On Not Being Perfect: Against the Armstrongist Idea of Becoming God-as-God-is-God

 

A Depiction of Mathematical Perfection

(Fair Use)

On Not Being Perfect 

Against the Armstrongist Idea of Becoming God-as-God-is-God

By Scout

 

My wife expects me to be perfect.  But she knows I am not God.  Talk about dissonance.  God is almighty and, by comparison, it’s a wonder I can function at all.  Only God is perfect and always will be.  He is absolute and cannot be improved upon. We are imperfect and always will be.  We will always be growing and improving (Philippians 3:13). A revealing analogy for this is any geometric figure.   A cube is pictured above.  It is a concept from geometry which, as other fields of mathematics, is concerned with the ideal.  When I say a geometric cube is a “concept”, I mean it can exist as a perfect shape in our minds.  But we do not find this perfect shape in nature.   Take iron pyrite, for instance.

When iron pyrite crystalizes, it forms a cube.  But any pyrite cube, even under the best of conditions for formation, is not perfect.  It only looks perfect to us at our natural viewing resolution.  In reality, its defining lines are formed of an arrangement of molecules of iron sulfide.  In geometry, ideal lines are defined as having length but no width. We can imagine a geometric line but we cannot draw one. If you could see the edge of the pyrite crystal, where two planes intersect to form a line, it would be ragged row of molecules, not perfect like the ideal geometric line.  God is perfect like the geometric cube in geometry and we are irregular like the cubic pyrite crystal.  

What does the analogy tell us?  There is a category difference between God and us. God is uncreated and absolute.  We are created and relative.  He is perfect but we will always strive to be perfect.   But Jesus said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”   One of the hallmark principles of the New Testament.  The ultimate stretch goal.  How can we become perfect like God is perfect?  Is Jesus being realistic?  Did the Pharisees, whom Jesus opposed so energetically, have it right – nothing is too extreme.  The term for perfect in Greek is “teleios” and its meaning is close to our word “complete.”  Teleios is related to the Greek word “telos” which means “goal”. Teleios expresses the idea that something has reached its intended goal.  In concept, teleios is like the term “finished product” rather than the philosophical concept of absolute, mathematical perfection.  Be the very best pyrite crystal you can be. 

And Jesus said, “as your Father in heaven.”  We are to reflect God’s perfection.  A pyrite crystal reflects but does not attain to the ideal geometry of a cube. Even in the next life we will be a reflection of God’s perfection like the moon does not generate light but reflects the light of the sun (Revelation speaks of this poetically, “And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb”). If we are not in relationship with God, we will not reflect his perfection but dwell in darkness.   We are contingent and cannot function as independent, self-contained beings, now or ever.  If the sun goes out, the moon will no longer reflect any light. 

Again, Jesus said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”  Armstrongists see this from an odd, minority perspective.  They see in this statement of Jesus the strange and heady idea that God’s perfection is attainable for them personally.  They can be one day, they believe, God as God is God.  Without a doubt we are to be partakers of the divine nature but there is a great, unsurpassable gulf between being the absolute God and merely a partaker of some of his virtues and capabilities.  Don’t get me wrong.  Being a partaker of the divine nature is the most wonderful destiny that one can imagine.  It transcends our ability to understand it.  It is just not the same as the unreachable and misinformed God-as-God-is-God idea. 

 

Pastoral Note:  I am in no way pastoral in my inclinations but there are some things that are so obvious that even I can discern them.  Perfectionists are the unhappiest people in the world.  They always want perfection, as they define it, and they are consistently and perpetually disappointed. Nothing worldly that you care about is perfect. A rock might be a perfect rock but who cares.  The Pharisees must have been a dour lot, if they really believed in all that compulsive attention to detail.  To teach someone to be a perfectionist without including the necessary concept of grace is to teach someone to be unhappy. Someone said that perfection is the enemy of good.  I agree with that. And I was joking about my wife.  She only expects me to be the amateur that I am.  Mostly.

 

 

Why Do The COG's Continue To Smear Christians While Extolling Themselves As Perfect Versions Of 1st Century Christianity?

1st Century Christianity 

Has there ever been a more perfect Christian Church on earth than the present-day Churches of God who see themselves as exemplary examples of 1st Century Christianity? Truth be told, 1st-century Christians would be shocked and appalled at the examples of modern-day Church of God leaders leading their little flocks. None of them have any idea what it's like to practice original Christianity. Yet, they sure know how to blame and shame Christians outside their insular little circles of self-righteous piety.

A huge majority of 1st Century Christians worshiped in private due to the fear of being executed or tortured. Thousands died in the Colosseum. Others were martyred along roadsides, in their homes, hiding in the hills, and in many other places. Yet, through it all, they persisted. 

Armstrongism has no idea what 1st-century Christians did. Today, it is all a play Mickey Mouse world to them, with made-up visions of how things could have been in their little privileged minds. Not a single COG today has ever been persecuted, though we see martyrs like Bob Thiel claim otherwise. The only "persecution" they may receive is due to their own stupidity or self-important arrogance. It certainly is not for what they claim to believe.

LCG took an interesting news item and made it into a smear job of what they deem as "so-called" Christians 

Christianity in Europe Earlier than Previously Believed: In recent years, a silver amulet or phylactery was discovered in a grave in Germany (LiveScience, December 20, 2024). The grave dates to the middle of the third century AD—about 200 years after the death of Christ and about 100 years before Constantine converted to his own brand of paganized “Christianity.” Inside the amulet was a rolled scroll made of thin, silver foil, which was 3D-scanned to read the contents without damaging it. This revealed an inscription that clearly speaks of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, noting that “every knee bows” to Him. While historians know that it was dangerous to profess such biblical truths at that time in the Roman world, the authors of the article fail to recognize that what passes as modern Christianity was not codified until centuries after the original apostles lived—beginning with the efforts of the Roman Emperor Constantine in the fourth century AD—and that true biblical Christianity is very different! The Christianity apparently professed by the wearer of the phylactery predates the “Christianity” of Constantine, though little detail is revealed in the scroll. All this implies the presence of Christianity in the region much earlier than some previously believed. As the mayor of Frankfurt noted, “The history of Christianity in Frankfurt and far beyond will have to be turned back by around 50 to 100 years.” But why would a believer in Christ be found so far north and outside of the Roman Empire? 

 

The Bible records the travels of true Christians all over the Middle East and into Asia Minor and points north and west. In many cases, they followed migration routes set down in earlier centuries by Israelitish people making their way across Europe and toward the British Isles. The recently discovered amulet lends credence to the extent of these migrations. To learn more about where the descendants of the Israelite people are today, read or listen to The United States and Great Britain in Prophecy. —Scott Winnail and Francine Prater

Adult Sabbath School: The Unteachable Robert Thiel

 

This Posting is for Robert Thiel, only, 

as I am sure he will read it shortly.  

Whatever the context, you Robert, as head of God's one surviving True Church, keep taking Isaiah 28:10 out of it.

On August 31, 2020, you repeat, for the umpteenth time, your mistaken exegesis on how one is to study the Bible. In classic WCG mode, you once again make Isaiah 28:10 mean what it never meant.

Today, and once again, you perpetuate the error...

"The Bible Supports the View that It Tends to Literally Interpret Itself"

Notice what the prophet Isaiah taught:

Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message?…For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little”… But the word of the LORD was to them, “Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little,” (Isaiah 28:9,10, 13 NKJV)." Should you literally believe the Bible?

====================================================

In the past, you complained....

Dennis Diehl, and many others, have ignored and/or despised the following instructions as to how to understand doctrine: 

 

9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:9-10,)" 

Apostate, former WCG minister, challenges COGwriter’s biblical interpretation methods: Which should you rely on? 

 

It is you, Bob, who ignoring the context and making this mean what it does not.

so once again...

How NOT to Study The Bible
(Or at least which scriptures not to use explaining how)
By The Apostate Former Minister

(Your label Bob)

 

 

Isa 28:10 (KJV) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little. 

 

 

The above scriptures, very familiar to all COG ministers and members alike, have been misquoted, misused, and misunderstood for decades. Ministers of every denomination quote them when asked "just how should we study the Bible?" It is taken to mean that one studies the Bible line by line, topic by topic, skipping over here and then over there to find similar ideas and phrases that one can simply stitch together and come up with God's eternal truths on all things.

The modern term might be called "Proof Texting". Often it is simply the "hunt and peck" method to showing what you already want to be so is so.

In our common COG experience we have the Dave Packs, Gerald Flurry, Ron Weinland types, along with the bit players in the form of yourself, who employ this tiptoeing through the Bible, "here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept " and coming up with pure trash and self-righteous drivel instructing good men everywhere how to interpret scripture through their mistaken notions about them.

Dave Pack can wander all over the Bible, Old Testament and New and come up with his weird and strange ideas about himself as spoken of by the Prophet Haggai, like anyone ever heard of Haggai, and get members gyrating in their seats. You can spend all day making Bronze Age weather explanations the modern-day ones and tell us it is how God "tries" to get our attention. They all do by looking here a little and there a little, putting line upon line together, and coming up with weird and strange explanations galore.

...they and you are mistaken.

To begin with, Isaiah is written to the drunken priests of Ephraim. I know "context" is not a word most COG ministers are familiar with, but context is important. In verse 7 we see the priests and prophets are being chided, to say the least, for being drunk with beer and wine, whether actually, figuratively or both, befuddled and stumbling while they are seeing visions and making rather important decisions. Not exactly the way to go but with the Assyrians beating on the door, understandable.

 

 

⁷ And these also stagger from wine
    and reel from beer:
Priests and prophets stagger from beer
    and are befuddled with wine;
they reel from beer,
    they stagger when seeing visions,
    they stumble when rendering decisions.
⁸ All the tables are covered with vomit
    and there is not a spot without filth.



 

 

Not a very pleasant sight and the information they come up with is, to both Isaiah and Bible God, puke.

In reality, it is Isaiah mocking these fools with the following which has been taken as "here a little, there a little, line up line, precept upon precept" and how to study the Bible. Some commentators feel this is what the priests are saying to Isaiah for chiding them. They definitely are NOT having a discussion on how to study the scriptures!

9 “Who is it he (Isaiah to the Priests or they to him in scoffing) is trying to teach?

To whom is he explaining his message? to those just taken from the breast?

To children weaned from their milk,

10 For it is:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that[a];
a little here, a little there.”



 

Translation:

Who are you talking to? (Either Isaiah to the drunken priests or they to Isaiah ) Children? You sound like children. (Or Isaiah sounds like a child to them in "Who does he think he is?" mode)
blah, blah, blah, nah nah-nah nah nah, do this, do that, rules here, rules there. Always the rules!

Bible God is mocking these men and accusing them of baby talk. In context, to me and others, it seems more of Isaiah mocking them in their drunken state than they him but either way, it is not a treatise on how to study the Bible. It's an accusing blow out between Isaiah, Bible God, and the Priests with the Assyrians waiting in the wings.

In the original Hebrew, the phrase in Isaiah 28 verses 10 and 13 is: "sav lasav sav lasav, kav lakav kav lakav" It is pure gibberish and akin to our "la la la la" and "blah blah blah." It is a mocking tone imitating the drunken gibberish of the priests and prophets of Ephraim and Judah as Assyria knocks at the door to scrape them off the earth. It might also be that the drunken priests are mocking Isaiah as It is NOT a scripture one should use to teach how to study the Bible that's for SURE!

"You want baby talk? I, the Lord, will give YOU baby talk. Want to make more fun of Isaiah? Get ready for this..."

¹³ So then, the word of the Lord to them will become:
    Do this, do that,
    a rule for this, a rule for that;
    a little here, a little there—
so that as they go they will fall backward;
    they will be injured and snared and captured.

¹⁴ Therefore hear the word of the Lord, you scoffers
    who rule this people in Jerusalem. 

 

Translation:

So then mister priest and prophet, you want to make fun of me for warning you? If that's the way you want to be then that's the way the Lord will teach you. Blah...blah...blah...nah nah nah nah nah...do this, do that. You like rules? I got rules! You will be over run by your enemies, you who rule Jerusalem. I will arrange for Assyria and the Babylonians to take you away.

(They would have no matter what, but Israel, being in the way between Africa and Europe, was always going to get overrun by someone. They spent a lot of their time trying to figure out why God was punishing them when in fact they just were in the way to the major nations seeking control as major nations are wont to do.)

 

So, there we have it. Short and simple. The next time you hear a Church of God Minister, Member or any devotee tell you that you study the Bible, "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little," just slap your head and explain it to them.

Isaiah 28:10, in CONTEXT, is Bible God/Isaiah mocking the drunken Priests of Israel (Ephraim) for issuing their rules to the people to "do this, do that" which sounds like baby talk and stupid, being drunk, while the enemies of Israel approach to take them away. It can also be viewed as the drunken priests scoffing at Isaiah first for warning them. Depends on the commentary. It cannot, however, be taken as the premier scripture on how to study the scriptures.

CONTEXT BOB.... It's not about how to study your Bible