By William Hohmann
Chapter One - Who and What is God?
In the theology of Herbert Armstrong, it is acts or "deeds" of the law wherein lies righteousness. Abel is seen by HWA as being righteous because he offered up sacrifices acceptable to God, whereas Cain’s sacrifices were not. HWA assumes Abel offered a lamb in sacrifice, and in other writings claimed Cain’s sacrifices were agricultural and not of livestock. There is no support for either, as the narrative of Scripture is not so specific. Genesis chapter 4 states Abel gave sacrifices of the firstlings of his flock, and does not specify the nature of Cain’s sacrifice(s). What Scripture does tell us is that Abel’s righteousness was not so much a matter of his sacrifices as much as something else: Hebrews 11:4: "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh."
It was typical of HWA to make claim to sources of information that somehow never got cited. What could these "historical accounts" be? And although HWA can be regarded as correct in that succeeding generations lost sight of God, he does so with a specific intent in order to draw certain conclusions that were evident in his writings.
This was another favorite claim of HWA; that mankind’s problems are spiritual in nature. If human nature is "spiritual" then mankind’s problems would be spiritual; but human nature is far from spiritual, and this is the basis of mankind’s problem; his nature; his lineage. Romans 5:12-14: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."
Acts 17:29-30: "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" HWA did not understand God’s judgment regarding humanity. Neither did HWA fulfill the requirement of those who would preach the gospel. He never mentioned Christ and His sacrifice and that only in and through Him one has salvation when he (HWA) went to the nations, speaking to their leaders. John 3:18: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Those in the world are under condemnation until such time they believe the gospel, and believe Jesus Christ as the Messiah; the Saviour of mankind.
Welcome to Religious Freudian Psychology 101.
Another aspect here concerning spiritual things is that, if a person is not led by the Spirit of God, they would perceive physical things as being spiritual instead; for in that they truly do not comprehend the spiritual, they create a substitute spiritual. In the case of HWA, he concluded the law given to Israel was spiritual, and that that law had to be kept in order to be spiritual.
Acts 1:15: "And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)" These were Jesus’ disciples. To exclude everyone else outside this group as having not believed Jesus and his preaching is inaccurate, to say the least.
What other religions, sects, and denominations were extant? A faulty premise is followed by a faulty conclusion. What happened that first day; that day of Pentecost? About 3000 were added to them. Why? Because they believed. Believed what? What was this "mystery" they believed? That this Jesus was risen from the dead and was/is the Savior of mankind. They were baptized and received the Holy Spirit of God. Did HWA understand this mystery? NO! He believed one had to learn about the law and start keeping the Sabbath before they could be baptized; before they could understand these "mysteries" of his. Belief in Jesus and Him crucified was ancillary to HWA’s gospel.
God’s way of life is based upon a law of love. Again, "giving" poorly explains God and what He is. God is love (I John 4:8;16).1
The author feels qualified to define what other people believe and what he rejects. Just because the word "trinity" is not in the Bible does not invalidate the concept.2 The author then relates the doctrine is not in Scripture, then washes his hands of the subject by dropping it here, claiming he will cover it later. Are these three "persons" or manifestations of God mentioned in Scripture? Yes. The real problem is man’s way of trying to understand this Trinity. It is questionable if man can truly comprehend this in its fullness. In the author’s attempt to answer the mystery of who and what God is, one can only wonder if he even had a clue.
The author went to the opening chapter of John in order to state there were originally two Personages, ignoring the statements found in the beginning of Genesis. Genesis 1:2: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." The above verse says it was God’s Spirit that moved upon the face of the waters. It does not say God moved upon the face of the waters. But we read in Isaiah 45:18 that God created the heavens and earth: "For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it." Then John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So all three are mentioned in the creation of the heavens and the earth. Jesus said that He and the Father were one. If you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father. (John 14:9) It is also written that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was made pregnant by the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit). (Matthew 1:18) And the same thing is mentioned in verse 20: "...fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." The author wants to narrow the focus to two "Personages," Jesus and the Father. Because the nature of who and what God is, is not understood by the author, the author attempts to make God over into his conception of God. The author, who was physical, was trying to comprehend God who is spiritual. Christians have the Holy Spirit indwelling them. Jesus also said that He and the Father would make their dwelling with the Christian. John 14:23: "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." Human rationale tries to determine how these aspects of God are different and distinct. Jesus appears to constantly be explaining they are one. Humanly it can be a hard concept to understand.
The concept of God as a Trinity does not limit God any more than HWA declaring God is a family of two. How the Trinity teaching "limits God and denies God’s purpose" is not explained. It is put forth as fact, and left at that.
The author just finished declaring God was composed of spirit. Form and shape are used to describe things physical. What the author fails to consider (seeing as he tends to look to the physical as spiritual when it comes to the law) is that this "image" man is made similar to could be a non-physical trait, and not a physical one; i.e., personality. Man is not like animals. Man is capable of complex thought and reason. Man has mind. God has mind. Man could be made in God’s mental image.
First off, Philip didn’t ask Jesus what God looked like. He asked that Jesus show him (them) the Father. Jesus did not respond by saying the Father's physical form looked like Jesus. His response is that Jesus and the Father are one. If you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father. Does the Father look like a thirty-three year old Jewish man of average features, or is there more to it than skin deep? The physical matters nothing. The description of Jesus given in Revelation 1 is no doubt much different than how he appeared to his disciples.
The contrast to love is hate. The fruits of hate are, in part, living a life of "get" but it is much more. It is a disregard for others. It is a behavior of being willing to harm others and use others in order to fulfill your own desires and ambitions. Why does the author insist on defining the opposite of love (which he usually opts for the term "give") as "get" instead of hate? The answer will be a bitter pill for some, and others a validation of their own experiences. The author did not love those who supported him. He hated them. He was willing to use them and make merchandise of them to further his own desires and ambitions. II Peter 2:3: "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." The author was consummately expert at this.
John 8:44: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." It is interesting to note that Jesus says Satan did not abide in the truth; not that he broke a law. John 1:17: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." John 14:6: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Satan did not violate some "law," rather he abandoned truth. He abandoned God to do his own will, and went off on his own, seeking a following after himself. He wanted to be his own "god." (Isaiah 14:12-24) Satan rejected God. As a contrast to this, we see a gospel that asks us to trust Jesus as our Savior. Out of love, we are to embrace God; the God who loved us so much that he demonstrated it by having Jesus (willingly) suffer and die in our place in order to get the message across to us how much He loves His creation: us. One can either accept the truth — Jesus Christ, or reject Him even as Satan did, and suffer the consequences. Law has nothing to do with it in this light.
HWA sees a supposed chain of command between God and the Word which he calls the "government of God."4 Elsewhere, the author described the relationship between God and those He created to be His children and as a family. A family consists of a relationship, not a government. But if one wanted to justify how they ran a church, for example, you could see why they would want to describe it this way, and claim the church is but the government of God, in "embryo." Those who come into the group are to be good little minions and do as they are told, shut up and pay tithes and offerings, or be cast out into outer darkness. Matthew 17:25-26: "He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free."
Scripture does not say that the Ten Commandments are a subdivision of the two great commandments. Jesus said: Matthew 22:40: "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Not only does the rest of the law hang on these two great commandments, but the prophets as well. This is the summation of all the law and the prophets. In love we have the fulfillment of the law, for love bears no ill to his neighbor. (Romans 13:10) But without the law, there is no government in the sense the author claims. And there is no wielding of control and power over others.
Romans 8:14: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." 1 John 3:2: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." Those in Christ now are the sons of God now. Why do you suppose the author insists on making a distinction between begotten and born? Because he paints the scenario that a begotten child of God is analogous to being like in the womb, not yet fully born, with the possibility of a spontaneous abortion. If we don’t keep this law he speaks of now, in this life, we abort; we don’t make it. In other words, it is a sword held over the heads of those who follow him in order to make the followers quietly compliant and to suffer hardship and deprivation at the hands of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. John 5:24: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath [possesses now] everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. One needs to understand the nature of the word, "verily" used here. It is a word of absolute assurance, and it is used twice. But a false religious leader has no power over those that understand this. There must always be the threat and fear of losing out on salvation.
Preaching the gospel as being "the kingdom of God coming" leaves a lot of room for interpretation and misinterpretation. After the death and resurrection of Jesus, the gospel then took on its full meaning and implication. But the author doesn’t preach the gospel the apostles taught. It was a gospel about salvation being found in Jesus Christ alone. Understanding fully what God is like does not change this fact one bit. This gospel without the law was anathema to many of the Jews the apostles preached to, including those Paul preached to. Their righteousness, therefore their salvation was bound with the law. So the Jews rejected the gospel. Can we believe the Jews rejected the fact that this Jesus was killed and was resurrected with credible witnesses to the events? It would have been a simple matter to examine the prophesies surrounding the birth, life, and death of the Messiah, but when it came to being a matter of belief in Him only for salvation, they did not believe. They had the law and Moses to save them. They had invested a lifetime of keeping the law, which for many of them had been elevated to the status of a god itself.
Instead of writing about who and what God is, the author went off on a tangent, claiming nearly everything known as Christian is actually false Christianity, especially in regards to the gospel and the "government" and "law" of God. He claims a false gospel was preached in place of the true gospel. What he has done is make accusations without much solid support of facts.
Jesus did not call the church in chapter 12 of Revelation a little flock. This comment is made in Luke 12:32 before there even was a church. He was referring to his disciples. (v.22)
John 1:14: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." I John 4:9: "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent
his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." God cannot change. Christians will not, and cannot, be born into a "God family.": Hebrews 1:12-14: "And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" Luke 20:36: "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." Romans 8:17: "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ"; The author spent much time in this first chapter describing law, and attempting to claim what he feels God is not (a Trinity).5 The Trinity is seen as the basic false doctrine of the false churches. What the author does not touch on, is what gospel was being introduced into the church in the first century that Paul was vehement enough as to doubly curse those who were preaching it. (Galatians 1:8-9) Did the author uncover anything heretofore unknown regarding who and what God is? No. All the author was interested in was refuting the belief in the Trinity. By William Hohmann (former WCG member and
graduate of Ambassador College) Footnotes for Chapter One: 1 God's love is also a holy love; He hates sin. But that is why He provided a Savior who died in our place while we were yet sinners. (See Romans 5:8) 2 Refer to: The Holy Trinity by H. A. Ironside (Uses key verses from both Old and New Testaments showing the Trinity is clearly taught in Scripture.) 3 Character was a word that HWA continually emphasized. The Scriptures describe the attributes and personality of God. "Character" is usually a word applied to humans. 4 "Government of God" translated into absolute obedience to whatever HWA taught. HWA's purpose for placing so much emphasis on "government" and "power" enabled him to use his own power and church government to control members. 5
"Contrary to popular misconception, Constantine did not have a vote,
nor did he participate in the arguments for or against the Trinity. Questioning Herbert W. Armstrong (was he who he said he was?) Articles For Those Who Were Emotionally and Spiritually Abused
|