Nicholas and Arius

Legend has it "Saint" Nicholas, Bishop of Myra 

(who is said to be the inspiration for Santa Claus), 

struck Arius the heretic for denying the eternality of Christ 

and triune nature of God 

during his speech at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325.

Decking both the halls and heretics.

Armstrongism has been referred to as Arian or neo-Arian in its belief in Jesus and the Holy Spirit, not quite as far as the Jehovah's Witnesses go, but close.

Arianism would resurface in the West once more in Protestant America. In the fertile soil of American religious-pluralism, entirely new religions sprouted in the nineteenth century. One of them was called the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, otherwise known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This religion is closer to classical Arianism, teaching the Jesus pre-existed before his conception and birth through the Virgin Mary. The Jehovah’s Witnesses identify this pre-existing Son (Word or Logos) as the Archangel Michael. Like the Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the worship of Jesus Christ, but like the ancient Arians, they regard Jesus as a demigod who is godlike in power and ability. In the twentieth century, Arianism saw another American manifestation in the churches founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, in what Protestants refer to as “Armstrongism” which is really just a modern American form of Arianism, similar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

 

Arianism, in a nutshell, is the rejection of the Trinity. In Arianism, the Trinity is broken down as follows… 

 

1. God the Father is the only God. There is no other. 

 

2. Jesus Christ is not God. He is at most a demigod, or a highly powerful angelic-like being, who pre-existed as such before he was born of the Virgin Mary, and was created as such eons ago, before the primordial universe was created. Or, he could be something lesser than that, either a normal man who became a demigod by God’s adoption, or just a highly favored prophet. It all depends on what form of Arianism we’re talking about here, but it’s all Arianism. In ancient Arianism, Jesus Christ was worshiped alongside God the Father. While in modern Arianism, Jesus Christ is respected and revered as “Lord” or “Prophet” but not worshiped in the same sense God the Father is. 

 

3. The Holy Spirit is not a Person, but rather the “force” of God, or his “power” moving in the world. Therefore, the Holy Spirit (being just the “force” of God’s power) is not worshiped either.  On the Arian Heresy

As Berans Did, a Church of God related site has this:

SEMI-ARIAN 

 

I love history, and this is my blog post, so we're starting with some history. I promise to keep it simple. 

 

Back in the early 200s AD there started an idea that says there is only one God, while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just three different ways that this one God presents Himself to us; "modes" if you will. This idea is called by many names today, among which are Sabellianism, Modalism, Monarchianism, Patripassionism, and etc. One of the main teachers of this view was Sabellius. If you are new to Christianity or maybe you are really trying to get away from the Trinity doctrine, this view of God might even make logical sense to you. Good thing is most people eventually give this up. Maybe some day we will go into detail on why this view of God cannot work. If you really want something right away, read Tertullian's "Against Praxaes" and Hippolytus' "Against Noetus" (and keep clearly in mind that these were written in the early 200s). But for the purposes of this blog post, let's just say that the early church was very much opposed to this view. 

 

In the early 300's, along comes a guy named Arius. Arius was one of many Christian leaders around the world who were passionately opposed to Sabellius and his Modalism. So Arius came up with his own view to oppose Sabellius. He went too far in the other direction. According to Arius, Jesus is a created being and is completely separate being from the Father. This view of God started to attract attention and eventually Christianity was split over the nature of God between those who agreed with Arius and those who had a more Trinitarian position. Both halves were opposed to Sabellius. It was this division that motivated Constantine to call the Council of Nicea to settle the issue and reunite Christians. Arius actually accused Niceans of Sabellianism. The decision came down against Arius. 

 

After Nicea, Arianism changed and blended with Trinitarianism. Since all were required to abide by the decision at Nicea, people who still held to Arianism (including Arius) had to try and force their views to make peace with the decision of the Council - at least on the surface. This new view has the Father and the Son as separate beings, but they share a similar substance. The Son is like the Father. They are two separate Gods who consist of the same kind of stuff. This new view is given the name Semi-Arianism. The West held to Nicea but there were so many people in the East holding to this new Semi-Arian view in violation of Nicea that another Council was called, this time at Constantinople. 

 

And the view was indeed new to the fourth century. It was not old or original by any means, as some COG writers might have us believe. Such a claim is simply not true. 

 

In summary, anyone who believes that the Father and the Son are two separate God beings but consist of the same sort of stuff fall into the Semi-Arian category. This is the official view of Armstrongism. The COGs teach the Father and the Son are two completely separate beings and the same stuff that the Father and the Son consist of is called the Holy Spirit. I want to point out that there are two Holy Spirits here - the Father's and the Son's.

Armstrongism is Semi-Arian.  Professing Polytheism

Another site had this:

Armstrong accepted a modified Arian view of the nature of God; this was a teaching by Arius in the late third century CE. They believed that deity consisted of a dual divinity: The Eternal (their translation of the Hebrew name of God (Yahweh) and Jesus. He taught that the Holy Spirit is a power, not a person. He promoted the concept of the "Family of God", which consisted of Jehovah, Jesus and human believers in the WCG who became Gods; in other words, a plurality of personal gods.  Jude Ministries: Armstrongism

Herbert Armstrong and most Chruch of God leaders loved to mock Biblical Higher Criticism which is the foundation of the anti-intellectualism of the Church of God movement:

The Trinity Debate 

 

The same thing happens for the Trinity debate. The Higher Critics began to publish books on Marcion, Mani, Arian, and the various Gnostics, all who had non-traditional views on what Jesus was, and how he was related to the Father and the Holy Spirit. The problem of the nature of Christ (and thus the Trinity) was obviously a hard one, because it took Christians nearly four centuries to get anything which looked like a consensus on the issue—and even then, it took a Roman Emperor (Constantine) to essentially make it all happen. 

 

I’m not going to act like the non-trinitarian tradition didn’t exist all the way throughout Christian history. Obviously, it did. John Calvin killed Michael Servetus in the middle of the Reformation just for preaching about it. The Higher Critics just gave us a lot more information about the atmosphere and arguments of the New Testament period. And Armstrong, like always, took that history, selectively ignored everything that went against his interpretation, and proclaimed The Truth had been discovered.  Was Armstrongism Just a Misreading of Higher Biblical Criticism?

More on Armstrong's interpretations and how error-filled they are:

“Chapter 1: Who and What is God?” (Referring to Mystery of the Ages)
Herbert Armstrong’s teaching

Once again, Armstrong establishes that not only the world in general, but also all professing Christians do not understand who and what God is. Only Armstrong, to whom God has given the special revelation of truth, knows the answers. The answers are in the Bible, of course, but no one knows how to put the Bible’s jigsaw puzzle pieces together except Armstrong. Consequently, whatever Armstrong says about God must be true. 

 

In Armstrong’s view, which we have learned earlier in the book must be equated to God’s view, there are two Gods: One is God and the other is the Logos, or Word, who was is God. They are composed of spirit, and have the form and shape of a human being. The Logos, or Word, is the one through whom God created the universe and the one who became Jesus Christ, at which time the first God became the Father and the Word became the Son. God is in charge and the Word is under him in authority, but still fully God and of the “God kind.” The two of them are eternal and have co-existed together in perfect love eternally. Together they form the one God Family, and their goal is to create other Gods to join them as part of their God Family. 

 

The Holy Spirit is not a third God, but rather the power and mind of the God Family, which emanates from them and which they project in order to create and to exercise their will over the creation. 

 

This means that the Trinity doctrine, which limits God to only three Beings, is a satanic, false and pagan doctrine designed to deny the truth about the real God Family and the plan for humans to enter that Family as full God Beings who are children of God after the God kind. The Trinity doctrine did not come from the Bible, but from Satan, who established the Roman Catholic Church through Simon the Sorcerer. By A.D. 70, all of Christianity was corrupt and following the ways of Simon the Sorcerer. The Sabbath and Passover were exchanged for pagan Sunday and Easter, and in the early A.D. 300s, “Dr. Arius” and other bishops were having to oppose the false Trinity idea. But the pagan Emperor Constantine had the last say, and the Trinity, along with pagan Sunday and Easter Sunday worship, were forced on the church. 

 

Through all this, the tiny true church stood for the truth, but could not prevail against the powerful false church and Roman emperor. All this was prophesied in Revelation 12 and 17. 

 

Problems 

 

Herbert Armstrong claims that God revealed this “truth” to him. Only on the basis of faith in that claim could anyone embrace such “truth.” The Bible supports no such thing. The Bible declares in no uncertain terms that there is one and only one God, not a “God Family” composed of two and ultimately billions of God Beings.

In his attack on the doctrine of the Trinity, Armstrong ignores its actual history, resorting instead to blustery, pseudo-authoritative language to convince readers of his conspiracy theory. The doctrine of the Trinity was developed over many decades of diligent Christian study of the Scriptures, bringing together the apparently paradoxical biblical assertions that there is one God and yet that Jesus Christ is both divine and human in one person. The Bible describes the Holy Spirit as doing those things that only God can do, attesting its divinity. The Bible also describes the Holy Spirit as speaking, sending and revealing, attesting that it is personal. The doctrine of the Trinity is a human explication of biblically revealed truth: 1) God is one and only one; 2) The Father is God; 3) The Son is God; and 4) The Holy Spirit is God. Together these plain, Bible truths mean that the one true God is one in three and three in one: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The church does not attempt to explain how this is so, but only that it is so. Armstrong’s so-called revelation denies the biblical record. 

 

Armstrong’s assertion that Simon the Sorcerer founded the Roman Catholic Church and his interpretations of the confrontations between Polycarp, Polycrates and bishops of Rome are historically inaccurate. Overview of Doctrinal Errors in Herbert Armstrong’s Mystery of the Ages

 

...the “real St. Nicholas” was said to be at the Council of Nicaea, where a major theme of the debate was whether Christ was “homoousios”–meaning “one substance”–with the Father, or “homoioousios”–of similar substance with the Father.  In other words, is Christ truly God, as St. Nicholas and the other orthodox bishops believed, or is He just similar to God, a very special creation, but just Man and not God, as Arius and his faction believed.

St. Nicholas was so zealous for the deity of Christ that he actually is said to have assaulted Arius. Advent, St. Nicholas, & the Deity of Christ

 

The ACOGs Celebrate Christ’s Second Advent and Ignore the First One!

 

The ACOGs Celebrate Christ’s Second Advent and Ignore the First One!

Lonnie Hendrix

The Armstrong Churches of God teach that traditional Christianity’s celebration of Christ’s first advent (Christmas) has no basis in Scripture and is actually rooted in paganism. They point out that Christians are commanded to celebrate Christ’s death (Eucharist/Passover) and are no where commanded to celebrate his birth. They are quick to point out that we don’t even know the actual date of that event, and that only pagans and sinners are noted as celebrating birthdays in Scripture. Instead, they focus on Christ’s second advent – his return to this earth to defeat the governments of this earth and establish the Kingdom of God (which they associate with the Torah festivals of Trumpets and Tabernacles). Never mind that Christ’s second coming would NOT have been possible without his first advent! Indeed, they completely ignore the fact that Scripture has just as much to say about that first advent as it does to say about the second one.

First, the assertion that the celebration of Christ’s first advent has no basis in Scripture is a falsehood pure and simple! In the Gospel of Luke, we read: “And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.  And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear.  And the angel said to them, ‘Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.  And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.’  And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!’ When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, ‘Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.’  And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart.  And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.” (Luke 2:8-20, ESV, here and throughout) I don’t know about you, but that sure sounds like a celebration of Christ’s birth to me!

Likewise, in the Gospel of Matthew, we read: “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him’…When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.” (Matthew 2:1-2, 10-11) Once again, that sure sounds like a celebration to me! Sure, this celebration occurred after the event, but the context makes very plain that this was a celebration of his birth. Moreover, we all know that the passages quoted here are only a portion of the nativity narratives preserved in these two gospels! And, as we have already noted, there are a number of Old Testament prophecies specifically related to the birth of Jesus Christ (e.g., Isaiah 7:14, 9:6, 11:1, Micah 5:2).

Second, it is impossible to overestimate the importance and necessity of that first advent! Remember, the angel told Joseph that Jesus would “save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). Likewise, in the Gospel of John, we read: “The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:9-14) Likewise, we cannot ignore that passage which is universally recognized among Christians as critical. I am, of course, speaking of the passage which quoted Jesus telling Nicodemus: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” (John 3:16-17)

In short, Christ’s birth was the essential precursor to everything that was to follow! We read in the epistle to the Hebrews: “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” (Hebrews 2:14-18) Later, in the same epistle, we read: “For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:24-28) In other words, that second coming is entirely dependent on the first one!

Finally, not only do the above referenced Scriptures underscore the lie that Scripture ignores and/or dismisses the importance of Christ’s nativity, they also disprove the Armstrongist narrative that Christ’s nativity was not celebrated by Christians for the first two or three hundred years of their history! Sure, history tells us that there wasn’t any day designated for celebration during that period, but that does NOT mean that Christians ever ignored Christ’s first advent. Indeed, in addition to the scriptures cited above, there are numerous references to Christ’s birth as an event worthy of celebration in early Christian writings. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the saints at Ephesus about Christ’s first advent: “How, then, was He manifested to the world? A star shone forth in heaven above all the other stars, the light of Which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star, and its light was exceedingly great above them all. And there was agitation felt as to whence this new spectacle came, so unlike to everything else [in the heavens]. Hence every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared; ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life.” Likewise, Justin Martyr wrote extensively about the importance of that first advent in the Second Century.

Hence, we have demonstrated that the Armstrongist narrative about traditional Christianity’s celebration of Christ’s first advent is not consistent with Scripture, history, or logic. The TRUTH is that Christians have always celebrated Christ’s first coming to this earth. It is NOT a late development, and it is obviously NOT derived from paganism! 

 

 

Who exactly was Herbert W Armstrong?

 

Who exactly was Herbert W Armstrong? 

How did a private citizen and leader of a small church denomination get audiences with over 300 world leaders from 1968-1986? 

This is the first in a series of videos that will attempt to answer those questions and many more.