The Diminishment of the Holy Spirit: Arianism, Rupertism, and Finally Armstrongism

 

Theology and Experimenting with Photons

 

The Diminishment of the Holy Spirit

Arianism, Rupertism, and Finally Armstrongism

By Scriptor

“Rupert's theories were later influential on Herbert W. Armstrong, who adopted many of his ideas about church eras and Jewish holy day observance, along with his British Israelist genealogies of western peoples.[2][3] Clarence Orvil Dodd introduced Armstrong to Rupert's ideas.” (Wikipedia, Article on G. G. Rupert)

A Brief History of the Arianist View of the Holy Spirit

The idea of the Holy spirit really bothers some people. Sometimes I think it is because he is sometimes referred to as the Holy Ghost. And the idea of a ghost, a dead person walking around, makes some people cringe. I doubt that this is what influenced the thinking of Arius, an ascetic, North African clergyman, back in about 300 A.D. Who knows why he thought what he did, really. He was a handsome guy that women found charming and he had novel ideas about God. You know the type. Arius conjectured that God was not a Trinity. He seemed to be all right with the Father, but Jesus and the Holy Spirit must have bothered him. He asserted that Jesus was actually a created being and was subordinate to God even though Jesus created all things. Jesus, after all, was begotten. Arius seems to have cast the scriptural ideas of Incarnation and Kenosis aside. This reduced Jesus to a role similar to that of a Demiurge in Gnostic belief. And the Holy Spirit was not a Person but the illuminating and sanctifying power of God. These views developed into the one-off theology of Arianism. Though Arianism was condemned as a heresy beginning about 325 A.D., some people have clung to it down through the centuries. 

So, fast forward to the Nineteenth Century and an apocalyptic movement called Millerism. Professor Woodrow Whidden describes the 19th Century Adventist Movement as having “a rather pervasive, Arian, Semi-Arian and legalistic mindset.” Out of this seething cauldron of apocalypticism and dashed expectations came the ideas that influenced G.G. Rupert. Rupert, a man with a long scraggly beard, had some ill-defined relationship with the Church of God Seventh Day and started his own organization called The Remnant of Israel with its own publication and based near Oklahoma City (we might say the WCG “in embryo”). And then later we find Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA), influenced by the theology of the Church of God Seventh Day and Rupertism, holding a belief in a Semi-Arian doctrine of God.

The term “Armstrongism” is a misnomer although its colloquial use is likely to continue. Armstrongism is really a form of Rupertism and HWA was really a disciple of G. G. Rupert. If God withheld the truth for eighteen and a half centuries and then revealed it, he revealed it to Rupert and not HWA. HWA only added some syncretistic touches to this essential body of Rupertist “truth”.

The Personhood of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is a Person even though he is referred to in scripture with literary metaphors. God is referred to as a Rock in the OT, for instance, but that is not an ontological statement, just a metaphor. 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, if anything. Wisdom is personified in Proverbs, for instance. Could then the Holy Spirit, described as a sentient being in the New Testament, just be a personification? The answer of course is "No." Here are a couple of reasons why:

1. God is absolute. He spoke the heavens and the earth into existence. He does not need a divine “tractor beam” (q.v., Star Trek) to accomplish things like an artisan reliant on a tool. If he wants the motion of the sun to stop, it will stop. He can make the sun exist or not exist as it pleases him. He does not need to dispatch an energy to a remote location and expend unimaginable numbers of ergs to halt the motion of the sun. He does not need to control reality with the aid of a force; he creates reality. It exists because he exists. 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. Another compelling argument supporting the Holy Spirit as a Person is a simple one. There is what are called Triadic Formulae in the New Testament. Matthew 28:18 is an explicit example. The verse mentions Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Why would the NT authors list the Holy Spirit as syntactically equal with the Father and the Son if the Holy Spirit were not a sentient being? From context, the Triads are clearly non-metaphorical. Their description of God is literal and not lyrical – ontological and not liturgical metaphor. While the language used in scripture that portrays the Spirit using physical processes (“poured out”) seems appropriate to the context, the Triadic context is not suited to metaphor. God would not inspire a Triad using Father, Son and Holy Spirit at syntactical and existential parity that consists of two literal Persons plus a mere metaphor. While metaphor is used liberally in scripture, it is intended to illustrate and not confuse.

Some argue against the Personhood of the Holy Spirit by observing that he is not included in passages where he might be expected. 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 in the sky and did not see him so he doesn’t exist.” Maybe their Looking Methodology is flawed or presumptive. Moreover, 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 because the three subjects are ontologically equal. While the apophatic argument may or may not have cogency (the data is non-determinative), the cataphatic statements most certainly do. Any renunciation of the Personhood of the Holy Spirit must rationally dissolve these cataphatic Triads.

Drawing on Quantum Mechanics

I am not invoking quantum mechanics here to seem impressive. Paul does say there is a role for Natural Theology in this statement: “Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So, they have no excuse for not knowing God.” Some will use this statement to assert that God has a body like a natural man based on a literal interpretation of some OT language. But let us go deeper with Paul’s idea. If God has a body, then he has locality. If he has locality, say at point A in spacetime, then he is not at point B. He must somehow travel the distance between point A and B to arrive at point B. And when he is at point B, he is not at point A. This means that God is bound by distance. It even makes sense that he must ride a cherubim to get from place to place. And the idea that he must use a power or energy or force (aka Holy Spirit of Arius) to remotely manipulate the properties of the distant Cosmos is then plausible.

Let me ruin this Arian view by pointing out that there is something in quantum mechanics called quantum entanglement. Theology must be informed by science. In brief, if two photons (a quantum or particle of light) are entangled, they both react to external forces in a perfectly correlated way without regard to distance. The last four words of that sentence are critical to this understanding. “Without regard to distance.” If a photon is made to react, its entangled photon twin will also react with no delay in time and no matter how distant it is away. So, at some level in reality, the concept of distance does not even exist. Why then would God, who created and now sustains reality, be bound by the concept of distance implicit in a bodily existence – a concept of distance that does not even exist at every level of the Cosmos he has created. So, the idea of God operating the universe at distance through a force or energy called the Holy Spirit fails. God is absolute. He created spacetime and is not bound by it. In his realm, there is no time and there is no space. The model which has God using an energy to control the Cosmos remotely is a peculiar literal interpretation of archaic Hebraisms that are intended for literary purposes.

Coda

The Holy Spirit is a Person. Arius, long ago rejected by the church, was wrong and G.G. Rupert and other Millerites should not have paid any attention to him. The syntax of the Triads seals the Holy Spirit into the God class as a sentient Person. God is not going to be restricted by distance when the photons he created are not. I believe it is time for all Arians and Semi-Arians to reconsider their theology.

The god's of Gerald Flurry

As Gerald Flurry recovers from one health issue after another his writing abilities have quickly diminished. The Philadelphia Church of God now pulls old articles he has written.

In yesterdays mailing to thier email list they had an article up that Flurry wrote in 2014 on what they claim is the "True Gospel".

At the very beginning of the article the train wrecks and never recovers. Flurry scornfully mocks Christian belief that's sustained Christians for centuries until Armstrongism came along and dumped those beliefs in the trash can and created a "new" gospel.

Flurry mocks all the things that tick off the legalists in the Church of God movement - Jesus, salvation, grace, the social gospel, and more.

Even within Christianity, there are a variety of different gospels: the gospel about Jesus Christ, the gospel of salvation, the gospel of grace, the gospel of the Kingdom, the social gospel, the Israel message—and many more. Confusion.

What is the true gospel? Even practicing Christians have lost it! And the gospel is everything! That’s what the entire message of the Bible is about!

Flurry then lobs another dinger that he believes invalidates all other Christians except himself, though what he did was invalidate himself but is too blind ot see it. 

The Apostle Paul knew the true gospel and preached it. And notice what he wrote to the people of God in Galatia: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8-9). Paul pronounced a double curse on himself or any man, or even an angel, who preached any other gospel.

We have to know what the true gospel is. We do not want to follow the gospel of men whom God has double-cursed! It is extremely important to get this right! This subject affects our eternal lives. 

Flurry and his mini-me son Lil'Stevie a red the ones accused. They preach anything they can to get out of preaching about Jesus, grace, justification, sanctification, and a myriad of other topics related to Jesus' salvational work. They lead their followers to follow the "gospel of men who are doubly cursed". 

Even more silliness permeates the article:

Read those words one more time: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Why does Mark mention the Son of God with the gospel? Isn’t “Jesus Christ” enough? No, it isn’t. You need “Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” That is not an embellishment—it is a critical understanding. We have to understand what this gospel is all about, and the Son of God is a truly important part of it!

If there is a Son of God, there must also be a Father.

To understand this truth, look at the Gospel of John. He begins by describing a time when only God and the Word existed. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Notice, this verse mentions God and the Word, but it does not talk about Father and Son. If you put this together with other scriptures, you see that God became the Father, and the Word became the Son. Why? Because of a great master plan that God has, not only for His Son but also for all the billions of people who have ever lived—even those who, to this point, have never heard the name of Christ!

There was a point in history when the Word gave up His divinity and became a tiny cell, and God begat Him in Mary’s womb (John 1:14). At that point, the Word became the Son of the Father. There was Father and Son—there was family.

Why? What is that all about? It’s about you! It’s a plan for you and for me and for all mankind! “The gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” is about the God Family.

The original apostles are rolling in the graves now when they realize what they taught has been perverted to this kind of nuttiness centuries later.

Flurry then resorts to the tired and worn-out mantra of Armstrongism:

Here is where people make many mistakes. “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many” (Matthew 24:4-5). He wasn’t warning about many people claiming to beChrist. He was prophesying that many people would be talking about Christ! They say Jesus is the Christ—they preach a gospel about the person of Christ. But they ignore the good news that Christ brought! The true gospel, the real good news of Jesus Christ, is not about the person of Christ—yet that is exactly where Christianity goes off track. “Manyshall come in my name,” Christ warned. Many have come with a message about Christ, and they have deceived many. This has happened, and it continues to happen.

Logic continues its downhill slide with Herbert's nonsense:

Herbert W. Armstrong knew the Bible like few men on Earth ever have. Five months before he died, in the August 1985 edition of the Good News magazine, he addressed this very subject of the gospel of the Kingdom of God. “And what was that gospel message?” he wrote. “It was the news of the coming Kingdom of God. And what is the Kingdom of God? It is the divine Family of God, ruling all Earth’s nations with the government of God” (emphasis mine throughout).  

At some point, when the world is filled with so many gods and goddesses, who is there left to rule over? What's the point of all this silliness? After their so-called millennium is over and everyone is now a god or goddess, what is there left to rule over? Is it to be given a planet filled with other gods and goddesses where you will be in charge? Why would you need to be in charge of other gods? Are they less than those trained in Armstrongism? If you are equal to Jesus in god stature, why does he need to be second in command over the other gods and goddesses? After all, it has been ingrained in Armstrongite followers' heads that they will be gods ruling over others. Armstrongites never think things totally through.

Crackpot Prophet On Becoming God Just Like Jesus

 

Crackpot Bwana Bob must have been smoking some of his herbs peddles in the back stockroom of his profoundly superfantabulous world headquarters in Central CA yesterday. In his weekly letter to his small flock of faithful who might actually care what he writes, he said this:

Now Jesus was not only the first of the firstfruits, He was also the firstborn among many brethren:

29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29).

5 Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead (Revelation 1:5). 

 

Since Jesus is the firstborn, this certainly implies that there will become others who are to be like Him. Thus, becoming like Jesus Christ is also part of the message of Pentecost. Of course the idea of becoming like Christ is taught throughout the Bible and is not limited to Pentecost. Notice what John wrote:

2 …we shall be like Him (1 John 3:2).

This is one of the many lies of Armstrongism and dates back to the time the church sees sin entering the world when the serpent enticed Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit.

The false promise that man can become God goes as far back as the first man, Adam. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden the only negative commandment God gave them was not to eat of fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent appeared to them and disputed God:

For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:5).

When they ate of the fruit they did not become as God as the serpent promised. Rather they brought sin into the world and were banished from God's presence. Satan, however, has been telling people that lie ever since. And, unfortunately, people still believe it.  This Is A False Promise

The Nature Of God Prohibits It

The reason humankind cannot become God is because of the nature of God. God did not become God at some certain point. He has been, is, and always will be God. He is the eternal infinite God. There is nothing lacking in His character and He needs nothing to exist. He is adequate in and by Himself.

Moreover He is the only God who now exists or ever will exist:

Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts; I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no God (Isaiah 44:6).

Isaiah also wrote.

You are my witnesses, says the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he. Before me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after me (Isaiah 43:10). 

Elsewhere:

But to believe that we shall “become God” contradicts the Bible’s teaching about the nature of God. God is one being, not many separate beings. God is eternal and uncreated. But we do not have a past eternity, and we were created by God. Therefore, we are less than God, and can never be all that God is, and we can never be God, for that word implies being eternal, being uncreated, and being all-powerful. We do not have life within ourselves, as does God. We must be given life by God. He will give us eternal life, but that life is not inherent in us, and we cannot give it to others, as God can.

Some people use John 10:34— “you are gods”—in support of the idea that we shall become God. But Jesus was not commenting on the question of what we will be in the resurrection. In this passage, Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82:6, in which the Hebrew word translated “gods” is elohim. In context, it refers to unjust human judges (Psalm 82:1-2, 7). Jesus says the following in John 10:34-36:

Is it not written in your Law, “I have said you are gods.” If he called them “gods” to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, “I am God’s Son”?

In John 10, the Jewish leaders were accusing Jesus of blasphemy because he had claimed “to be God” (verse 33). Jesus was saying, in effect, the following: “If Scripture can call unjust human judges “gods,” how much more can the name ‘Son of God’ refer to me?” Jesus was not telling the Jews that these unjust judges were Gods. As the psalm says, they were mortal. Rather, Jesus was cautioning his hearers about their own unjust condemnation of his use of the term “Son of God.” Both the psalm and Jesus were talking about mortal human beings. The question of what we will be like after the resurrection has nothing to do with John 10:34.

In the resurrection, we will be like Jesus Christ, and that will be wonderful. We will be God’s children forever, living in perfect joy and happiness, and we thank God that we can become his children even in this life, through faith in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. BIBLE PROPHECY: WILL HUMANS BECOME GODS?