Which specific teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong were labeled heretical and why?

1. Why Critics Say Armstrong Rewrote the Nature of God — The God‑Family and Trinitarian Breakup

Herbert Armstrong taught that God is a developing “God‑Family,” with the Father and Jesus as distinct divine persons but the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force rather than a person, a formulation that rejects historic Trinitarian doctrine. This nontrinitarian structure places Armstrong outside orthodox creedal Christianity because it denies the co‑equal, co‑eternal three‑person God affirmed by the early ecumenical councils; theologians and former members point to this as a central heresy ^{[1] [4]}. Armstrong’s reinterpretation of divinity also undergirded other unique claims—most notably that humans can ultimately become divine members of the God‑Family—heightening concerns among mainstream Christians about polytheistic or heterodox implications and prompting formal repudiations by later Worldwide Church of God leadership ^[2].

2. The Gospel Reimagined: Works, Law‑Keeping, and Salvation Deferred

Armstrong taught a soteriology that emphasized obedience to Mosaic law, ritual observance (Sabbath, biblical festivals), tithing, and moral/legal compliance as integral to salvation, often described by critics as legalistic and a works‑based system rather than salvation by faith alone. This perspective included the claim that salvation is “future” — that except for Christ no one is yet born again — and that present assurance of salvation is not the biblical norm, which conflicts with Protestant and Catholic soteriologies that stress present justification and regeneration ^{[1] [3]}. Critics argue this theology blurred covenantal categories and created a system where ritual observance replaced the centrality of Christ’s atoning work, a key reason historic Christian bodies labeled these teachings unorthodox.

3. British‑Israelism: Prophecy Recycled into Ethnic History

Armstrong’s Anglo‑ or British‑Israelism asserted that modern Anglo‑Saxon peoples descend from the ten lost tribes of Israel and that this lineage explains biblical prophecy about national destiny. Historical and linguistic scholarship rejects these genealogical claims as mythic and methodologically flawed, and critics say the doctrine fueled ethnocentric readings of prophecy with political implications ^{[5] [6]}. Contemporary analysts note that British‑Israelism’s shaky evidentiary basis—often traced to 19th‑century speculation—transformed scriptural typology into literal nationalist mapping, prompting historians and theologians to regard the teaching as both historically unreliable and theologically extraneous to orthodox eschatology ^[5].

4. Anthropology and Afterlife: Denying the Immortal Soul and Final Judgment

Armstrong taught that the human soul is not inherently immortal and that the dead are in a state of non‑existence until a future resurrection, aligning with certain biblical literalist readings but diverging from dominant Christian teachings on the intermediate state. Simultaneously, critics say he minimized or reframed eternal judgment in ways that contradicted traditional views on heaven, hell, and final accountability. These positions contributed to charges of heresy because they reshape fundamental doctrines about human destiny and divine justice, affecting pastoral assurances and moral urgency in evangelism ^{[1] [3]}. The rejiggering of afterlife doctrine formed part of a broader pattern of reinterpreting core Christian categories into Armstrong’s system.

5. Prophetic Claims, Organizational Control, and Why Institutions Responded

Armstrong presented himself as a divinely‑appointed restorer with unique revelations, treating his writings as uniquely authoritative for interpreting Scripture; critics describe this as authoritarian and syncretic with other heterodox elements. The Worldwide Church of God’s institutional practices—centralized media, mandatory tithing, and Armstrong’s authoritative teaching role—amplified doctrinal effects and prompted scholarly and ecclesial rebukes ^{[2] [3]}. After Armstrong’s death, successive leaders investigated these claims and, amid internal dissent and external pressure, formally repudiated many original teachings, moving the denomination toward historic Christian orthodoxy and causing schisms with members who retained Armstrongist doctrine ^[4].

6. Multiple Perspectives, Scholarly Dates, and What the Record Shows

Scholars, former members, and apologetic writers converge on a set of specific doctrinal departures—non‑Trinitarianism, law‑based salvation, British‑Israelism, denial of the immortal soul, and prophetic self‑authorization—as the core reasons Armstrong was labeled heretical (p1_s1 2019, ^[2] 2018, ^[3] 2025, ^[5] 2017, ^[4] 2005). Academic and denominational critiques emphasize faulty scholarship and theological breaks; sympathetic accounts from Armstrong’s movement framed his teachings as biblical restoration. The post‑Armstrong institutional reversal by the Worldwide Church of God provides a decisive institutional indicator: the movement itself recanted many of these doctrines, underscoring that major elements once central to Armstrong’s system were later judged unsustainable by church leadership ^[4].