At a first glance, Armstrong seems to have an orthodox concept of God. However, he declares the doctrine of the trinity to be pagan and teaches instead that “God is a family, a kingdom, NOT a limited trinity”. This family consists currently only of God the Father and the God of Abraham, who later became Jesus Christ, the son of God. But God’s intent, Armstrong teaches, is to reproduce himself. All children of God will eventually become God as well, who “will counsel and advise our Creator”. This is very close to what the eternal progression in Mormonism expresses but it goes to an even greater extreme. Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God
What a glorious time it will be when the Kingdom of God gets here! Only true Church of God members will instantly become God by some magic event that never really gets thought through by most in the church, let alone its leadership.
The scenario goes like this. Endlessly being persecuted, the true church members will flee to Petra to receive final training for 3 1/2 years so that when they become God so they can rule with rods of iron while dishing out a little mercy here and there along the way.
When that magical kingdom arrives, the greatest of the church leaders will sit at Jesus' right hand (like Herbert Armstrong, Garner Ted, Bob Thiel, Dave Pack, Rod Meredith, and Gerald Flurry).
Lesser COG members will be part of the hierarchical God structure ruling over galaxies, worlds, planets, cities, and nations while under the control of men like Abraham, David, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and others.
Of course, none of these will be women as it is an established fact in Armstrongism that women cannot rule. Even though they will become God just like the manly men, their womanly god parts will not allow them to be in charge unless it is overseeing things like bakeries, restaurants, and home interior decorating ministries, as all real COG women know their place was in the kitchen and keeping their home looking nice for their soon to be God husbands.
That all sounds glorious to church members who have always been the lesser than's of society where they have lived on the fringes. Becoming greater than their enemies, high school rivals, bitter relatives, and nasty neighbors were going to be the ultimate reward!
But the niggling question remains, WHEN will all of those chosen humans in Petra become God? Will they receive power as humans when the 3 1/2 years are up?
Will they be instantly transformed into God at the snap of God the Father's fingers or Jesus's?
Will they instantly die and be resurrected as God's in "the twinkling of an eye"? If that is what happens then what is the point in having God the Father around anymore since the likes of Bob Thiel, Gerald Flurry, Ron Weinland, and James Malm would be on equal footing? What is the point of Jesus and the Holy Spirit?
Or, will they be translated into some kind of superhuman because they did not die? Herbert Armstrong said, "No human will be given any government office." They must be a divine being or God as God is.
Armstrongism makes no sense when you really get into it. But, I am sure many will say otherwise...
27 comments:
John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
By this verse, it is unclear what we will be. It does not say God's. It says we will be like Him, because we will be able to set our eyes on Him. This simply means a spirit that does not burn up when we look upon an all consuming fire.
Hwa having died, and in his time, been resurrected as God himself already, is probably counseling God at this very moment about how 1975 actually would have been the best year to wrap things up
Religion want to Anthropomorphic God, then layer it with Humanism, but in a good Godly way; the old WWG used this method, it help to control membership and doctrine, why people say it was a cult. Promise wonderfully, give nothing. control everything.
Only eternal life was promised. There's no "God as God is God." That's just one of their delusions.
This post more a reflection of your need to be obnoxious to others NO2HWA than any truth about COG movement.
HWA has been said to be a copycat in that he got many of his beliefs from other similar groups but this doctrine of man to become "God as God is" is truly unique. An original that only can come from God's revelation. How come nobody got it? No, the Mormonism's "man to become God" is not it. I would like someone to give me a comparison of Armstrongism vs.Mormonism on this doctrine of "man to become God as God is".
One thing I could not understand - but ignored at the time - was how us humans with only a few years of human experience and none of the spirit world experience could suddenly be qualified to rule over angels who had been around for maybe hundreds of millions of years according to WCG theology of an old earth.
Anyone who really wants to talk people out of Armstrongism, has to stop misrepresenting what they teach. No Armstrongist will fall for it.
I say OTHERWISE
“If that is what happens then what is the point in having God the Father around anymore since the likes of Bob Thiel, Gerald Flurry, Ron Wienland and James Malm would be on equal footing? What is the point of Jesus and the Holy Spirit?”
Point well taken. In Christianity, the doctrine of God includes the concepts of ontology and economy. In short, ontology is the being of God in its essence and economy refers to roles and responsibilities. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal in ontology but differ in economy. In this understanding, humans will never be co-equal with God in ontology – we are not uncreated beings, for instance. We will always be the created children of God.
Armstrongism, however, has a different theory of God. Humans are to be God as God is God. This means that resurrected humans will be co-equal with God in ontology but different and lesser in economy. This means that resurrected humans belong to the same class as God – but will not possess the same degree of power and authority. God and Jesus will always be at the top of the organizational pyramid. In believing that resurrected humans are the same category as God ontologically, Armstrongists err.
This error in ontology leads to some of the hallmark beliefs in the Armstrongist doctrine of God. First, they believe in Subordinationism – they believe that Jesus is god but that he is deuteros theos – a secondary kind of god. Jesus is not co-equal with God with no distinction made between ontology and economy. Second, they believe in the anthropomorphic language of the OT so they believe that God is humaniform. We will be in our resurrected form just like God – of the same category – God will just be more powerful than us. Its like the big kid on the block is just like all the little guys, he is just bigger and so gets his way. This reductionism applied to God, making God to be in our image, makes the idea of God-as-God-is-God seem attainable for humans. They can be just like the big kid – maybe so close to being like God, it’s not worth mentioning – perhaps, differing in only a quarter of inch in height. This is a classical example of the presumptuous sin that David refers to in Psalm 19:13. Hallmark number three is that Armstrongists are the only religious people I know of who become angry if you speak praise of God as being transcendent, absolute and uncreated.
If you find what I have written to be hopelessly confusing and it seems like the Armstrongist doctrine is just as valid as the Christian doctrine, you are seriously on the wrong track concerning the doctrine of God and need to do the necessary study.
Rider
One of the problems with HWA and the WCG was that they had the need to have the answers to, and also know EVERYTHING! Whether it was medicine, or history, or eduction, relationships, the future, when the return of Christ will be and in all aspects and every other aspect of the human experience.
The Bible says that the Kingdom of God will be great, and that we will have eternal bodies/existence. As far as to who has what role or position, and other details on how the whole system functions , we are only let in for a glimpse.
It is ok to say on many topics, both secular and Biblically, that we "simply dont know". However, in a perfectionist legalistic environment, like the WCG was, to admit "not knowing" would be a threat to the exclusiveness of the apostle and his surrounding oligarchy, and would allows cracks of the file and control aspects of the whole cult.
Anonymous 6:27 wrote, "Anyone who really wants to talk people out of Armstrongism, has to stop misrepresenting what they teach. No Armstrongist will fall for it."
OK. Bring it. You tell me what Armstrongists teach and I'll give you a response. Hint: I know already.
Rider
"I would like someone to give me a comparison of Armstrongism vs. Mormonism on this doctrine of "man to become God as God is"."
Well, aren't you the lazy researcher! Obviously you realize that many of us here do research, have done a lot of research, and we share it here amongst ourselves, and sometimes in other places. So, you expect one of us to go to our computer, pull a previously prepared paper and share it on request, for your benefit. If you believe that such a paper would be beneficial, why don't you shift your mind into neutral, literally not caring what the final conclusion might be, do the research and let the facts lead you along the evidentiary trail, presenting them here for comment?
I will give you credit for a certain amount of thirst for knowledge. At least you are not one of those who comes here to correct us with Armstrongism. But, come on! Get into the spirit of things! You want some research? Take the time and do it yourself. Give back to a site that gives so much to everyone who comes here!
One thing I could not understand - but ignored at the time - was how us humans with only a few years of human experience and none of the spirit world experience could suddenly be qualified to rule over angels who had been around for maybe hundreds of millions of years according to WCG theology of an old earth.
That's easy. It's for the same reason that a 23 year old Ambassador College graduate was qualified to rule over congregation members who had been in the faith for 60+ years.
Anonymous 2:18 wrote, "Only eternal life was promised. There's no "God as God is God." That's just one of their delusions."
While I agree with your evaluation of Armstrongism, much more than eternal life is promised. We will be privileged to be partakers of the divine nature. In Christianity this is called Theosis or Sanctification or Deification, depending on denomination. This refers to God's blessing on us that we might have some reflection of the nature of God, like the moon reflecting the light of the sun. This glorification is apparently unique in the created realm.
But this is by no means the concept of God-as-God-is-God. If you take the scriptures that support the valid understanding of Theosis and combine them with a literal interpretation of the anthropomorphism in the OT and HWA's idiosyncratic interpretation of Genesis (God reproducing after his kind in the biological sense) you can come up with God-as-God-is-God. Of the three moments in this Armstrongist exegesis, the latter two moments are not supported by scripture.
This, of course, is not acceptable to Armstrongists. They are dominated by tribalism. While they war incessantly with each other internally, they unite in opposing outside sources of Midrash like I have written here.
Rider
A good indicator of a cult, is when doctrine does not align with bible in a blatantly obvious way. Read and weap Herb heads:
Isaiah 43:10
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
One of the major problems is that some of those leaders think they already are gods.
"When does it happen?"
1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye......
"I would like someone to give me a comparison of Armstrongism vs. Mormonism on this doctrine of "man to become God as God is".
Mormons take it a step further- a quote from the 5th president of the LDS, Lorenzo Snow:
“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.”
You have to see it to believe it...
https://youtu.be/-9pnrfFuDFw?t=735
Job 38 strongly implies that the angels existed before God created the universe. To me this is just common sense to guard against a Satan type angel claiming that the universe always existed or similar. Scientists think that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. A mystery is why resurrected humans will be able to be above beings billions of years old. Meaning, angels have not matured. This is affirmed by God telling us that he doesn't trust angels in Job 4:18 and Job 15:15.
Somehow, I don't think that 14 billion year old angels will appreciate less than 100 year old resurrected humans being over them.
Anonymous 12:26
Just a fine point. The Universe is 13.8 billion years old depending on how you define it. Actually, the Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago. What this means is that the observable universe began inflation from a very small singularity. Because it is only the origin of the observable part of the universe, the little singularity might even be an area on the surface of a much larger mass with the much larger mass giving rise to the unobservable part of the universe or maybe a multi-verse. If you define this singularity as an early stage of the universe, then the universe is older than 13.8 billion years but who knows how much. If you define the singularity as something giving rise to the universe but different from it, like the way a seed is related to a plant, then 13.8 billion years would be OK as an estimated age.
Singularity is not meant to imply a little grain or a little particle. It does not need to be. It is just a little area and who knows what context it existed in. Scientists know only that our observable universe came from something very, very small but do not know what it looked like. But there was definitely something in existence before our universe. To my knowledge science has not found the point where there was nothing and then one moment later something as creatio ex nihilo would require.
Rider
It is actually very simple:-
Jesus claims to be the Son of God.
Jesus came from God, dies and was resurrected and returned to God, in His former power.
That same thing is offered to Christians:-
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
We will become joint heirs with Christ – that is the same future as Jesus Christ.
This isn't just 'Armstongism' - Many of the early Christian fathers wrote of this – three examples:-
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (c. 130–202) "Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods?"
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215), "Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god."
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (c. 296–373) "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God"
There are many more quotes I could give. How about a more modern one.
C.S. Lewis stated in his book, "Mere Christianity" :-
The command 'Be ye perfect' is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him—for we can prevent Him, if we choose—He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.
This isn't some strange new unheard of doctrine.
Questeruk, thank you for clarifying things. Indeed, HWA is not wrong in preaching that we can be God as God is. God's truth stands.
Anonymous 3:39
It is actually more nuanced than what you have suggested. The statements you compiled fall under the heading of the doctrine of Theosis. Theosis is not at all the Armstrongist doctrine of God-as-God-is-God. Do not be beguiled by a facile reading of the language.
If one were to read the language in the book of Genesis that states man is created in the image and likeness of God, in abstraction with no empirical evidence, one might conclude that we are all little perfect gods running around here on earth rather than hopelessly flawed hominids. HWA committed a species of this error.
We will be "partakers of the divine nature" to some degree. created beings will never remotely rise to the level of the uncreated God. A faint resemeblence - sure - but not an equality. God is uncreated and absolute. We are created and finite and always will be. God says "rejoice forever in what I create". He is the creator and we are the rejoicers. Forever.
Hawk
2Sa 7:14a I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
"This verse consists of two parts, a promise of inheritance and a messianic allusion applied to believers" (Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation, NTC, p.560).
"With Abraham God established a covenant "to be your God and the God of your descendants after you" (Gen 17:7). To David he promised, concerning Solomon, "I will be his father, and he will be my son (2 Sam 7:14). This age-old covenant is fulfilled to all who are Abraham's heirs by faith (Gal 3:29). God declares that it is the overcomer who will be his child and to whom he will be God... The thirst for God mentioned in v. 6 is satisfied only by the reality of divine sonship" (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, Revised, NICNT, p.389).
"The promise that God will be his people's God and they will be his people is the most basic component of the ancient covenant formula (Gen 17:8; Ex. 6:7, 29:45; Lev. 11:45; 2238; 26:12; Num 15:41; Deut 29:13). The prophets rehearse the same covenant formula (Jer. 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:33; 32:38; Ezek. 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23, 27; Zech. 8:8). But Revelations slightly adapts it. He will be the overcomer's God, and the overcomers will be his own child (Rev 21:7). God had earlier declared Israel his children (Ex. 4:22; Deut. 32:19-20; Hos. 1:10; 11:1), but here in the end time he publicly honors individual believers as his own children (21:7; cf. Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:19; 1 John 3:2)" (Craig S. Keener, Revelation, NIVAC, pp.488-489).
"...the verb to inherit occurs only here in the Apocalypse and doctrinally is in complete harmony with the teaching of Paul. For instance, Paul confidently writes, "Now if we are children, then we are heirs - heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17; and see Gal. 3:29; 4:7; Eph 3:6; Titus 3:7). We as followers of Christ will inherit all the blessings of a new heaven and a new earth. For us, the link between being children of God and beings heirs is unbreakable. Whereas Jesus is the one and only Son, we are adopted sons and daughter. And whereas Jesus inherits all things (Heb. 1:2), we as co-heirs share in all his blessings" (Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation, NTC, p.560).
"The father-child (father-son) imagery in this phrase reflects the adaptation of adoption language in the Davidic covenant tradition reflected in 2 Sam 7:14 ("I will be his father and he shall be my son") and several other passages in the OT (Pss 2:7; 89:26-27 [MT 27-28]; Jer 3:19; 31:9c ["For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first born"]; 1 Chr 17:13; 22:10; 28:6)" (David E. Aune, Revelation 17-22,WBC, p.1129).
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
"John chooses to frame his fundamental eschatological conviction by echoing the covenantal formula of the Davidic covenant, I will be his God and he will be my son (2 Sam. 7:14 par.). His decision to do so is striking in two ways. First, this same formula is used elsewhere in the NT of Jesus (Heb. 1:5; 12:7; Luke 1:32-33; et al.). In these instances, the Davidic formula functions as a messianic title that not only conveys something of the intimate relationship between God and Jesus - like that shared between King David and God - but also transmits the church's conviction that Jesus is God's Christ, the promised heir to David's throne. That is, the Davidic covenant became a messianic promise that Jesus then fulfilled. Both parts are claims for Jesus' uniqueness" (Robert H. Wall, Revelation, NIBC, p.248).
Part 2
Eph 1:5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons THROUGH Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will-
"... John quotes 2 Samuel 7:14 but modifies the wording to suit his theological purpose... John in the Apocalypse writes, "And I will be a God to him and he will be a son to me." 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).
"... 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).
"In Revelation, John never calls God the father of believers; yet is the Father of Christ (1:6; 2:27)" (Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation, NTC, p.560).
"Our second point ... alludes to the Isaianic texts that serve as the "scripture-scape" for this vision (Isa 44:3; 55:1). That prophecy indicates that the blessing of the Davidic covenant will finally be fulfilled not in an individual but in a remnant people..." (Robert H. Wall, Revelation, NIBC, p.248).
"The promise to the dynasty of David in 2 Sam 7:14 is here extended to all people..." (Christopher C. Rowland, The Book of Revelation, NIB p.721).
"Moreover God will be his God and he will be God's son (cf. 2 Sa. 7:14). He will have a special relationship to the supreme Ruler of all" (Leon Morris, Revelation, Revised Edition, TNTC, p.240).
Thank you Questeruk and anon 1124 for 2 powerful posts!
Post a Comment