How did mainstream theologians critique Armstrong's views on the nature of Christ and the Godhead?
Executive summary
Herbert W. Armstrong taught a nontrinitarian “God‑family” theology that pictured God as a family presently consisting of the Father and the Son, denied the Holy Spirit as a distinct Person, and taught that redeemed humans could be born into the God family, claims that mainstream theologians labeled heretical and theologically dangerous [1]. Critics from evangelical, Reformed, and apologetics circles argued Armstrong’s model undermined the historic doctrine of the Trinity, rendered Christianity effectively polytheistic or semi‑Arian, minimized the saving work and uniqueness of Christ, and elevated human destiny in ways orthodox theologians found unbiblical [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. How Armstrong described Christ and the Godhead — the core doctrines that drew critique
Armstrong taught that God “presently consists of two separate individuals, the Father and His Son,” that Jesus existed eternally but was subordinate to the Father and was “born again into the godhead” at his resurrection, and that the Holy Spirit was not a third Person but God’s impersonal power — formulations summarized by critics and by Armstrong’s own publications [1] [4] [5]. He also promoted a “God‑family” concept in which the enlarged redeemed would join the divine family and in some writings suggested humans could ultimately be “born very God,” a point that alarmed theologians who saw it as deifying humanity [6] [1].
2. The classical theological rebuttal: Trinity, unity, and the charge of polytheism or semi‑Arianism
Mainstream theologians rebutted Armstrong by reasserting the historic Trinity as one God in three co‑equal, co‑eternal Persons sharing one essence (homoousios), and argued Armstrong’s “bi‑theistic” language effectively introduced a plurality of gods or a hierarchy within deity akin to semi‑Arian errors historically condemned at Nicaea — critiques echoed in modern evangelical comparisons of Armstrongism to heretical models [2] [3]. Apologists and Baptist and Reformed commentators portrayed the denial of the Holy Spirit as person and the subordination of the Son as undermining scriptural witness to Christ’s unique status and the interpersonal, relational nature of the Godhead [4] [2].
3. Christology and soteriology: allegations that Armstrong diminished Christ’s work
Critics argued Armstrong’s emphasis on obedience, Old Testament law, and eventual “becoming God” shifted focus away from the person and redemptive work of Christ — a doctrinal trajectory said to minimize atonement and justification by faith and recast salvation as entry into a future divine status dependent on obedience and legal observance [3] [7] [5]. Seminary commentators and apologetics organizations warned that this reorientation produced a “different gospel” in which Christ’s unique salvific role was subordinated to a program of human participation in divine status, a claim they considered theologically unorthodox and potentially blasphemous [5] [6].
4. Institutional response, reform, and the contested legacy
The Worldwide Church of God’s post‑Armstrong reforms — publicly renouncing the God‑family concept and ultimately affirming the historic Trinity — are cited by mainstream theologians as corrective evidence that Armstrong’s doctrines diverged from historic Christianity and required repudiation for orthodoxy to be restored [1] [8] [9]. At the same time, defenders within Armstrongist circles framed his teachings as a recovery of biblical truth about obedience and God’s plan, and some insiders argued certain Armstrong doctrines drew on older heterodox Protestant strains rather than springing purely from Armstrong’s invention, complicating the narrative [7] [10].
5. Motives, methodological warnings, and where scholarly caution is needed
Mainstream critiques often point not only to doctrinal error but to Armstrong’s claim of exclusive interpretive authority and his movement’s authoritarian, prophetic framing — factors scholars say amplified the theological consequences of his Christology [11] [7]. Reporters and theologians alike warn readers to separate polemical tone from textual claims: the sources consistently assert Armstrong’s nontrinitarian Christology and its implications, but assessment of motive and pastoral harm sometimes blends theological judgment with concerns about leadership style and prophetic assertions, so theological critique and sociological critique overlap in the literature [11] [2].