This blog is part of a 3-part series taught by one of our elders, Matt Mangum, to better equip our congregation to evanglize various religious views in the Augusta area. In order to best respond to the World Mission Society Church of God, one should first familiarize themselves with the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity & the history of the World Mission Society Church of God.
The World Mission Society Church of God: A Response to their Teachings
- To refute false doctrine.
- To provide a reasoned defense of the gospel.
- To counter-evangelize the WMSCOG.
Responding to God the Mother Claims:
C: God the Mother exists and she is testified in the Bible from beginning to end.
R: The Bible is unified in its message of one God from beginning to end and God does not accept worship of other gods. See Exodus 20:2-3 (“I am the Lord your God…You shall have no other gods before me”), Isaiah 44:6 (“…besides me there is no god”), and Galatians 3:20 (“…but God is one”).
C: The presence of children naturally indicates the presence of a father and a mother; we are God’s children and God the Father exists, therefore, God the Mother exists.
R: This is true in an earthly sense, but says nothing about the nature of God. This is an argument from analogy that presupposes that God must be analogical to humans.
C: In light of Hebrews 8:5, we can apply the principle of “copy and shadow” to the family system. Every member of the earthly family system is therefore present in the heavenly family system.
R: Hebrews 8:5 refers only to the tabernacle and the sacrificial system; the principle of “copy and shadow” does not extend beyond what the context allows. This is again an argument from analogy.
C: Children can only have life because it is the mother that gives birth; therefore, God the mother is required to give life.
R: This is another argument from analogy and speaks nothing about God. In the Bible, God speaks life into existence (Gen 1:20-25) and forms man from the dust and himself breathes life into the man (Gen 2:7); the Father is perfectly capable of giving life himself.
C: Christ showed us to pray to our Father in heaven because, as children of God, we also have God our Mother.
R: This goes back to the argument from analogy. The same logic could lead one to conclude that God the Grandfather or Grandmother exists; the statement is made in silence and analogically.
C: The Hebrew word Elohim shows that there are multiple Gods because the word is plural and literally means “gods.” This points to God the Mother.
R: While it is true that Elohim is technically a plural form of El, the Bible’s use of Elohim does not treat it as a plural when it refers to the true God. The accompanying pronouns and verb conjugations in the Hebrew are for the singular masculine, thereby indicating one God and not multiple.
C: The use of plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26-27 demonstrates that that are multiple gods and that God the Mother must have created the female image.
R: The plural pronouns could either refer to 1) the Trinity; or 2) be an example of the “royal we.” Look at verse 27, there is only one (masculine) God performing the actions: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
C: “In the book of Genesis, we see God give Adam the power to do everything. However, the one thing Adam could not do was give life. This is why he named his wife Eve, which means ‘life,’ and called her ‘the mother all who live’ since life only comes from a mother. Prophetically, God lets us know that even though God the Father exists, God the Mother is necessary for spiritual life—eternal life.”
R: God did not give Adam the power to do everything; the argument breaks down in its first premise. Furthermore, the conclusion that Eve being the “mother of all who live” points to God the Mother is a non-sequitur; the conclusion that is reached has no actual relation to the premise.
C: Galatians 4:26 and Revelation 21:9-10 prove that God the Mother is the Heavenly Jerusalem.
R: These two passages have two completely separate contexts:
1.) In Galatians 4:26, Paul is contextually referring to the believer’s citizenship by his use of “mother” (see also Phil. 3:20-21). Citizenship in the earthly Jerusalem is for children of the flesh (those who adhere to the Law), while in the heavenly Jerusalem it is for children of promise (those saved by God’s effort and not by their own). The heavenly Jerusalem is thus allegorical for the true Israel and the kingdom of Heaven; this is a continuation of the thought that not all descendants from Abraham are of Abraham and Abraham being the father of all who believe (see Gal. 3:15-4:7, Rom. 4:9-25, and Rom. 9:1-13).
2.) In Revelation 21:9-10, the New Jerusalem refers to a physical city that will be the dwelling place for God’s people. The church is also depicted as the Bride of Christ in Ephesians 5:22-33 (though be aware that the church is not explicitly referred to as the Bride of Christ in the NT). In combination with the two passages, we come to the conclusion that the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem (the Bride) are the church, thus the title may also apply to the church collective.
C: “Now we can see God’s will come to fulfillment as both God the Father and God the Mother call us to give us eternal life. ‘The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life”’ (Rev 22:17).
R: Both modalism and bitheism are present in this assertion, such that the Spirit indicates the Father and the bride indicates the Mother. However, the passage does not teach who is giving life, as it is merely an invitation. If this spoke to God the Mother giving life, then it also refers to whoever hears as giving life. Contextually, this is an invitation from the Spirit and the Church to hear the gospel.
Responding to Issues that Affect the Gospel:
C: Based on Isaiah 9:6, the members of the Trinity are all the same person (modalism).
R: All these titles are best understood as a single compound “name” giving qualities about Jesus, not conferring specific names upon him. In fact, note that the word “name” is singular. This pattern of giving long symbolic names has already been established in Isaiah 8:3.
C: Ecclesiastes 3:1 says that there is a time for everything. History is divided into three ages: the age of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
R: Ecclesiastes 3:1 speaks nothing about ages, but simply states the fact that there is a time for the different matters in life. Verses 2-8 provide this context.
C: Based on Isaiah 43:11 and Acts 4:12, we see that in each of the ages of the Father and the Son, there is a different name required for salvation. Thus, we need the name of the Holy Spirit in this age.
R: Yahweh did not expire as the name of God. The name Yahweh (or Jehovah as they will say) is not a name specifically applied to the Father; it is God’s personal name. Remember there are three distinct persons; Yahweh applies to all three. Jesus bringing salvation is the culmination of Yahweh saving his people (see Romans 3:21-26). There is no discontinuity between Yahweh being the only Savior and salvation coming through the name of Jesus. No further name is looked for.
C: The name of Jesus is no longer valid for salvation because it expired when the age of the Son ended.
R: Scripture gives no indication that the name of Jesus will ever expire. In fact, he has been granted the name above all other names (Phil. 2:9-11), both in this age, and the age to come (Eph. 1:21).
C: When Jesus tells us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he lets us know that there is a name for each person that we must learn.
R: To do something in the name of someone means to do it by his authority. If I do something in the name of the king, I am not making a statement about his name, but by the authority by which I do it. In the same manner, Jesus is telling us we are baptizing by the authority of and into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not that we needed specific names for each member of the Trinity.
C: Revelation 3:12 teaches you need the name of God the Mother and the new name of Jesus.
R: The writing of the names refers to ownership; they belong to God and are citizens of the New Jerusalem. This idea of ownership is later reflected in the Lord’s seal on the saints’ forehead (Rev 7:3) and the mark of the beast (Rev 14:9). While the exact meaning of Jesus’ new name is not wholly clear, it may be a reference to the vision in Revelation 19:11-21 where he is called King of kings and Lord of lords. (Revelation presents hermeneutical challenges due to the symbolic and apocalyptic nature of the text).
- The matters of modalism and a dispensational understanding of salvation and the name of the Savior are the primary errors that make the WMSCOG resistant to hearing the gospel.
Preaching the Gospel:
- Due to the confused categories,
point them towards these aspects:
- Redemptive history is fulfilled by and terminates on Jesus Christ.
- The enduring efficacy and power of the name of Jesus.
history reached its completion in Jesus; the OT system was incomplete.
- Romans 3:21-25
accomplished salvation once and for all; the work is complete and we are
not looking for a future fulfillment of it.
- Hebrews 9:6-14, 10:11-18
- The name of Jesus is above all
names, both now and forever.
- Philippians 2:9-11
- Note in v. 21, his name is above every name in this age and the one to come.
are we looking for next? The return of this same Jesus, not another one.
- Jesus will return in the same way he left.
- Jesus warned that false Christs would appear, i.e. Ahnsahnghong.
- The second coming of Jesus brings a final judgment.
- Acts 1:9-11
Breaking the System: Press Them on Their Beliefs:
- Did the Apostles preach that God the Mother was needed for salvation? What was the Apostles’ message of the gospel? (Refer to 1 Cor 15:1-11, Acts 2:22-39, Acts 10:34-43, Acts 13:26-39, Acts 16:30-31, Acts 17:29-31, Acts 26:19-23, Romans 3:20-26, Romans 10:9-10).
- Is there ever a time where we see anybody praying to God the Mother in the Bible?
- Did Ahnsahnghong die? If he did, is this not a violation of Romans 6:9-10? (If they don’t acknowledge that) Did you know the WMSCOG used to teach that he died?
- Did Ahnsanhnghong return in the same manner as Acts 1:9-11?
- How could Ahnsahnghong write a book refuting God the Mother and yet also teach that she exists? Has God ever retracted an “unchanging truth?”
- Be aware they are trying to drive the conversation.
- Be aware they are attempting to overwhelm you with rapid fire information.
- Try not to argue in circles; if you are repeating yourself, let it be.
- Challenge them on points, don’t always be on the defensive.
- Keep focused on the gospel issues as they will try to pull you away.
 The claims are based on statements from WMSCOG websites and from personal interaction.