Nicaea: The Brothers Met Here Long Ago
The Legacy of Arianism, Part 3
Scout’s Anti-Arianist Manifesto
“I’m your huckleberry.” – Apostle Paul, paraphrase of Galatians 1:15
Here is another chapter on Arianism. (What did you think was going to happen?) I believe that God is Triune and is comprised of three co-equal God Persons who have a special existential unity with each other as a part of their nature. I may or may not conform in belief to the Nicene documents – I have never read them. I am still reading about how the brothers arrived at their conclusion back around 400 AD. For my part, I believe the God Persons are ontologically co-equal because I believe that the Beings who belong to the God category are absolute by virtue of Creatio ex Nihilo. They can create reality. Beings who can create reality from the outside are not bound by any of the real limits from the inside that we know. And you can’t compare absolute beings with each other. They are not measurable and relative as we are. Someone who is absolute can’t be more absolute than someone else who is absolute. There cannot be a greater God and lesser God. If a being is lesser, that being is not God. The Church of God Seventh Day, at the time HWA joined it, did not believe Jesus to be God. HWA acknowledged that Jesus is God but relegated him to a secondary role as if Jesus were a relative being like us. So, while Armstrongism asserts that humans will become God-as-God-is-God, it does not accord that same status to Jesus. I think that maybe Armstrongists believe, as I do, that God Persons are different in economy but not in ontology. But it is hard to say. You cannot find the words “ontology” and “economy” in Armstrongist writings about God. They never carried their Doctrine of God very far and now HWA is dead and his death pretty much fixed their theology at a certain point in history. If one goes by what Armstrongist authors have written, one would have to conclude that the Son is smaller than the Father both in ontology and in economy since no distinction is made. And to say that Jesus is smaller is another way of saying that Jesus does not really belong in the God category because being smaller makes him relative rather than absolute. For Arianists of different sorts, Jesus might even be angelomorphic. And the aspect of Arianism called Subordinationism (a little god subordinate to a big god), then, is held as true by Armstrongism. As for the Holy Spirit, Armstrongism makes him an impersonal attribute of God. (Whether an attribute of the Father or the Son, I don’t know. They are separate God beings in Armstrongism. The only unity in the Godhead that Armstrongism admits is that of a family relationship. And a human family is a biological collection of separate, non-consubstantial beings.) If the Holy Spirit is simply an inherent attribute of God, then when the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the OT and NT, he is just a redundancy. Like saying, “Ralph and his nose visited us.” You can just assume that if Ralph is there, his nose will be, too. And the redundancy converts the Bible into an example of really bad writing. In the last analysis, I reject Arianism and agree with what the brothers decided, as far as I know it, at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. I do believe that some of what the brothers concluded is conjectural. But, one day, Paul promises us, this will all be settled and we will no longer see through a glass darkly. And for this present shootout, Paul is our huckleberry.
59 comments:
Yes, let's do wait until the time we can fully understand............."the Father is greater than I" - John 14:28.
The following excerpt is from the Church of God International "Systematic Theology Project" (based on the controversial one produced by the Worldwide Church of God and rejected by Herbie):
The Bible reveals that the one God is a family
composed of two members—the Father and the
Son, Jesus Christ. John’s Gospel states these two
have dwelt together from eternity and they share
power, glory, and majesty, although Christ is second
in authority (John 14:28; 1 Cor. 15:24–28).
Additionally, the Bible explains the Holy Spirit to
be equated with God (Acts 5:3–4; 2 Cor. 3:17), and
illustrates the Holy Spirit is the essence, power,
mind, and spiritual extension and presence of God,
rather than a third personal being. (Please see our
STP statement on the Holy Spirit). From the biblical
revelation we infer that God resembles man in
certain aspects but is composed of spirit instead of
flesh (Jn. 4:24), radiating spiritual energy and
power. The few references to God’s “appearance”
emphasize His incredible brilliance (Rev. 1:14–16;
Dan. 7:9–10).
Thank you Scout for your essay. Informative indeed.
The Armstrong view that we mere mortal humans can one day be God as God is God is simply bizarre as one looks back. And I know that many within this group still hold to this ‘doctrine’. Deeply troubling theology that does not accord with the plain truth as scripture so clearly encapsulates. Mere man that drinks sin like water as we read in Job. We, mortals, who have a beginning at birth and will die one day, are helpless and cannot obtain salvation of our own accord, as Christ Himself plainly told His disciples. That’s why He was preordained before the foundation of the world to do the impossible for us. It is not our effort but by His mercy that we are delivered from darkness and translated into the kingdom. All else is but vanity. Thank you for your posts.
Wonder what specifically was in the STP that Herbie rejected.
The evidence "just keeps coming" that Herbie's authorized biography could indeed be Daniel 8:23-25, particularly when noting the Hebrew meaning will allow a "king" to simply be a leader, and "destroy" is to corrupt, and "mighty and holy people" could be numerous "saints"-Ps 34:9.
Miller:
Thanks much for the excerpt from the CGI/STP. I just now parsed through it. I would class the content as Semi-Arian and anthropomorophic. This is classical Armstrongism. I am a little disappointed. I had hoped that the old STP had been closer to Christianity. I saw a few sections of the old STP in the AC Big Sandy library. But not enough to form any conclusions. Makes me wonder why HWA was so upset over it. Must be related to other controversies.
Scout
The STP was based on Herbie's teachings. He rejected it because it would box him in - he would no longer be able to change doctrine on a whim (it undermined his "authority" as an "apostle").
Of course Herb, the SDA, the JWs etc, minimize Christ. The reason is that they covet Christ's role. I head HWA's name much more often from the pulpit than Christ's. This is also a repetition of Israel making a golden calf in Exodus 32:2-4 when Mose's was receiving the ten commandments from God. Power hungry leaders want to usurp God's role, while many members want a god made in their image.
The CGI systematic theology project I'd guess is exactly the same as the WCG one as many of the same writers and researchers were involved.
This post is politically timed.
In the New Testament Jesus is repeatedly referred to as the Son of God. John the baptist declared Jesus as the Son of God.
This post comes across as ignoring or not considering the Father Son relationship. It reads as slightly disrespectful to Jesus's status.
The booklet "Why Were You Born" was considered to be one of the most important produced by WCG. Its essential conclusion was that God is reproducing Himself by creating a family of God beings all of whom would be sons and daughters of God when born into the Kingdom of God. We would be the firstfruits of this process, Christ being the first of the firstfruits. I believe that HWA went wrong when he assumed that "God, in the form of Christ, became man in order for man to become God". If he had accepted the Unitarian concept that Christ did not pre-exist His human birth, but came into existence when He was born of Mary, it would have made a lot more sense. This would mean that God was Unitarian in the Old Testament, Binitarian after the resurrection of Christ and Polytarian after the resurrection of the firstfruits.
This is an age-old discussion. Anyone, these days, can do a simple google search and find scriptures supporting the fact that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the trinity. (All three being present at the baptism of Jesus; and many others. The Holy Spirit prays for us when we are unable to express what we want to say. Etc, etc, etc. He is a being, not a "force."
You expose what you don't know which I find fascinating.
Anonymous 11:31 wrote, “This post comes across as ignoring or not considering the Father Son relationship. It reads as slightly disrespectful to Jesus's status.”
I do not know how you arrived at this conclusion. One of the subtexts in my manifesto is that the Arianist bent of Armstrongism deprecates Jesus. I think that is clear.
I think it is impossible to know much about the Father-Son relationship of God. Did three co-equal beings decide that one would be the Father and another would be the Son and another the Holy Spirit based on sheer election? Or does the Father-Son relationship arise out of some ontological differentiation between the two that is not apparent from scripture. The popular point of differentiation is that the Father begat the Son. And much is packed into the term “begat”. The most popular overloading of that term is to assert that it means Eternal Generation. That God generates Jesus eternally from the fullness of his own essence. But God did not generate the Son as an act of will but as a necessity – like an inevitable product of the divine nature. If you can figure that out, let me know. The only begettal I can see in scripture is the begettal of Jesus on Mary. To me this overloading of the term “begettal” with the concept of Eternal Generation is highly conjectural but is accepted in Nicene Christianity.
I used to believe that it was highly improbable that there would be three God Persons. Then I realized that it is highly improbable that there would be even one God Person, yet there is. Why is there something rather than nothing? In our world, something is always caused. So, if there is nothing to cause something, there is nothing. But, incomprehensibly, God exists and is the uncaused first cause. So, the arithmetic dropped out of the picture.
It is great that we can have these discussions. Michael Servetus, a noted scientist in the Middle Ages, was burnt alive on a stack of his own writings because he did not tow the line on the Nicene Trinity. Servetus rejected Eternal Generation among other Trinitarian doctrines. John Calvin abetted this process. Makes me sad. I have always regarded Calvin as an Arch-heretic.
Scout
The god triune thing will have predecessors. However the Man becoming God thing and being adopted into that Family doctrine cannot be understood without a proper and thorough understanding of Roman Family and especially Adoption Laws. How else would the Romans understand the concept as explained by Roman Apostles.......they were extremely 'FAMILIAR' with the concept.....(pun intended).
As would be any freshman in a European Law School....
nck
S.T.P. means Systematically Trash the Pope (Herbert).
Anyone, these days, can do a simple google search and find scriptures supporting the fact that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the trinity.
And that it originated in paganism long before the Jews.
Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix, Thursday, April 24, 2025 at 3:35:38 PM PDT, wrote:
[[The following excerpt is from the Church of God International "Systematic Theology Project" (based on the controversial one produced by the Worldwide Church of God and rejected by Herbie):...
...John’s Gospel states these two
have dwelt together from eternity and they share
power, glory, and majesty, although Christ is second
in authority (John 14:28; 1 Cor. 15:24–28)...]]
******
John's Gospel, including John 14:28, and 1 Cor 15:24-28, does not indicate two beings dwelling together from eternity.
John's Gospel, and other portions of the Bible, talk about several beginnings.
The God, that God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, does not share His glory with anyone.
Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Isaiah 48:11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
There is only One Being, who can say the following:
“For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.” Deut 32:40
The Word could not say those words, and neither could Jesus Christ say them.
Jesus’ God, His Father, was acknowledged by Jesus, and this is obvious by His words as follows:
John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
That One, “the Rock,” mentioned in Deut 32, is the One that led the Israelites once upon a time,
:4 “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.”
And that Rock should not be confused with another “rock” (I Cor 10:4) that followed the Israelites, but…
Time will tell…
John
It would have made a lot more sense...
Are we throwing out the Gospel of John now ? To reach your opinion ?
Is scripture a trampoline now to bounce high in the sky and reach conclusions based on imagination and not scripture ?not to be rooted in scripture anymore ? Are we to forget the Bereans way ?
Scripture verses John 1:1-18, John 17:5 and John 17:24 prove Jesus to have existed before being born of a virgin.
Heraclitus (the inventor of the "Logos concept") believed Logos was the fundamental order of the universe, a cosmic principle that governed all change.
Heraclitus' most famous quote:
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man."
This encapsulates his doctrine of constant change...
He saw the world as "ever-living fire."
For Heraclitus, fire symbolized the constant transformation of all things...
On the unity of opposites, he wrote:
"The way up and the way down are one and the same."
This idea of interconnected contradictions is central to his philosophy...
He expanded on this, saying:
"God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, surfeit and hunger."
For Heraclitus, opposites were not just connected, but essential to each other.
- two sides of the same coin...
He introduced the concept of Logos (λόγος) to Western philosophy.
The logos can be likened to a motionless fulcrum which the constant lever of change operates.
He said:
"Wisdom is the oneness of Mind that guides and permeates all things."
Heraclitus had moments of optimism.
He wrote:
"The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you choose, what you think and what you do is who you become."
Though fragmented, Heraclitus' writings continue to inspire and challenge us.
They invite us to see the world as a place of constant flux.
- where wisdom lies in understanding the underlying unity of all things...
Nck
John "Time will tell" 10:09
You have made a brief argument in support of Arianism. This involves the propositions that Jesus did not have an eternity with God prior to his Incarnation and, also, that God the Father has never died but Jesus has. You also mention that Jesus referred to the Father as “my God.”
Counterposed against your first proposition we have the following scripture:
“So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world (Cosmos) existed.” This is not some lesser glory but is the glory of the Father (Matthew 16:27). If we combine this with the fact that Doubting Thomas referred to Jesus as “ho theos”, we have a logically coherent argument that Jesus (as the Logos) is God who before his incarnation had a pre-existence with the Father with the same glory. What does this glory include? Everything.
Your second proposition is that Jesus was assigned to a lesser position because he died and God did not. The view that the Logos was totally flesh is an Armstrongist idea. The view asserts that Jesus in his incarnate state was fully a mortal man but was not God at all and could have died and descended into unconscious dissolution. The counterpoint is that Jesus did not cease to be God when he became incarnate. Doubting Thomas would not have been permitted to say what he did and have it recorded and preserved as scripture. While Christ’s physical body was in the tomb, in the spirit (pneuma) he was preaching to the dead in Hades. I cannot tell you how the miracle of the Incarnation occurred but you I do not think that you can exegete that Christ was just a man.
Jesus referred to the Father as “my God.” This is not surprising. In the economy of the Triune God, the Son was subservient to the Father out of love though the Son was co-equal in ontology. The Jews recognized the co-equality in the incident in John 5: “For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the Sabbath but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.”
Scout
"Jesus referred to the Father as “my God.” This is not surprising. In the economy of the Triune God, the Son was subservient to the Father out of love though the Son was co-equal in ontology."
If Christ was anything less the material manifestation of the uncreated Almighty, then he would have had to stay dead forever as an atonement. Thankfully, that's not the case as we read in Revelation- I am the first and the last...
Oh if life was so simple and straightforward 6:12.
The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. Deuteronomy 29:29
There are things about God that we are never going to understand for the simplest of reasons. They have not been revealed, and theorizing isn't going to help very much.
It is revelation that we need if we are going to understand.
NCK
Good point. I was surprised to learn not long ago that the Logos is not a concept introduced by John the Apostle. I do not know how much John was influenced by Philo’s thinking. I know there is a connection between Philo’s concept of the Logos and Arianism. Some Arianists believe that Jesus is the Angel of the Lord who appears in the OT. Philo identifies the Angel of the Lord with the Logos. There is the parallel that in Gnosticism the Logos is an emanation of the supreme god. And in Nicene Christianity, Jesus is a kind of emanation – he is eternally generated by the Father out of the Father’s substance. There are some connections here but I have yet to sort them out, indeed, if I can.
In any case, the term Logos is surcharged with historical and philosophical meaning. The term was already in circulation when John used it in his Gospel. What was John trying to tell us by using the term? It is almost as if thinking in some quarters of Second Temple Judaism presaged Jesus. This might have enhanced the view of Jesus on the part of some Jews. On the other hand, some followers of Philo might have become readers of the Gospel of John and concluded that Jesus was the Angel of the Lord and this view then flowed into Arianism. Armstrongism, though Semi-Arian, did not step into this particular conflation. As far as I know, they hold that Jesus is God and the Angel of the Lord in the OT is an angel.
Scout
I'm likeing some of what this Heraclitus has to say. I had a friend once who aspired to write a book entitled "Quotations of Atilla". But he ran into the same fragmentation challenge, and the boil down ended up being that he could not find enough quotations to fill a respectable book.
I have practiced a paraphrase of your quote above regarding content of character. it goes, "Man is a mixture of good and bad. The side that you feed is the side that's going to grow."
BB
Anonymous 3:11 wrote, "It is revelation that we need if we are going to understand."
I fully agree. We can only know about God what he wants us to know. In fact, I think there are aspects of God that we will never understand. Even when we are resurrected spirit beings. We will still exist in the creaturely domain that will be forever transcended by the uncreated domain where God dwells.
On the other hand, we do have some revealed knowledge of God. And it behooves us to properly handle that knowledge. This is done through exegesis and reason. But we will bump into limits and it is at the limits where most of the disagreement happens. But sometimes the disagreement is at the core. Armstrongism has a wholly different view of God than Christianity has. HWA said the following:
"As I said to President Mubarak the other day, the fact there is a creation means there had to be a creator, there had to be a designer of one who could design and could create what He designed. That is one that in the Western world, we call God; that in the Arab world, you call Allah. And if I understand correctly, it's the same God, the same Allah. So, I would like to tell you what He Allah is going to do for the Arab world and for the peace of all mankind. And I am speaking on His authority. I'm not saying maybe; I'm not saying perhaps; I'm telling you what is certain, what is sure."
Here HWA equates the Allah with the western Judeo-Christian God in his "diplomacy" to world leaders. And he seems to represent himself as a messenger of this God of the Abrahamic religions. Yet, in fact, the Armstrongist God is utterly different from the Christian, Jewish and Islamic concept of God and Armstrongists will tell you that. Armstrongism is a Bi-theistic one-off. Only in the most generous and liberal interpretation can Armstrongist be thought of as worshipping the God of the three great religions.
Scout
"The Church of God Seventh Day, at the time HWA joined it, did not believe Jesus to be God. HWA acknowledged that Jesus is God" (scout)
Seems HWA was more or less orthodox in the 1920s before his wife dragged him into the Adventist milieu
"...the Nicene documents – I have never read them. " (scout)
I would like to see the full arguments of the Councils against Sabbatarianism; I wonder if they were similar to Brinsmead c.1980? Perhaps he used them?
"It is revelation that we need if we are going to understand."
I agree. Reliable, and accurate revelation The best effort we seem to be able to make as humans living in the current era is to read scripture, to think and to pray, and to rely on fellow humans who are more spiritually advanced than are we ourselves. One of the pitfalls inherent in that last action item is the fact that it opens the doors to false revelators, or frankly, terminally flawed humans who aspire to be teachers or revelators. Usually, if someone is afraid to say "I don't know", odds are that they are bogus. Honestly? Regardless as to how much any of us know, there will always be things which we do not know. Every answer produces further questions. Ever deeper questions.
Early on, when I was an apartment dweller and friendly with all my neighbors, a lady from across the courtyard gave me a copy of Jonathan Livingston Seagull. It opened my mind to the possibility that our journey may have multiple layers. I really don't believe that we can learn and understand everything we need to know from one single layer. How many of our fellow humans are even philosophically or spiritually inclined? In a sense, although he left us wanting and empty, at least HWA spawned within us a lifetime of seeking answers.
BB
Qupting from the Theodosian Code of 437AD. Final book 16: devoted to matters of religion. Law issued 386 AD by Valentian II. To protect the rights of Arian Christians to hold their services without disturbances. Those agitators disturbing the peace of the church (by attacking the Arian Community) were identified as "authors of sedition".....they shall pay the penalty of high treason with their life and blood. ".......Thus reflecting the situation in Milan when Valentian II's mother Empress Justina campaigned against the Catholic Christians...
This situation had radically changed by the 430's. yet all previous laws were and had to be included in the Code and the notion of free assembly for religious purposes remained relevant.
nck
I'm 3:11. What Herbert Armstrong said in diplomatic conversations to powerful Presidents, whilst their guest, is really a blind alley. I have no interest in going there.
Only the things revealed in both testaments are if any use in understanding the work and character of the Spirit of God.
In the Old Testament the words Holy Spirit, Qudesh Rvach used 3 times.
Spirit of God, Ruach Elohim, used 14 times.
Spirit of the Lord, Ruach Jehovah, used 26 times.
The revealed properties of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament.
1.The Holy Spirit could reside in a person, as with Moses and Joseph, specifically.
2.The abiding presence could be taken away, as King David feared.
3. It "comes upon", falls on, or fills a person, all in a transitory sense, - it comes and goes in terms of it's influence- as with Balaam.
4.It can overwhelm normal behaviour, but only in a transitory way.
5. It could inspire craftsmen and artisans for the work of the Tabernacle.
6.It could speak with the tongue of a man, as with King David.
7. It can tend to run in families, according to Isaiah, but obviously conditionally.
8. It can be vexed.
The revealed properties of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.
1. The Holy Spirit is an active agent for God.
2.The Holy Spirit can be singular blasphemed.
3. The Holy Spirit speaks (through men, but it speaks).
4. The Holy Spirit filled people on special occasion-transitory.
5. The Holy Spirit was "upon" people.
6. It revealed things to them.
7. It could actually appear in bodily form, though not human like form.
8. You could be baptised with the Holy Spirit.
9.The Holy Ghost is exactly the same thing in the New Testament as it was in the Old.
10. The Holy Spirit is a gift of God.
11. The Holy Spirit is a source of power.
12. It can be resisted.
13.It bears witness.
14. It fell on people.
15. The Holy Spirit, calls commissions, and sends people to a work.
16.The Holy Spirit directs that work in some detail.
17. The Spirit hears from God and speaks what it hears to us.
18.The Holy Spirit teaches.
In the New Testament Hagia Pneuma is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Qidesh Ruach. It means Holy Spirit or Holy wind.
Hagia Kurioys is the Greek gor Ruach Jehovah and means "Spirit of the Lord ".
Anonymous 6:58
It is apparent from some of the attributes and functions that you listed that the Holy Spirit is a separate being from the Father and the Son. And the Holy Spirit acts with volition. The point about volition is important. It means that the Holy Spirit is not some spiritual machina that is remotely controlled by the Father and the Son. He has volitional agency.
In Post-Nicene Christianity, the Father generates the Son but the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. I am uncomfortable with this formulation. I believe it opens the door for unitarian interpretations. And it is highly speculative. Even though these relationships may be characterized by words such as "beget" and "proceed," I don't think we have a handle on what this actually means. I prefer to view these relationships as undefined except in the rough by analogical language.
Whatever the relational reality is in mysterious detail, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. And the Shema is true. The Shema and the Triadic formulae are all true.
Scout
Byker Bob 1042
Your comment on "the revelation we need for understanding" is one of the best explanations on the subject I have read. As you say, relying on fellow humans can be tricky. How does one know what's right and what isn't?
You and I have sparred over this before and I think we mutually agreed that, in the end it comes down to "trust". Who should we trust in matters of revelation, whether it be spiritual or physical concerns?
Recently on Joe Rogan's podcast, Jordan Peterson gave a simple but brilliant explanation on how we can tell the difference between tyrants and true leaders.
He says, " tyrants use fear and compulsion--not invitation. The true leader says, 'here's an offer, would you accept this of your own free will'? The tyrant says, 'the apocalypse is coming, and we are allowed to do everything to forestall it, including controlling you and everything you do'.
He concludes that that's how fear gets weaponized. That's how people fall in line.
"Real leaders, says Peterson, offer you a choice, an invitation, not a command. The tyrant leads with fear, and expects external compliance based solely on his say so".
Where have we seen this before? It's not just an ARMSTRONG thing for this attitude permeates the entire world. In reality, it is just another way to describe the " mark" of the Beast!
BP8 to BB concluded with writing the following:
"...Where have we seen this before? It's not just an ARMSTRONG thing for this attitude permeates the entire world..."
******
You may want to consider the following 2 verses, which ties in with fear and it's worldwide and seems to affect everybody to one degree or another:
"Hebrews 2:14-15 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."
Does any of that attitude permeate this world, this present evil world / age?
Time will tell...
John
All those points in the lists of the revelation from scripture can be proved from scripture.
Jesus conversation with his disciples after the Passover last supper:
If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwellers with you, and shall be in you. John 14:15
These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 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. But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeded from the Father, he shall testify of me. John 15:26
At no time in the Bible is there any suggestion that there are two Holy Spirits. Jesus is saying that the Spirit of God is yet to be sent. In fact, Jesud made it clear that if he did not go away, the Comforter would not come.
The Comforter is the Greek Parakletos. No other New Testament writer uses this form of the word. It only is used in one other place I John 2:1
Where is the Trinity taught in scripture? Where is it explained? Why is the doctrine so dependent on personal interpretation?
The trinity is never explained in scripture.
Give a non Christian a bible to read and get will not come up with the Trinity.
It is only superimposed upon Scripture from later Christian thinkers who were highly influenced by Greek philosophy.
Anonymous 1:19 wrote, “Where is the Trinity taught in scripture? Where is it explained? Why is the doctrine so dependent on personal interpretation?”
This is a standard Armstrongist polemic. We might ask, “Where is British-Israelism mentioned and explained in scripture?” The fact is, it is not explained in scripture. It is found entirely in non-Biblical Armstrongist writing. This fact does not prevent Armstrongists from believing it. With the Trinity, at least the data on which it is based is in scripture. This is not true of British-Israelism – which is just a kind of extra-biblical conspiracy theory. Trinity is a term for a doctrine. It need not be in scripture. Nobody says I don’t believe in Britishi-Israelism because I can’t find the term British-Israelism in the Bible.
It is true that there is not a monolithic statement about the Trinity in scripture. Instead, there are scattered data points. When collected together, these data points cohere to support the concept of a Triune God better than any other interpretation. And I do believe that the Trinity is an interpretation. But the Arianism of the early Adventists and the Semi-Arianism of the Armstrongists are both interpretations also. They are just ill-fitted to the Biblical data, at least, more so than Trinitarianism. We see through a glass darkly.
Scout
Anon, aka Scout, Tuesday, April 29, 2025 at 7:55:00 AM PDT, replied to Anon 1:19 writing:
[[Anonymous 1:19 wrote, “Where is the Trinity taught in scripture? Where is it explained? Why is the doctrine so dependent on personal interpretation?”
This is a standard Armstrongist polemic. We might ask, “Where is British-Israelism mentioned and explained in scripture?” The fact is, it is not explained in scripture. It is found entirely in non-Biblical Armstrongist writing. This fact does not prevent Armstrongists from believing it. With the Trinity, at least the data on which it is based is in scripture. This is not true of British-Israelism – which is just a kind of extra-biblical conspiracy theory. Trinity is a term for a doctrine. It need not be in scripture. Nobody says I don’t believe in Britishi-Israelism because I can’t find the term British-Israelism in the Bible.
It is true that there is not a monolithic statement about the Trinity in scripture. Instead, there are scattered data points. When collected together, these data points cohere to support the concept of a Triune God better than any other interpretation. And I do believe that the Trinity is an interpretation. But the Arianism of the early Adventists and the Semi-Arianism of the Armstrongists are both interpretations also. They are just ill-fitted to the Biblical data, at least, more so than Trinitarianism. We see through a glass darkly.]]
******
Scout, the words Trinity and Triune, to my knowledge, are not found in the Bible.
So, what exactly is that "Trinity?" Perhaps, better to ask, what is that "Triune God?"
One trinity I like is: coffee, almond milk and sweetner, but that's another story.
But, a triune God? A Trinity?
Jesus told some of His friends: "...All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Luke 12:10
Okay, it's not nice to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but is it okay if one blasphemes against God the Father? How about blasphemy against Jesus Christ?
Are there three equal "whatever's" within your Triune God?
Scout, you wrote: "...With the Trinity, at least the data on which it is based is in scripture...there are scattered data points. When collected together, these data points cohere to support the concept of a Triune God better than any other interpretation. And I do believe that the Trinity is an interpretation..."
Did the data of Luke 12:10 fit among any of those scattered data points to lead to some Trinity, and/or Triune God.
Mark 3:28-29 complements Luke 12:10, with the following words of Jesus Christ to some Scribes:
Mark 3:28 "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:"
Again, is it okay to blaspheme God the Father, or Jesus Christ, so long as one does not blaspheme against the Holy Spirit?
Jesus did say that: "...All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies..."
Where is your Triune God? Where is the Trinity?
If that weren't enough, Jesus told some Pharisees the following:
"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come." Matthew 12:32
If there is such a thing as your Triune God, and/or some Trinity, then why do some get a "pass/forgiveness" when speaking against the Son of man, but there is no "pass" given for others who speak against the Holy Spirit?
Will some also receive a "forgiveness/pass" if one speaks against The God, God the Father?
Time will tell...
John
Christians who don't believe in the Trinity doctrine are called nontrinitarians not Arianism. That's from modern mainstream Christianity. "Armstrongites" as you label Sabbath Christians in 2025 are not the only Christians who don't believe in the Trinity.
Why throw in so many red herrings, Herbert speeches with Dictators 50 years ago, and now British Israelisim.
There is reasonable questions of the Trinity doctrine that Trinitarian believers will have to answer. Otherwise you only require nodding yes people to tell you what you want to hear, and go along with everything without challenge.
If what has been revealed in scripture cannot be used and is pushed away, then wanting the truth is not the real goal but to bring in the Trinity belief as Grace Communion did. This is nothing more than a re-run of Joseph W Tkatch. It is not truth seeking at all.
There is the Father. And the Son. What is the Holy Spirit? Another son? Grandson? Another familial term? No.
Byker Bob, Sunday, April 27, 2025 at 10:42:00 AM PDT, wrote:
"...Early on, when I was an apartment dweller and friendly with all my neighbors, a lady from across the courtyard gave me a copy of Jonathan Livingston Seagull. It opened my mind to the possibility that our journey may have multiple layers. I really don't believe that we can learn and understand everything we need to know from one single layer. How many of our fellow humans are even philosophically or spiritually inclined? In a sense, although he left us wanting and empty, at least HWA spawned within us a lifetime of seeking answers."
******
Yes, "...our journey may have multiple layers..."
For example, human beings since the Garden of Eden have inhabited this planet with the physical life that we now experience: that could be one layer.
Another layer?
A second layer would be after one is resurrected.
Will there be any other layers beyond that?
Time will tell...
John
How are the Armstrongites doing finding "British Israelism" in the bible?
Haven't heard anything back yet.
John 11:48
It is interesting that I began to research “blasphemy” against the Holy Spirit and Google AI gave me the following:
“Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as understood in some Christian contexts, refers to the act of persistently rejecting the Holy Spirit's work and the truth of Jesus Christ. It is characterized by a hardened heart, stubborn refusal to repent, and attributing the Holy Spirit's work to demonic power. This is distinct from temporary doubts or even outright denial, as it involves a continuous and willful opposition to God's grace.”
This is fairly well what I think it is. It is amazing that a machine can parse this out but there is a little creep factor in it. Your premise seems to be why is it blasphemy to say something against the Holy Spirit but not the Son and the Father. My two cents. When you see the work of God in action through the Holy Spirit and yet make a tortured categorization that what you are seeing is evil, you have abandoned all reasonable values. You have redefined all the constants so that no communication can penetrate the barrier of willful denial that you have set up. Like Hitler thought it was “good” to exterminate the Jews.
The “willful” part is important. I don’t think Jesus was talking about plain old misunderstanding. I think he was talking about people who knew better. Those who call evil good and good evil as it pertains to God’s actions because they have a vested interest. This is what Jesus encountered on occasion in Palestine. Jesus is saying, grimly, that you are not going to get a pass on that. You are going to do time.
Let me hasten to add that this principle involves a lot of judgment. I have no authority in the church. I write “opinion pieces” and not doctrine. My approach is Midrashic and not pre-emptive. People freely take exception to my ideas which are usually based on orthodox Christianity. I comment from the peanut gallery and judgment is left to those in authority.
Scout
John 11:48:00
I didn't sum it up. I am saying that this special condition of blasphemy does not somehow negate the co-equality attribute of the Trinity because somehow the Holy Spirit is being according a special status. At least, that is what I think you are asserting. One might conclude that the Holy Spirit is superior to the Father and the Son because blasphemy against him must be taken so seriously. I think it is rather a matter of how the economy is divided among the three God Persons. The Holy Spirit is responsible for the actual and overt behavioral changes in peoples lives. His work is most likely what people are going to see and react to.
As for the Trinity and the Triune God - every section of any orthodox Systematic Theology you might pick up has an extensive section in it on the Holy Spirit with scriptural support. This is not something under a bushel. The idea that the Holy Spirit is an impenetrable and mysterious paganism is simply and Armstrongist trope. Like their idea that 2 is an open-ended number and three is a closed number. Go figure. Millard Erickson authored a good Systematic Theology.
Scout
Anon, aka Scout, Wednesday, April 30, 2025 at 7:08:50 AM PDT wrote:
"...Your premise seems to be why is it blasphemy to say something against the Holy Spirit but not the Son and the Father....... I don’t think Jesus was talking about plain old misunderstanding. I think he was talking about people who knew better...."
******
Scout, you have properly understood my premise; however, Jesus was not talking about people when He addressed His friends, scribes and Pharisees. Jesus Christ loved all of them people, but He was speaking to other beings who blaspheme God, Jesus Christ, God's Spirit, and who also were guiding and directing people's minds to spout out evil thoughts.
There is a period of time coming, yet way off in the future, after that Mickey Mouse Millennium (MMM) of another Jesus "very soon" coming to reign on earth 1,000 years and then fail, because of what will be fulfilled via Gog in certain minds as told in Ezekiel 38:10.
"Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, [that] at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought:" Ezekiel 38:10
There is a cause for every effect, but that is an aside.
Consider, for example, how Matthew 23 shows that Jesus Christ was not "chewing" out people: whether they be friends, Scribes or Pharisees, the multitude, His disciples. This example is similar to that time when Jesus, looking at Peter, said: "Get behind Me, Satan."
Jesus, who like His Father, loves all people, spoke using the words like "woe to you" preceding such following list of words/phrases to what appeared to be to ordinary people, like Himself:
Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, blind guides, fools and blind, serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, blind, whited sepulchers, etc.
Was Jesus pronouncing woe to human beings? The following verses show us who He was speaking to:
:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city:
:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Jesus was speaking to a generation of evil spirit beings, because which of the human beings in Jesus' presence had anything to do with the blood of Abel?
None of them!
Jesus was speaking to a generation of evil spirit beings, because which of the human beings in Jesus' presence had anything to do with the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom was slain between the temple and the altar?
None of them!
Those evil spirits are the ones who commit the blasphemy within people's minds and lives. The Goggle AI was a pretty good analysis for the word blasphemy, and it means even more when one does not blame/judge human beings, while the real source of blasphemy "gets a pass."
Is it any wonder that Jesus Christ spent so much time dealing with the evil spirits, who still exist today and will one day cease existence, walking this earth during His time here?
Time will tell...
John
452 asks, "how are the Armstrongites doing finding British Israelism in the Bible"?
I think we are beating a dead horse here. No, those 2 words are not found in the Bible. The real question is, is the scriptural term " the house of Israel" represented in the latter days (the end time) by the peoples of Great Britain and the U.S.? Genetically, no. From an apostasy and corruption standpoint, maybe (see Jeremiah 5:9-31, 7:28, 9:26).
Many have made that connection, even as many have made a comparison between the United States and end time Babylon.
I don't have a definitive answer, but I do question whether the Zionist colony of Herzel, Balfour, Hirsch, and Rothchild is what God has in mind.
BP8: Your conclusion is scriptural, too. Rev. 3:20. Very powerful archetype, as well as a tool for discernment!
BB
Those would be my thoughts, John. Hebrews 9:27 reveals a condition of the life we are experiencing today. John 14:2's vague hints about mansions can inspire much thought. It seems obvious that Jesus is speaking metaphorically.
BB
Agree
What's British Israelisim got to do with a trinity discussion? Or as I suspect it's not allowed to be discussed, only agreed upon.
The thing BI has to do with a trinity discussion is that Tea Tephi was an "Egyptian Princess".......that is where the Trinity was invented.......Asar, Aset en Heru....or rather Osiris, Isis and Horus as the Greeks named them and we came to know them....
nck
Could it be that you only understand it (Him) if you have it (Him)?
I can't count all of the ACOGgers who have claimed over the years on these forums and blogs not even beginning to be able to comprehend how there could be a trinity. That's only because they use their embedded principles taught in Armstrongism to evaluate all of their incoming data. Shifting the brain from bias to neutral, it becomes very easy to understand when weighing both sides.
Same with British Israelism, and other key elements. Heriberto was a contrarian who always took the least viable elements of a paradox, just to create the illusion that he was the great and unique restorer of truth. And then he applied the advertising techniques which he had perfected in the first act of his career to sell it. Ever wonder why the splinters do not succeed? Ambassador College did not offer classes in advertising, or salesmanship, and it is not something that can be learned through light contact or osmosis. Think about it. HWA was very adept at establishing, and taking, control of any and all sales situations.
How many times did we hear a minister say, "Brethren, if you were ever to leave God's Church (Armstrong's church), you just wouldn't fit in anywhere." I believe this was all by design, as in the case with all toxic cults.
BB
Again, it's not the thing. It's the use of the thing. We cannot eliminate the Trinity just because the pagans misused it, and applied it to their fake gods and goddesses. We are told of three elements of God in the words of the New Testament, and all are interactive with humans. Interaction in the Old Covenant was completely different from that under the New Covenant. The Crucifixion and Resurrection, and the first Pentecost thereafter opened up entirely new understanding. The human race had evolved sufficiently soas to be able to grasp deeper truths.
BB
Byker Bob, Wednesday, April 30, 2025 at 2:10:20 PM PDT, wrote:
"Those would be my thoughts, John. Hebrews 9:27 reveals a condition of the life we are experiencing today. John 14:2's vague hints about mansions can inspire much thought. It seems obvious that Jesus is speaking metaphorically.'
******
Hebrews 9:27 goes "hand in hand" with Hebrews 2:15, which states:
"And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." Heb 2:15
And at the judgment we all will realize one result of that judgment with the fulfillment of the previous verse:
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" Hebrews 2:14
BB, you mentioned: "...John 14:2's vague hints about mansions can inspire much thought..."
FWIIW, John 14:2 did inspire some thought in the mind of an individual who gave a sermon on 23 Aug 1997 where a portion of a transcript of Part 3 of that sermon titled, The Light, mentioned the following:
[[...It says the 144,000: they follow the Lamb wherever He goes. You know; where did God go; where did Christ go?
I have to turn over to this: John 14. Read this! It’s shocking. It’s shocking to our old theory. Where do we follow Him? It’s very simple; start reading with Christ talking to His disciples, and He is telling them this in verse 1:
John 14:1 “Let not your heart be troubled; ye believe in God, believe also in me.”
2 “In my Father’s house are many mansions…”
We were taught: “Ooh these are positions: offices! We’re going to get some more stripes on our arms for this one, aren’t we?” It was all “self” and satanic. When you look up the word mansions, you will see that is not offices or positions. When you look it up, it says: “staying residences.” STAYING RESIDENCES! In my Father’s house are many STAYING RESIDENCES: somewhere you go and you stay.
Continuing verse 2:
2 “...if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”
We didn’t prepare a place on earth for Him. God forbid that Christ would come down to this evil world, right? Christ prepared a place for us: verse 3!
3 “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am there you may be also.”
Brethren, we’re going back with Jesus Christ. We’re going back to where HE prepared the place. Did you read that right?...]]
Will those words, those thoughts, eventually "ring true?"
Time will tell...
John
True.
In the OT there was 1/One interacting until the Christians thought it would be a good idea to interject the Pagan ideas on the texts, the ideas by the way being incredibly sophisticated mystery philosophies that even a lifetime studying Mason or Rosecrucia would today not be able to grasp.
Nck
This is what British-Israelism has to do with the Trinity. One of the hackneyed arguments that Armstrongists use to oppose the Trinity is the assertion that Trinity is not in the Bible. I pointed out that "British-Israelism" isn't in the Bible either. Both arguments are inane. Armstrongists can understand how the argument against British-Israelism is inane. But they can't understand why the argument against the Trinity is inane. This is because of their deep indoctrination. They have lost their ability to think critically.
The argument that Armstrongists use that is the most peculiar is the belief that 2 is an open number but 3 is a closed number. It there are two gods, then by some arcane calculus, the god family is expandable to permit more gods. But if there are three gods, then the god faimily is not expandable and no more gods can be admitted. Go figure. But don't waste too much time on it.
Scout
Rubbish. British Israelisim has nothing to do with the Trinity discussion.
I can see it's been some major Joseph W Tkatch argument in the 90s, but it doesn't hold any sway with different generations in 2025 and there lies your problem. It's not 1990s anymore.
You blatantly refuse to debate the Trinity doctrine from scripture and that looks like a weakness. You can try and drag the Trinity debate outside of scripture into your own boxing ring but outside of scripture the Trinity doctrine is weak and you obviously know that.
Not so fast there, 10:00! There is no new testament sabbath command, either!
And, look at what we did with a little bias here and there to that!
The only place in the entire NT where Jesus or some of his disciples were specifically described as having kept the sabbath were the Gallilean women who had ceased preparing the embalming materials until after the sabbath. And, as someone else has pointed out, the disciples were at that time in a state of confusion, and this might have been the women's equivalent of Peter's "I go fishing," (return to their previous routines).
Eh? Why write that i don't understand? Is Acts 16 being thrown out of bibles these days?
Acts 16 states that on the Sabbath Paul went to the river outside of the city of Macedonia in Philipi to find a place to pray. In ancient times going to rivers to worship and pray was an accepted routine.
That's where Paul met Lydia amongst a group of women and he sat down and taught about Jesus to them on the Sabbath. Lydia was convicted and Paul baptised her. Lydia is well known as the first gentile baptised convert in the New Testament.
Who'd have thought it possible, a woman! And a purple fabric merchant business woman !
So Acts 16 clearly states Apostle Paul was diligent in wanting to observe the Sabbath and God gave the increase of a convert, by a river and it was a woman!
And he (Paul) reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath.........Acts 18:4
The sabbath done away? Naw.
Post a Comment