy.
ReplyDelete8:37
ReplyDeleteYour statment is nothing more than a sound bite. It is like the many sound bites that come from the Armstrongist pulpit. The sound bites are based on the abbreviated booklet theology of Armstrongism. HWA, who prided himself as an advertising executive, seems to have concocted a theology, using Millerite theology as raw mataerial, of sloganeering.
"My Father is greater than I" is a statement made by Jesus during the period of his Kenosis (see my earlier statements). Such statements are used by Arianist Millerites to debase the role of Jesus. They imprison Jesus inside of Kenosis so they can pursue the notion of hierarchy for reasons other than theology. They ignore the scriptures that speak of Jesus' equality with God and his re-glorification.
God is hierarchical in economy but not in ontology. If you mind goes blank on this, understand it this way: The three Persons are equal in who they are but are hierarchical in what they do. This is what the church should be. Everyone important and a child of God but with different duties and sometimes these duties work best within a hierarchy. The grave error is made when the hierarchy of doing things and interpersonal connections is forced to also serve as a hierarchy of human worth. To wit, this is the error that Armstrongism has made along with other denominations enamored of hierarchy.
This seems to be something that Armstrongists have inordinate difficulty understanding. You make the argument in detail and they come back with a shallow, ill-considered sound bite.
Krischan
We've had that discussion before, 8:37. What do we know about the Savior? He surrendered his "Godhood" to be born on planet Earth, live as a human being (subservient to Father God), to die for mankind's sins, and to rise from the dead and regain His original status along with Father God. At the time Jesus made that statement, it was His statement regarding then current status.
ReplyDeleteSo David Antion and Cole raised their voices and disagreed with HWA, and HWA felt comfortable letting everyone know this is all the grounds he needs to abruptly disfellowship someone. The teaching at that time would indicate that those two were now headed to the Lake of Fire.
ReplyDeleteWhere were you Internet back in the 70s and 80s? You would have kept my family from entering the door of the WCG.
You are quite correct Krischan, in the Church our only difference should be that of function, not status. Even Armstrong's favorite hierarchical proof text brings this out:
ReplyDeleteEphesians 4:11-12
And He gave some apostles, prophets, etc. FOR THE PERFECTING OF THE SAINTS FOR THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY.
The comma distorts this in the KJV, but most other translations render this accurately. The NASB says, "for the equipping of the saints for the work of service".
This failure in responsibility is one of the major reasons the Armstrong movement is dying out!
Wisdom - A sentient being?
ReplyDeletePr 20:1 Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise.
Pr 1:20 Wisdom crieth without; SHE uttereth HER voice in the streets:
Pr 7:4 Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy kinswoman:
“Personification, a literary device that attributes personal characteristics to an entity that is not a person is no stranger to the Bible... But the personification of Woman Wisdom in unique...” (Robert E. Murphy, Proverbs, UBCS, p.11).
Pr 1:21 She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
Pr 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
“She begins her sermon with an urgent appeal to the gullible to stop rejecting her and to respond to the stern rebuke she is about to given them...” (Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs Chapters 1-15, NICOT, p.202).
“This passage [1:2–33] is the first of many in which wisdom is personified; the most far-reaching of these is chapter 8...” (Derek Kidner, Proverbs, TOTC, p.60).
Pr 8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
Pr 8:22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;
Pr 8:23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. (NIV).
“Here is wisdom’s prime credential, presented with wonderful artistry.
“First, wisdom is what Yahweh as Creator counted primary and indispensable. Second, wisdom is both older than the universe, and fundamental to it. Not a speck of matter (26b), not a trace of order (29), came into existence but by wisdom. Third, wisdom is the spring of joy, for joy breaks out whenever (3) and wherever (31) the Creator’s wisdom is exercised. Joy of creating and joy of existence - the Maker’s and the creature’s delight - both flow from the exercise of divine wisdom; that is, from God’s perfect workmanship.
“The important and keenly-debated question arise: Is wisdom here conceived as a hypostasis (i.e. an actual heavenly being) or as a personification (i.e. an abstraction, made personal for the stake of poetic vividness)?
"To the present writer, the context points to the latter. Not only does the next chapter proceed immediately to a fresh portrait of wisdom, in a new guise (as a great lady (9:1-6) whose rival (13-18) is certainly no hypostasis)...” (Derek Kidner, Proverbs, TOTC, pp.78-79).
Pr 9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:
Pr 9:2 She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table.
Pr 9:3 She hath sent forth her maidens; she crieth upon the highest places of the city,
Pr 9:4 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,
Pr 9:5 Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.
Pr 9:6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.
Pr 9:13 The woman Folly is loud; she is undisciplined and without knowledge.
Pr 9:14 She sits at the door of her house, on a seat at the highest point of the city,
Pr 9:15 calling out to those who pass by, who go straight on their way.
Pr 9:16 “Let all who are simple come in here!” she says to those who lack judgment.
Pr 9:17 “Stolen water is sweet; food eaten in secret is delicious!”
Pr 9:18 But little do they know that the dead are there, that her guests are in the depths of the grave.
“In a strikingly symmetrical chapter the first and last six verse describe the rival feasts of wisdom and folly (note the almost identical 4 and 16), while the centrepiece (7-12) gives character-sketches of typical products of those opposing camps: the scoffer, with his closed mind, and the wise man, ever teachable and even progressing” (Derek Kidner, Proverbs, TOTC, p.81).
1:47
ReplyDeleteSorry, I am getting to this late.
Point taken. The Bible is replete with allegory, replete with metaphor. It is the bane of Biblical literalists who find themselves having to continually make decisions about what is literal and what is figurative. Wisdom is personified in Proverbs. Could then the Holy Spirit as a sentient being in the New Testament just be a personification? The answer of course is "No."
While arguments about literary devices could be made, the fact remains that in the Old Testament Wisdom is sometimes spoken of literally and other times metaphorically. And in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is spoken of literally and sometimes metaphorically. Which is the literal characterization and which is the metaphorical? Energy or Being? So how do we sort this out?
First, it is worthwhile to note that those who favor the idea that the Holy Spirit is an energy that is sometimes personified as a sentient being offer no arguments to support this. They essentially point out that there are two views and they have decided to support the Holy Spirit as energy view. Then they recruit as support oddities such as the number three is pagan. Or the idea that three Persons is a closed set and two Persons is an extensible set. This is extraneous malarkey because they cannot cogently exegete the idea that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal energy. They have apophatic statements but no cataphatic support.
A compelling argument against the Holy Spirit as energy is a simple one. There is what is called Triadic Formulae in the New Testament. Matthew 28:18 is an explicit example. Why would the NT authors list the Holy Spirit as syntactically equal with the Father and the Son if he were not a sentient being? Isn't that a mishandling of the truth - perhaps, bordering on blasphemy. Kind of a like saying Father, Son and my dog Rover? From context, the Triads are clearly non-metaphorical. Their description of God is literal and not lyrical – ontological and not the liturgical metaphor like the Wisdom Literature of Proverbs.
Lob für Vater, Sohn und Heiligen Geist
Krischan
Part 1
ReplyDeleteThanks Krischan, aka NEO, for your reply.
Looks like we will once again have to agree to disagree.
Just some thoughts.
“... the Bible is an ancient book and makes sense if we look at it in ancient ways” (Peter Enns, The Bible tells me so, p.18).
“In my opinion, the grammatical-historical approach to reading Scripture has its limits, partly because it does not account for the non-grammatical-historical way Paul handles his own Bible (see chap. 6 above)” (Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam, p.188).
"The prophetic charge [Ezekiel 43:10-11] consists of a series of clauses whose sense is not always clear and whose arrangement is certainly not logical by Western standards" (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, NICOT, p.587).
You ask:
“Why would the NT authors list the Holy Spirit as syntactically equal with the Father and the Son if he were not a sentient being? Isn't that a mishandling of the truth...”
DW wrote in another post:
“I would think Jesus would have instead told them to baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit.”
If the Bible was written using modern-western thoughtforms these may be valid supports, but as it is written in ancient near-Easter thoughtforms, these comments may be not be relevant to the argument - what may be a strange concept to the Western mind, may be normative to the Hebraic mind.
Also in regard to “mishandling the truth” the NT authors using Second Temple Exegesis in their midrashic handling of the OT would, by today’s standards, be guilty. (See Peter Enns comment on the midrashic exegesis of “seed” in the “Three Views of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament”, pp.180-85, for an example).
Ac 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Ac 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (Cp. 2:38; 10:48; 19:5; Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27).
"Most students of the Bible know that one of the great distinguishing doctrines of the Christian church - the Trinity - is never explicitly taught in the Bible. The famous formulation about God as the "three in one," three persons within a single Godhead, is not found in the Scripture. The closest we get are formulations such as Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands his disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" " (Douglas Moo, Romans, NIVAC, p.255).
"The triple formula containing Father (or God), Son (or Christ), and Spirit occurs frequently in the NT (cf. 1 Cor 12:4-6; 2 Cor 13:14; Eph 4:4-4-6; 2 Thess 2:13-14; 1 Pet 1:2; Rev 1:4-5. Individually these text do not prove there is any Trinitarian consciousness in the NT, since other threefold phrase occur (e.g., "God and Christ and the elect angels," 1 Tim 5:21). But contributing evidence makes it difficult to deny the presence of Trinitarian thought in NT documents..." (D.A. Carson, Matthew, EBC, Vol. 8, p.598).
(Donald Carson’s example of the three fold phrase including angels is not that convincing).
"Why, then, does the Christian church hold this doctrine? Because we are convinced that the Trinitarian formulation is the only way to do justice to what the entire Bible teaches about God: Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit..." (Douglas Moo, Romans, NIVAC, p.256).
Part 2
ReplyDeleteRev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Rev 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
Rev 7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,
Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Eph 1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
(cp. Rom 1:7-8; 1 Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Php 1:2; 1 Th 1:1; 2 Th 1:1-2; 1 Tim 1:1-2; 2 Ti: 1-2; Titus 1:4; Phm 1:3).
(cp. also; Jn 17:3; Ac 7:55-56; 1 Jn 1:3; Rev 5:13b; 7:10; 11:15b; 20:6b; 21:22-23; 22:1, 3).
While there are ‘triadic formulae,’ which are used to support a Trinity, the absence of the Holy Spirit in so many places, where one would expect the HS to be included, at least from a modern-Western perspective, suggests that there is another explanation than for a ‘Trinity’ interpretation.
Jn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her ... go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto ... to my God, and your God.
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel, The Lord [Kyrios] our God (Theos) is one Lord (Kyrios). (Brenton, LXX)
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God [Theos], the Father... and one Lord [Kyrios] Jesus Christ...
"[Paul] has kept the "one" intact, but has divided the Shema into two parts, with theos (God) now referring to the Father, and kurios (Lord) referring to Jesus Christ... [Paul] is reasserting for the Corinthians that ... there is indeed only one God... but at the same time, he insists that the identity of the one God also includes the one Lord..." (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp.90-91).
No room for the HS in the shema.
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
"God becomes "our Father" through the gift of the Holy Spirit, whom Paul explicitly identifies in Gal 4:6 as "the Spirit of the Son," whom God sent "into out hearts" and who is thus responsible for crying out to God the Father in the language of the Son ("Abba")" (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp.37-39).
(Even after making the above comments Gordon Fee still argues for a Trinity; see pp.586-593).
But, as John would say, “Time will tell”.
12:45
ReplyDeleteIs there an incontrovertible way that this can be resolved? Probably not. You can cite scriptures that portray the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force. I can cite scriptures that portray the Holy Spirit as a Person. Do we take a count of scriptures and proclaim the winner based on the biggest count? This kind of sophistry would cause neither of us to budge from our viewpoints. The scripture does not lend us much help semantically. Often we do not know if Paul is referring to spirit with a little “s” or Spirit capital “S” – the former referring to God’s motivations and attitude and the latter referring to a Person. The Bible gives us no gloss so we must mostly infer from context. We cannot appeal to Church History because there all kinds of minority views scattered throughout Christianity. I hold some ancient but minority views.
I will lay out two more arguments and then I will be done. Ahead of time: I do not foresee ever believing the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force – a tool like a divine “tractor beam”. So, here goes:
1. God is absolute. He spoke the heavens and the earth into existence. He does not need a divine tractor beam to accomplish things. If he wants you to leap tall buildings, you will leap tall buildings. He does not need to dispatch an energy to a remote location to accomplish this. He does not need to control reality with the aid of a force; he creates reality - generates it ex nihilo. This means that all the language in scripture that uses terms from the physical universe (“pour out”, etc.) to speak about the spirit is allegorical.
2. Citing scriptures that seem like they should include the Holy spirit but they do not is an apophatic argument. It is like the glib argument of atheists when they state “I looked for God and did not see him so he doesn’t exist.” Maybe their Looking Methodology is flawed or presumptive. The apophatic arguments do not have the weight of cataphatic arguments. The existence of Triadic Formulae is cataphatic. They are declarative statements of a relationship between three subjects who are syntactically equal. While your cataphatic argument may or may not have cogency, the cataphatic statements certainly do. Any renunciation of the Personhood of the Holy Spirit must rationally dissolve these cataphatic Triads.
Krischan
The next-to-last sentence of my 7:45 post should have read:
ReplyDelete"While your APOPHATIC argument may or may not have cogency, the cataphatic statements certainly do." (All caps just used to point out the change in text.)
Also under point 1 of that same comment, I would add:
While the language used in scripture that portrays the Holy Spirit using physical processes is allegorical the language referring to the Holy Spirt is not allegorical. God would not construct a Triad using Father, Son and Holy Spirit that consists of two real, literal Persons plus a metaphor. While metaphor is used liberally in scripture, it is intended to elucidate and not confuse.
Krischan
Hi Krischan NEO.
ReplyDelete“The important consideration was the account given of Melchizedek in holy writ; to him the silences of Scripture were as much due to divine inspiration as were its statements” (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, p.160).
You write:
“The apophatic arguments do not have the weight of cataphatic arguments.”
I would suggest that those steeped in Second Temple Exegesis would not agree with your statement.
But:
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
I hope I am using these terms correctly. I don’t really understand your use of these terms. For me 1 Cor 8:16 and Mt 28:19 are both cataphatic statements.
It would be good, as a good Krischan, if you could be like the apostle Paul (cp. 1 Co 9:20-22); for a non-academic these words are not part of my vocabulary.
Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.
I quoted this above:
Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Rev 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
Rev 7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,
In Revelation 7 John sees in vision God, the Lamb, the elders, the four beasts and the saints. But no mention of the HS.
You write:
“It is like the glib argument of atheists when they state "I looked for God and did not see him so he doesn't exist."
Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
"And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal" - from the Athanasian Creed.
I disagree with your comment.
I think that the silences concerning the HS raise valid questions about the “personhood” of the HS, especially if one accepts the Athanasian Creed; the HS sure does not get co-billing.
Ro 8:9a But ye are ... in the Spirit,
Rom 8:9b if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you
Rom 8:9(c) ... if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you...
Rom 8:9 (b) if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you
In Romans 8:9-10 the Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, and Christ are used interchangeably.
Ro 8:15b but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Eph 1:3a BLESSED BE THE GOD and Father OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
2Co 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
"... John quotes 2 Samuel 7:14 but modifies the wording to suit his theological purpose... Notice that he replaces the word father with God, because in Jesus Christ God has adopted us as his sons and daughters and made us members of his family (compare 2 Cor. 6:18)" (Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation, NTC, p.560).
Part 2
ReplyDelete"... when John transfers the messianic formula from Christ to Christ's bride, he also changes the idiom for God, from "Father" to "God," in order to retain his conviction that Jesus is the "only begotten Son of God" (cf. John 1:17-18)..." (Robert H. Wall, Revelation, NIBC, p.248).
Jn 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name... (J. Ramsay Michaels).
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father
"God becomes "our Father" through the gift of the Holy Spirit, whom Paul explicitly identifies in Gal 4:6 as "the Spirit of the Son," whom God sent "into out hearts" and who is thus responsible for crying out to God the Father in the language of the Son ("Abba")" (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp.37-39).
Ge 48:5 And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh ... are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine.
Ephraim and Manasseh became sons of Jacob through Joseph, the son of Jacob.
The Saints become sons of God through Jesus, the Son of God.
For me, there are too many instances of Father/Son statements to accept the HS is co-equal with Jesus and His God, and our God (John 20:17).
“On the other hand, perhaps biblical writers sometimes use personal references to the Spirit in a personifying way for what they actually regarded as the power or presence of God - as they do elsewhere for Gods's name, hand glory, face, finger, wisdom and word" (C. Plantinga, Jr., “Trinity,” ISBE, Vol.4, p.916).
But as John says, "Time will tell".
Note:
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
“For Paul, it seems, sonship and receiving the Spirit are so intimately related that one can speak of them in either order..., with only the circumstances of a particular audience, the issue being confronted, or the discussion that precedes determining the order to be used at any given time. So in 3:2-5 Paul begins his probatio by reminding his converts of their experiences as recipients of the Spirit in order to lead them on to the climax of his argument as to their status as “sons of God” (3:26), with the conclusion being that they are therefore “Abraham’s seed” and heirs of the promise given to Abraham (3:29). In vv 6-7, however, though building to the same conclusion, Paul is working from a Christological confession of the church and so speaks of sonship as the basis for God’s gift of the Spirit” (Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC, p.173).