Comparing the Biblical Revelation of the Godhead with the Armstrongist View

Where Does Armstrongism Err in it's View of God?

Herbert W. Armstrong (1892-1986)

C hristians should take joy in the biblical teaching on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We should take joy because various of the cults and sects have a very deficient understanding of the Godhead, this deficiency leading to an unwarranted confusion about the persons, and work, of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Let us take this subject in three sections, God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. My intention is that this should not be a 'dry and academic' study but a reasonably short study which might, hopefully, arm us all to be better prepared to discuss this area with any who have been left confused by the erroneous teachings of these groups.

I hope to illuminate the fact that one can hardly claim to know God if one's understanding of Him is contrary to Holy Scripture. So, the question is, if one is wrong on this major point of doctrine, how can one - nevertheless - expect to build a sound knowledge of biblical teaching and doctrine? The answer is that it cannot be done and that this foundational point certainly needs to be correct from the beginning.

Though I consider this topic in three broad, general sections there will necessarily be some 'dovetailing' between them as I respond to armstrongist claims as we proceed. For instance, much will have been said about the Trinity before we even reach the section on the Holy Spirit. Upon concluding the study I had thought to tidy things up by making the sections more 'watertight' but have decided not to do that, going with a more intuitive and flexible approach.


We know that, in the beginning, God created all things (Genesis 1:1). We know, further, that there is no other Creator God (Deuteronomy 4:35). The Bible is clear on these things. In writing to Timothy, Paul is utterly sure that there is simply no other mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). John the Apostle explains a little more, informing us that God is a Spirit Who insists on being worshipped in 'spirit and in truth' (John 4:24). This was immediately very different to the man-made concept of religion which Jesus soon encountered in the hyper-religiosity of the Scribes and Pharisees. The knowledge of the true God - given to Israel under the Old Covenant - had become a sham amidst the religious trappings of a works-based idea of justification. A superior religious class had developed among the Jews, a class which demanded total respect for the leaders but which often did little to deserve it. But in utter humility Jesus showed that religiosity not only has no power to save, but it cannot even be appreciated by God: if God is not involved in it, it becomes a rather pointless and humanly worked-up sham. Regarding religious leaders placing themselves on a pedestal, also see Mark 10:42-45.

Jesus was baptized, the Spirit descended upon Him and the Father spoke (Matthew 3:16-17), so we perceive the Holy Trinity fully at work ( obviously much more will be said about the Holy Trinity as we proceed but let us say right now that if you want to go more fully into the teaching of the Holy Trinity, per se, here is a page which should prove helpful).

So the Bible reveals One Creator God Who made heaven, earth and the planets. He also formed man in His own image and later lamented that the first human couple fell into sin in the Garden of Eden. I have chosen 'God' for this first section, rather than 'Father,' because it appears that much of the work of Creation was carried out by the One who was later born as Jesus rather than by the Father, but the work of Creation is commonly seen as the work of 'God' - rather than of Jesus - so it seemed better, at this point anyway, to arrange things in this manner.

It is the Law and Prophets, and Old Testament knowledge in general, which Armstrongism has always placed absolutely central - certainly not the Christ who saved us.


In the Armstrongist model of the Godhead, God is a family. Armstrong made this claim in The Plain Truth of August, 1958 (page 17), but he regularly stated this position, including in his (very repetitive) sermons. There is God the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit is not included, only seen as being a reference to 'the power of God,' not to another 'person' in a closed 'Godhead.' True believers will eventually be born into this family of God, thereby becoming 'God beings' - though the saved will never attain the importance of the Father and the Son; nevertheless, they will be qualitatively 'God.' Good sources of this erroneous view are many but would include, 'God's Power,' in the 'Tomorrow's World' of November, 1971 and 'What It Means to be Equal With God, this was an article written by Robert Kuhn but, of course, it was always the fully Armstrongist view.
Two other points here:

* The Son, who is 'Yahweh,' is subordinate to the Father.

* According to Armstrongism, the Trinity is simply a pagan belief which probably originated in Egypt. The fact that the phrase, 'The Holy Trinity' never occurs in Scripture is - for followers of Herbert W. Armstrong - sufficient reason to not even give it serious consideration as a biblical teaching (a very strange conclusion considering that these people place much emphasis on a 'millenium,' another word which is never to be found within Scripture).


There are several points here:

a. Is God really a family?

Not in the sense that Armstrongism has always understood this concept. It is true that the saved become sons and daughters of God (2 Corinthians 6:18), it is also true that we will eventually stand above the angels in rank and will inherit "all things" (Psalm 8:4-6; Revelation 21:7), but to state that the saved will become 'Gods,' qualitatively speaking, is to go well beyond Scripture, indeed such a concept has always been considered as heretical. Herbert W. Armstrong always said, "God is reproducing Himself." The idea here is that the saved become God beings and that this is God's only interest in His human creation. This is plainly unbiblical since not a single supporting Scripture will be found in the Bible. When God calls us 'His children' this should be seen as an expression of His great love for us, His human creation, but there is no biblical evidence that this should be considered ontologically. For sure, in the resurrection we shall be changed and our new bodies will be much more like godly bodies, we will inherit Eternal Life in our new, all-powerful bodies but nothing in Scripture states that we will be God as God is God, although lower in authority than the Father and Son. That is plainly to go too far.

b. Is God the Son (Jesus or Yahweh) subordinate to the Father?

Obviously, we look at Christ in more detail later, but it is necessary to deal with this point here and now. One might say that, humanly speaking, a son is always subordinate to his father but the interesting thing here is that to apply this to God the Father and to God the Son is to go beyond the New Testament which is always so careful to glorify Christ and to place Christ as truly central. So while this may be a human distinction, this is not a biblical distinction at all and established Christianity has been wise to avoid any such conclusion, indeed, Jesus said,

'Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.' (John 14: 9b-11).

Hebrews also states,

'The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.' (Hebrews 1:3).

So Armstrongism's usual insistence that Jesus is subordinate to the Father shows a rather poor comprehension of Scripture; it is to claim that because, humanly-speaking, a son is subordinate to his father, this must be the same for God - but that is to make a leap according to human logic, but not according to scriptural knowledge!

c. Is the Trinity a pagan concept?

Since 'God' is seen as a family name it is obvious that Armstrongism must challenge traditional Christianity's insistence on the Trinity as a closed Godhead. Does the argument that 'The Holy Trinity' never appears in Scripture in precisely that form a really compelling argument? Actually no, since, as we have already noted, this group of people always insist on a literal 1,000 year 'millenium' and that word is not a scriptural word. The concept is based - substantially - upon just one verse in Revelation 20, in a group of verses which - like much within the book of Revelation - are fully capable of being understood differently and, in fact, nearly always were seen differently until the rise of certain 19th century teachers in the United States. The point here is that it is well-acknowledged that 'Holy Trinity' is not a biblical expression as such, but the term was used to define and to tie down what the Scriptures actually tell us about God as false teachers arose and started to pervert the Bible. The denial of the divinity of Jesus was one of the first of these; Arius and his followers wanted to say that Jesus was not God as God is God but He was simply the highest creation of God. We should all be grateful that the early church quickly jumped on this unbiblical concept. The defenders of the delivered Holy Scriptures, in Hebrew and Greek, effectively said, 'Hold on a minute, let us consider what Scripture itself considers to be God.' God the Father and the Son must quickly be included but there are also verses which show that the Holy Spirit too must be considered as 'God.' "Just the power of God" simply will not cover some of these verses. Therefore to say that "the Holy Spirit just refers to the power of God" is to be careless with Scripture. Apart from being active in creation, and active in working with the judges and leaders of Old Testament Israel, in the New Testament we find that the Spirit may be "grieved" (Ephesians 4:30), lied to (Acts 5:3-5), He may be "sent" (by God the Father) to counsel and to "testify" (John. 14:26). It soon becomes plain that the Holy Spirit occupies far too major a place in Holy Scripture to be described as "simply the power of God," that element of power is certainly often characteristic of His work but it is hardly sufficient when the honest investigator takes the entirety of Scripture into account.

Again, obviously we will say much more about the Holy Spirit in the final section of our study.

Okay, so what about this idea that the Trinity is a pagan teaching? It really does not hold water! I will quote here from my 2004 article, 'Is the Trinity Pagan?' since, in that article, I covered this subject in some depth.

Before Christianity, no religion ever believed in a single Deity consisting of three persons. Detractors sometimes say that the Osirus-Isis-Horus family of ancient Egyptian mythology was a "model" for the Christian Trinity. Yet this is clearly a triad of distinct pagan deities, not a trinity in the Christian sense. The Egyptians never considered them to be three persons in one God, but as two separate gods and a goddess - among numerous other divinities such as Hathor, Ptah, Neith, Set, Nut, Geb, and Basht, to name a few. The highest deity in their pantheon was the sun god Ra, so they didn't even consider the Osirus-Isis-Horus triad to be supreme among the gods.

Some point to "triple goddesses" worshipped by the pagan Celts as forerunners of the Christian Trinity. Yet these were either triads of mother goddesses or a single goddess with three "aspects" or "modes of being." The Holy Trinity isn't one Divine Person with three "aspects" or "modes," - that would amount to 'modalism' which the church rejected as a heresy. The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are personally distinct from one another - Yet One God in three persons. Certainly, the "triple goddess" is merely a threefold deity, not a true trinity in the Christian sense, thus could not be the origin of the Holy Trinity.

The problem is that when people go looking for pagan 'divine triads' they might well find them, but so would they find 'divine quartets,' 'divine septets' or almost anything else! It depends what the researcher is looking for and his or her determination to 'read' or 'interpret'! We must realize that in India alone it is claimed that over 1,000,000 deities are worshipped (according to the region and the particular strain of religiosity one prefers)!! - in such a huge number we might find almost anything! However, if it could indeed be shown that there are many pagan divine triads (probably highly dubious), is it not possible that Satan himself could have fashioned this on his knowledge of God? But it would "prove" nothing at all.

Other critics within the cults claim that the Hindu "trimurti" - Brahma, Vishnu and Siva - was another model for the Christian Trinity. Yet scholars tell us that this "trimurti" only appears in Hinduism during the 4th-7th centuries AD. By that time the Christian understanding of the Holy Trinity was becoming fairly well-established! If the Holy Trinity concept predates the Hindu trimurti (which certainly appears to be the case), the former could not have been copied from the latter. In fact, given Hinduism's tendency to absorb concepts from other religions, and the fact that Christianity reached India in the first century, it is very likely that the Hindu teachers developed the trimurti along the lines of the Trinity-concept, as professed by Indian Christians!

Yet the former is not an exact copy of the latter. Hindus do not consider Brahma, Vishnu and Sivato be three persons in one God, but three distinct gods who each manifest part of Brahman, the impersonal Absolute. Some even add a fourth god, Ishvara, to this group, and claim that he is the first - antecedent to the other three! This demolishes the threeness which might seem to parallel the Trinity.

To sum all of this up, whatever is claimed by some of the cults and sects, there is no compelling evidence whatsoever that the trinity came from the pagan world. This is, and always has been, a rather desperate attempt to discredit a biblical teaching by certain people who simply want to push an alternative view.


We have already felt it necessary to say rather a lot about Christ in considering Armstrongism's concept of God, in particular in rejecting Armstrong's subordination of Christ, but now we need to say more specifically about our Saviour.

Jesus is the Word...and the Word was God. Carefully consult John 1, from verse 1 to 18. The New Testament makes it plain Who Jesus was! He was born of the Virgin Mary as foretold in the prophets. Isaiah 7:14. As Scripture tells us, and has been often repeated since, Jesus was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the nations, believed on in the world and received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16.

So the Word was made flesh, dwelt among us and members of our own human family were able to see His glory, a glory which the Bible describes as 'of the only begotten of the Father.' John 1:14. 'Begotten' means to be generated by procreation; a naturally born child, a product of parents. Jesus was genuinely the product of Mary but of the Holy Spirit too! This is the first and only time that the Holy Spirit has been involved in such an area. Jesus was declared to be 'The Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.' (Romans 1:14). Moreover, Paul tells us that '..If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain.' (1 Corinthians 15:17). Insufficient is stated about the importance of the resurrection within much of Christianity but we should all be aware that with no resurrection there is no basis for our Faith whatsoever!

'Wherefore, he is able also to save them to the uttermost (no half-measure stuff here!) that come to God by him, seeing that he lives eternally in order to make intercession for them.' (Hebrews 7:25).

'This same Jesus ...shall so come in like manner as you have seen him ascend into heaven (Acts 1:11; John 14:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-16). So the Second Coming is not some concept which may be spiritualized away, it will be eminently observable for all!


In the first place we do not claim that Armstrongism has ever supported Arianism, a perverted view of Christ which is fully supported by the 'Jehovah's Witnesses.' In fairness, Armstrongism always fully supported the virgin birth and has always accepted Christ as the divine Word. There might seem to be no problem there then but, in fact, there are some real problems in their view of Christ. He (Armstrong) subordinated Christ - not only to the Father, but to a group of his favourite teachings!

Mr Herbert W. Armstrong always claimed that Christ was never the 'Son of God' until He was 'begotten of God' in first century Judea (in fact, throughout his life Herbert Armstrong misunderstood the word 'begotten,' believing that it only referred to conception within the womb, but we will leave that point aside here).

Armstrong made his 'Jesus was not the Son of God until Judea' claim specifically in his article, 'Just What Do You Mean Born Again?' which appeared in the 'Tomorrow's World' of October, 1971 (page 43), but he repeated it several times during his long period of ministry.

Armstrongism has always rejected a physical resurrection of Jesus insisting that he was raised in spirit only (in fairness one or two Armstrongist ministers have questioned this but - mostly - only in private conversation).

It is the Law and Prophets, and Old Testament knowledge in general, which Armstrongism has always placed absolutely central - certainly not the Christ who saved us.


We need to comprehend that there was never a time when God was without His Word and Spirit. Indeed, Irenaeus (130-202AD) noted that when God acts in the world, He always does so through his Word and Spirit, which he referred to as the "two hands of God." Accordingly, the teaching of the Church on the Son of God is that He was begotten of the Father before all ages, and not created in time like all other created beings of the world. Being begotten of the Father [tovn ejk tou' Patrov" gennhqevnta prov pavntwn tw'n aijwvnwn] – as is said in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed – simply meant that the Son of God shared the same essence as God the Father and so was 'light from light, true God from true God.' And this eternal Son of God they identified with Jesus, whom they taught was God incarnate and born of the Virgin Mary. So while Jesus confirmed His Son status in His human birth, established Christian teaching is careful not to separate the grand title 'Son of God' from Jesus at any point. So while maybe not exactly heretical on this point, Armstrong was flying very close to the wind indeed. In fact, in making this questionable point he was simply revealing the Armstrongist willingness to demote Christ.

Armstrong is also credited with the amazing assertion that Jesus Christ would never qualitatively equal God the Father! Armstrong could make such a statement since he only saw God as a family, divine, sure, but in not viewing God as a divine Godhead - ONE GOD ONLY - he was making an unscriptural separation in 'rating' The Father and the Son according to his own, separatist understanding of God.

The subordination of Christ was very evident to anybody who attended the old-style Worldwide Church of God for any length of time. Even Christian communion had to be called 'passover' and only observed once a year. Frankly, it was viewed as a minor matter although the Armstrongist legalism was very strict that the passover should be kept on the correct date!! Nevertheless, on passover evening itself, there was undoubtedly much focus on Christ, although accompanied by such things as an insistence on the use of unleavened bread alone for passover (see Should We ONLY Use Unleavened Bread for Communion?').

Armstrongism not only believes that Christ should be subordinated to the Father but continues this subordinationism into other areas, also believing, for instance, that it is perfectly fine to allow Christ to play 'second fiddle' to a whole gamut of favourite Armstrongist teachings. Redemption is never properly explained in any Armstrongist writing I have ever looked at, and the teaching of grace is virtually anathema within the inherent legalistic climate. So - the question could be asked - how much do Armstrongists really understand about the redemptive work of Christ? It is a very fair question to raise!

Armstrongism shows no understanding that the biblical revelation is progressive, therefore they will often spend hours wondering how obscure verses in Leviticus should be upheld today. The answer, of course, is that the Old Covenant is now obsolete, very simple really: Hebrews 8:13. Christ has superceded many such obscure verses. We are now to serve and worship God in spirit and in truth, the requirements of the law having been set aside, nailed to the cross of Calvary! See 2 Corinthians 3:1-11.

Moreover, the understanding on the resurrection of the dead is incorrect. Christ is viewed as having undergone a spiritual resurrection alone! This is despite the New Testament rejection of the view that His resurrection was a mere apparition and Thomas' ability to put his hand into Jesus' side. According to Armstrongism, the body of Jesus disappeared and He did not rise in the same body but the New Testament insists that the resurrection of the Dead is physical as well as spiritual. I want to quote from my article Was the Resurrection of Jesus Physical or Spiritual? Or Did it Have to be Both?':

'The teaching in many of the cults and sects is that the resurrection of Jesus was a “spiritual” one, but one has to be very concerned at the vagueness of the theology involved in this. Jesus Himself rejected any notion that He was like a spirit, or a ghost, in the resurrected state,

'They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”' (Luke 24:37-39)

To make it even more plain that His resurrection was fully of the body, Jesus then ate food in the presence of the disciples (verses 41-43). In fact, He ate food on four occasions after the Resurrection (Luke 24:30, 42-43; John 21:12-13; Acts 1:4).

There can be no doubt that Jesus stressed the physicality of His resurrected form. This is not surprising since the concept of spirits, ghosts and phantasms existed everywhere in the world of His time and He wanted the disciples to be in no doubt that His resurrection was an utterly meaningful resurrection of the body!

Plainly, Jesus also wanted to make it clear that the resurrection was based on the same body which had died. Thomas said he would not believe that the Lord had risen unless he could see the nail marks in His hands, put his finger where the nails had been and put his hand into the side of Jesus which had been torn by a Roman spear. Jesus was apparently able to satisfy these things for Thomas – see John 20:24-28!'

Therefore it is plain error to insist that the body of Jesus had ceased to exist and that He was fully spiritual in the resurrection. He was both physical and spiritual, but the former no less than the latter.

The view that the post-resurrection Jesus had a purely spirit body was a teaching of Gnosticism, one of the earliest heresies of the church.


In countering many erroneous claims as we have gone along, much has already been stated on the Holy Spirit, but we now need to state more.

We know that He, the Holy Spirit, was very active in the original Creation and it appears that the Father gave this work to the Word and Spirit.

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.' (Genesis 1:1-5).

And so it continues with the Word and Spirit working together. John 1:1-3 identifies the Word's involvement here.

The Spirit of God often comes mightily upon people during the time of the Judges, Samson readily springs to mind here. God's Holy Spirit will be found as an active presence in such Old Testament texts as Genesis 41:38-39; Numbers 11:16-17; Numbers 27:18; Judges 13:24-25; 1 Samuel 10:6; 1 Samuel 16:13; Job 33:4; Psalm 104:30; Daniel 2:47; Daniel 4:9 and many other places too.

It is sometimes said that the Holy Spirit works externally with God's people in the Old Testament but much more internally with people since the time of Christ and that seems a pretty fair assessment in general. He now principally seeks to magnify Christ and the work of Christ - yet He may well have a continuing role in upholding and sustaining the creation, assisting the Angel of the Lord. But 'comforter' and 'counsellor' are probably the main words which Christians now think of when considering the Holy Spirit. He was the One Whom Christ promised to send to assist the young church (John 15:26;16:8;16:13). For sure, He helped and supported the early church before the Bible canon was completed and He Himself was doubtless much involved in that vital formulation.

When Ananias and Sapphira lied about their money in Acts 4, they were considered to have lied directly to the Holy Spirit and their lives were required for such a serious error. Moreover, the unforgivable sin is considered to be 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit' - not blasphemy against the Father or Son (see What Is The Unpardonable Sin?). In this way we start to understand that the Holy Spirit is indeed God - not just 'the power of God.' He works pretty directly with believers upon this earth during the present time and full respect should be afforded to Him!

In Acts 13:2 we read,

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

So the Holy Spirit was heavily involved in the work of the early church and, one hopes and believes, He is still actively involved.

The Holy Spirit is now a force for change and for boldly representing Christ, He strengthens, empowers and will lead the meek and faithful but is less interested in the proud and headstrong among believers. We are encouraged to be 'filled with the Spirit' (Ephesians 5:18), that is more likely to happen when we live closely to God, not continually going on diversions after our own ways. True believers are now called a temple of God because of the indwelling Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16).


There is basically one major error:

* Refusing to acknowledge the Holy Spirit as God.


The Armstrongist view is probably only erroneous in it's refusal to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is God - but that is very serious! In that, and in a refusal to acknowledge the Holy Trinity, Armstrongism is in error. But here I will state that there are quite possibly even more serious errors in the understanding of the Holy Spirit found among many charismatics! Some of these people acknowledge the Trinity and acknowledge the Spirit as God, yet are in serious error because of misunderstanding the present work of the Spirit, even in sometimes over-emphasizing the Spirit and putting Him before Christ. Some of these people seek to be "empowered" by the Spirit but are disinterested in studying the Bible in order to learn more of the character, purposes and will of God.


Armstrongism is wrong in it's view of God. In my experience most Armstrongists are very enthusiastic about the study of the Old Testament but far less interested in the New Testament; they do not correctly discern that revelation is progressive. They seem to share the legalistic errors of the Galatians and Armstrongism has sometimes been described as 'modern-day Galatianism.' It is very grievous legalism, it is wanting to rely on the law after the greater revelation of Christ has come! It is for such failings that Paul the Apostle took the Galatians to task. Legalism is not really the topic of this study but let us just look at a section of Galatians in which Paul the Apostle addresses a group of people who knew Christ but wanted to add dilligent law-keeping to their gospel-mix:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. (Galatians 3:1-14 - NIV throughout).

I hope that certain comments in this article may enlighten a few whose 'spiritual sight' has been clouded by the doctrinal confusion of Amstrongism. The Word of God does contain the truth, nowhere more so than in it's explanation of the personalities of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
Robin A. Brace. October 10th, 2010.