This blog post is a critical summary and rebuttal of the booklet titled “John 3:16 | Hidden Truths of the Golden Verse” written by Gerald E. Weston, the new leader of the Living Church of God, which is one of the many splinter groups that formed after the death of Herbert W. Armstrong and the downfall of the former Worldwide Church of God. This group continues to follow the teachings and doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong, also known as Armstrongism. Armstrongism is a religious movement that claims to restore the true Gospel of the Bible, and that rejects many of the traditional Christian beliefs, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the immortal soul, and the role of God’s law.
Summary of the Booklet
The booklet explores the meaning and implications of the famous Bible verse John 3:16, which says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Gerald Weston claims that most professing Christians do not understand the true meaning of this verse and that they and mainstream Christian theology have been influenced by pagan and philosophical ideas that contradict the biblical teaching about God, His Son, and His plan for humanity. Within the booklet, Weston challenges some of the common assumptions and doctrines that are held by mainstream Christianity, such as the Trinity doctrine, the immortal soul, the nature of salvation, and the role of God’s law.
Just like Herbert W. Armstrong, Mr. Weston argues that God is not a trinity, but a family of divine beings that currently consists of the Father and the Son, and that God is creating more sons and daughters in His image and likeness (i.e., that humans will become God). He explains that the Son is the Word, who became flesh and dwelt among us as Jesus Christ, and that He willingly gave His life as a sacrifice for our sins, so that we can be reconciled to God and receive the gift of eternal life (i.e., to become God). Weston also claims that believing in Jesus Christ is not just a matter of mental assent, but of obedience and faithfulness to His teachings and commandments, which reflect God’s love and character.
Weston further claims within the booklet that God’s plan for humanity is not to send everyone to heaven or hell after death, but to resurrect the dead and judge them according to their works and repentance. The booklet shows that God has appointed different times and seasons for calling and saving people, and that He will ultimately offer salvation (i.e., that humans can become God) to all who are willing to accept it.
In the booklet, Weston also emphasizes that God’s ultimate goal is to create a new heaven and new earth, where He will dwell with His deified children in harmony and peace.
What is Armstrongism?
For those who are not familiar with Armstrongism, allow me to briefly explain again that Armstrongism is the name given to the teachings and doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong, who founded the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) in the 1930s. He claimed that God is a family of two beings, the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Spirit is not a person but a power. He also taught that humans can become God by being born again as “spirit beings” in the resurrection.
Refuting the Influence of Pagan and Philosophical Ideas Allegation:
Gerald Weston and Armstrongism make the claim that pagan and philosophical ideas had influenced Tertullian and others and, therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is a product of pagan and philosophical ideas that contradict Scripture.
Christian Scholars and theologians counter such claims by pointing out that the doctrine of the Trinity has its roots in the interpretation of biblical texts rather than direct influence from pagan or philosophical ideas. Points of argument:
Biblical Basis: Supporters of the Trinity argue that the concept is derived from a careful examination and synthesis of various biblical passages that suggest the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct yet share a divine essence.
Historical Development: They highlight the historical development of the doctrine, emphasizing that early Christian theologians grappled with understanding and articulating the nature of God based on their interpretation of the Scriptures rather than borrowing from external sources.
Contextual Understanding: Critics of the pagan influence theory argue that understanding early Christian thinkers' historical and cultural context is crucial. They contend that these theologians engaged with the prevailing intellectual climate to express Christian doctrines but remained rooted in biblical teachings.
Theological Consistency: Scholars often stress the internal coherence and theological consistency of the Trinity within the broader framework of Christian beliefs. They argue that the doctrine, when examined in light of other Christian teachings, forms a cohesive and coherent theological system.
Specificity of Christian Doctrine: Advocates for the Trinity assert that while certain terms may seem to have parallels in pagan thought, the specific Christian understanding of the Trinity is unique and cannot be reduced to mere parallels with other religious or philosophical concepts.
More Specific Arguments:
The doctrine of the Trinity is not a product of pagan and philosophical ideas, but rather a faithful interpretation of the biblical revelation of God’s nature and character. The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:6, 1 Corinthians 8:4), but also that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each fully God and distinct persons (Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, 10:30, 14:16-17, 20:28, Acts 5:3-4, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3, 9:14). Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction, but a paradox that reflects the mystery and majesty of God.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not a late invention of the church, but rather a consistent development of the apostolic tradition. The early church fathers, such as Tertullian, did not introduce new concepts or terms but rather used existing ones to explain and defend the biblical teaching about God. For example, Tertullian used the Latin word “trinitas” (meaning “three-ness”) to describe the unity and diversity of God, but he did not mean that God was composed of three parts or modes, but rather that God was one substance (Latin: “substantia”) in three persons (Latin: “persona”). Tertullian also used the Greek word “homoousios” (meaning “same substance”) to affirm the deity of Christ, but he did not mean that Christ was identical to the Father, but rather that Christ shared the same nature and essence as the Father. These terms were later adopted by the ecumenical councils of Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD) to formulate the orthodox creed of the Trinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not a deviation from the original faith of the Jewish Christians, but rather a fulfillment and expansion of it. Jewish Christians did not reject the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather accepted it as a revelation of God’s grace and love.
For example, the apostle Peter, who was a devout Jew, preached that Jesus was both Lord and Christ, and that God had made him both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). He also baptized the Gentile converts in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48).
The apostle Paul, who was a former Pharisee, taught that Jesus was the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, and the head of the church (Colossians 1:15-18). He also blessed the Corinthians with the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 13:14).
The apostle John, who was a beloved disciple of Jesus, wrote that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). He also gave evidence that supports the doctrine of the Trinity all throughout John 14 through 16.
Mainstream Christianity acknowledges that the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery that surpasses human understanding, but it does not regard it as a contradiction or a fallacy. They argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is based on the revelation of God in the Scriptures and that it is the best way to account for the biblical data about the nature and work of God. They contend that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a human invention, but a divine revelation, and that it is essential for the Christian faith and worship.
Refuting Armstrongism's definition of Elohim:
Armstrongism asserts that Elohim is a uni-plural noun, suggesting a collective or group entity, similar to words like family, church, or group. However, this interpretation is not widely accepted within mainstream Christian doctrine, and there are several reasons why scholars and theologians reject this specific understanding:
Grammatical Aspect: The plural form of Elohim is a grammatical feature known as the plural of majesty or pluralis excellentiae. It is a way in which Hebrew expresses the greatness, majesty, or excellence of a singular subject. This grammatical structure is not meant to imply a plurality of gods but rather to emphasize the singular God's supreme nature.
Consistency in Scripture: Throughout the Bible, there is a consistent emphasis on monotheism—the belief in one God. The Shema, a central affirmation of Judaism found in Deuteronomy 6:4, declares, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." This unity of God is reinforced in both the Old and New Testaments, and the concept of a uniplural Elohim goes against this fundamental monotheistic understanding.
Context of Scripture: The interpretation of Elohim as a uniplural noun does not align with the broader context of the Bible, which consistently presents God as a singular, unified deity. The narrative, teachings, and theology of the Bible consistently emphasize the oneness of God.
Scholarly Consensus: The majority of biblical scholars, linguists, and theologians reject the uniplural interpretation of Elohim. Hebrew scholars generally understand the plural form as a linguistic feature rather than implying a plurality of gods.
In summary, the interpretation of Elohim as a uni-plural noun is not in line with the testimony and usage in Scripture nor mainstream Christian theology, which maintains a strong commitment to the monotheistic nature of God. The plural form is recognized as a linguistic device to emphasize the singular God's greatness and not to suggest a plurality of deities.
A Closer Look at John 3:1-21: Refuting Armstrongism's Misinterpretation
In Christianity, the concept of being "born again" holds profound significance, representing a spiritual transformation and renewal. However, Herbert W. Armstrong and his disciples within the Armstrongism splinter groups have deviated from the orthodox understanding of this concept, misinterpreting John 3:1-21 to support their unorthodox and unbiblical beliefs.
Armstrongism's Distorted Interpretation
Central to Armstrongism's distorted view is the assertion that being "born again" refers to a physical transformation into a God-being at the time of the resurrection. They claim that no one is truly "born again" in their earthly life, but rather undergoes a spiritual gestation period until Christ's return.
This interpretation hinges on their misconstruing of terms like "born again" and "begotten." They teach that "born again" signifies a literal rebirth into a God-being, while "begotten" means "conceived." Thus, they believe Christians are merely "conceived" with immortal life during their earthly existence, awaiting the "birth" at the resurrection.
To support their claims, Armstrongists cite John 3:16-21, arguing that these verses refer to the resurrection and the transformation into God-beings. However, their interpretation disregards the broader context of the passage and the overall message of the New Testament.
Restoring Context: Understanding Nicodemus' Encounter with Jesus
Now, let me show you some more information that contradicts the Armstrongist position from John 3:16 and its context.
To accurately grasp the meaning of John 3:1-21, one must contextualize the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, a respected Jewish leader. John 3:16 is part of a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, who came to Jesus at night. Nicodemus, intrigued by Jesus' teachings and miracles, sought to know if Jesus was the Messiah and clarification regarding Jesus’ statement about being "born again."
Jesus told him that he must be born again, or born from above, by the water and the Spirit, to see and enter the kingdom of God.
Jesus' response to Nicodemus emphasizes the need for a spiritual transformation, a rebirth from above, to see and enter the kingdom of God (i.e., to know that Jesus is the Messiah and to enter into eternal life). This transformation doesn't involve a physical change but rather a renewal of the mind and spirit.
The analogy of wind in John 3:8 further illustrates this spiritual transformation. Just as the wind's origin and destination are unseen, so too is the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing about rebirth. This transformation is not about physical visibility but about spiritual alignment with God.
Jesus also said that He, the Son of Man, came from heaven and must be lifted up on the cross, so that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life (John 3:1-16).
John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.” This verse reveals several truths that are incompatible with Armstrongism:
God loves the world, not just a select group of people. The word “world” in Greek is “kosmos”, which means the whole creation, including all people, nations, and cultures. God’s love is universal, not exclusive.
God gave His one and only Son, not a lesser being. The word “only” in Greek is “monogenes”, which means unique, one of a kind, or only begotten. Jesus is the only Son of God, who shares the same nature and glory as the Father. He is not a created being, nor a lesser member of the God-family. He is fully God and fully man, the second person of the Godhead.
Whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life, not by becoming God. The word “believe” in Greek is “pisteuo”, which means to trust, rely on, or commit to. To believe in Jesus is to accept Him as Lord and Savior, and to receive His grace and forgiveness. Eternal life is not something that we achieve by our own efforts, but a gift that God gives us through faith in Christ. Eternal life is not becoming God, but knowing God and enjoying His presence forever.
Next, let me provide you with the Biblical and Christian interpretation of John chapter 3 and John 3:16.
Mainstream Evangelical Protestants are Christians who affirm the authority of the Bible, the centrality of the gospel, the necessity of conversion, and the importance of evangelism.
They interpret John chapter 3 and John 3:16 in light of the whole Scripture and in harmony with the historic Christian creeds and confessions. They understand John Chapter 3 and John 3:16 as follows:
John chapter 3 is a key passage that explains the meaning and the way of salvation. It shows that salvation is not based on human works, traditions, or rituals, but on God’s grace, truth, and power. It also shows that salvation is not limited to the Jews, but is available to all people who believe in Jesus. It also shows that salvation is not only a future hope, but a present reality that transforms our lives.
John 3:16 is a summary of the gospel, the good news of God’s love and salvation in Christ. It declares that God loved us so much that he sent his Son to die for our sins and to give us eternal life. It invites us to respond to God’s love by believing in his Son and receiving his gift of life. It assures us that if we believe in Him, we will not perish, but have eternal life.
Rejecting Armstrongism's Misleading Claims
Armstrongism's misinterpretation of John 3:1-21 stems from their flawed theology, which deviates from the core teachings of Scripture and Christianity. Their assertion that no one is truly "born again" until the resurrection contradicts the New Testament's emphasis on present-day spiritual transformation.
Their distortion of terms like "born again" and "begotten" further clouds their understanding of the passage. Being "born again" is not about a physical metamorphosis but about spiritual renewal, while "begotten" conveys the idea of adoption into God's family, not into the Godhead.
Many of the doctrines of Armstrongism have been refuted by various Christian scholars and apologists, who have shown that Armstrongism’s theology and doctrines are based on faulty interpretations, historical errors, and false prophecies.
For example, the idea that the Anglo-Saxons of Great Britain are the descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel has been challenged and refuted by archaeological, linguistic, and genetic evidence.
The denial of the doctrine of the Trinity has been countered by biblical and historical arguments that affirm the deity of Jesus Christ and the deity and Personhood of the Holy Spirit.
The rejection of the immortality of the soul and the reality of hell has been disputed by scriptural and logical reasons that support the traditional Christian view of the afterlife.
The insistence on the observance of the Old Testament law has also been refuted by the New Testament teaching that Jesus Christ has fulfilled the law and established a New Covenant of grace.
Conclusion: Embracing the Authentic Meaning of Being Born Again
The concept of being "born again" in Christianity signifies a profound spiritual transformation, a departure from sin, and a renewal of one's relationship with God. It is not about a physical metamorphosis or a delayed spiritual awakening but about a present-day transformation that shapes one's earthly life and eternal destiny.
Armstrongism's misinterpretation of John 3:1-21 undermines the essence of this transformative concept. Instead of seeking convoluted explanations, we should adhere to the orthodox Christian understanding of being "born again" as a spiritual rebirth that brings individuals into a genuine relationship with God.