CARM Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Apologetics Notebook
Volumes 1 - 5
Matthew J. Slick M. Div.

ii

CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry Christian Apologetics Notebook Volumes 1 - 5

A collection of information designed to aid the Christian in defending the Christian faith

Vol. 1 o o o o o o o o Vol. 2 o o o o o

Doctrine The Bible Baptism Various Articles Parables Dictionary of Theology Christian Issues To the Christian Church Apologetics Apologetics Dialogues 40 Objections with Answers Evidence and Answers Bible Difficulties

Vol. 3 o o o o o o o Vol. 4 o o o Vol. 5 o o o o o

Oneness Pentecostal Universalism Roman Catholicism Christadelphianism Christian Science Shepherd's Chapel International Church of Christ Cults Jehovahs Witnesses Mormonism Atheism Relativism Islam Heresies New Age Movement

By Rev. Matthew J. Slick, M. Div. www.carm.org copyright 2003 Permission is granted to copy the material via photocopying machine for distribution. Please do not alter the text. Please provide author information if and when possible. Scriptures are quoted in italic so they may stand out from the rest of the text. Note to reader: The purpose of this volume, and all the other volumes, is to provide information for the Christian by which the Lord Jesus may be glorified, the Christian equipped, and the unbeliever encouraged to come to a saving relationship with Jesus. To this end, please feel free to copy the material and distribute it where needed.

iii

Table of Contents
Christian Doctrine ..............................................................................................................1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1 Christian Doctrine...........................................................................................................2 The Bible ...................................................................................................................2 God ..........................................................................................................................3 Trinity.......................................................................................................................4 Creation ....................................................................................................................4 Man ..........................................................................................................................4 Jesus ........................................................................................................................6 The Holy Spirit............................................................................................................7 Salvation ...................................................................................................................7 Justification and Sanctification.......................................................................................8 The Church ................................................................................................................8 The Resurrection.........................................................................................................8 The Millennium ...........................................................................................................8 The Rapture ...............................................................................................................9 The Final Judgment .....................................................................................................9 The New Heavens and the New Earth .............................................................................9 Basic Christian Doctrine................................................................................................. 10 Three Essential Doctrines of Christianity........................................................................... 11 Who is God?................................................................................................................ 13 The Holy Spirit ............................................................................................................. 14 The Atonement ............................................................................................................ 15 James 2:24, not by faith alone ....................................................................................... 18 The law and the gospel ................................................................................................. 19 Salvation: What Does it Mean to Be a Christian?................................................................ 22 Being a Christian Means Fellowship with Jesus................................................................... 22 Covenant .................................................................................................................... 24 The Two Main Covenants ............................................................................................... 28 Divisions under the covenant of grace.............................................................................. 29 Jesus' Two Natures ....................................................................................................... 30 Jesus............................................................................................................................. 30 Bible verses that show Jesus is God ................................................................................. 31 Jesus is Jehovah (YHWH) ............................................................................................... 33 The True Jesus ............................................................................................................ 34 100 Truths About Jesus ................................................................................................. 36 Who is Jesus according to John the Apostle? ..................................................................... 38 Jesus' Resurrection was physical..................................................................................... 41 Objections to Jesus' physical resurrection answered ........................................................... 43 What did Jesus come to do? ........................................................................................... 46 Jesus is a man right now ............................................................................................... 47 Jesus is God ................................................................................................................ 50 If Jesus were not God, then explain... .............................................................................. 52 The Trinity, what is it?...................................................................................................... 53 Trinity is indeed biblical. ................................................................................................ 54 The Trinity Chart .......................................................................................................... 55 Another Look at the Trinity ............................................................................................ 56 Early Trinitarian Quotes................................................................................................. 58

iv

The Bible ......................................................................................................................... 61 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 61 The Bible .................................................................................................................... 62 The Greek and Hebrew Alphabet with numeric equivalents .................................................. 63 Papyri p1 through p76 200 A.D. to 700 A.D. ..................................................................... 65 Minuscules 2 through 399 - 9th to 16th century copies ....................................................... 66 Minuscules 404 through 999 -- 8th to 16th century copies................................................... 67 Old Testament Books .................................................................................................... 68 New Testament Books ................................................................................................... 70 When was the Bible written and who wrote it?................................................................... 72 Other books mentioned in the Bible ................................................................................. 74 Chronology of the Old Testament .................................................................................... 75 Bible Chronology of the New Testament ........................................................................... 77 Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people .............................................. 79 The Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch ................................................................ 82 Answering the Documentary Hypothesis ........................................................................... 84 Biblical Interpretation.................................................................................................... 87 Scientific Accuracies of the Bible ..................................................................................... 91 Prophecy, the Bible and Jesus......................................................................................... 92 What is Redaction Criticism? .......................................................................................... 96 Baptism ........................................................................................................................... 97 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 97 Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? ................................................................................ 98 Baptism and Mark 16:16 ............................................................................................. 102 Baptism and Roman 6:3-5 ........................................................................................... 104 Baptism and Gal. 3:27 ................................................................................................ 107 Baptism and 1 Pet. 3:21 .............................................................................................. 108 Baptism and John 3:5 ................................................................................................. 110 Baptism and Acts 2:38 ................................................................................................ 112 Various Articles ............................................................................................................. 117 Introduction ..................................................................................................................117 Man ......................................................................................................................... 118 Let Us make man in our image ..................................................................................... 120 God ......................................................................................................................... 121 Angels ...................................................................................................................... 122 Pharisee ................................................................................................................... 125 Moloch ..................................................................................................................... 126 The Elder in the Church............................................................................................... 127 The Crucifixion of Jesus ............................................................................................... 128 Plurality Study ........................................................................................................... 130 Amillennialism and Premillennialism............................................................................... 132 Col. 2:9 and Eph. 3:19 ................................................................................................ 133 Parables ........................................................................................................................ 135 Introduction ..................................................................................................................135 The Great Banquet Luke 14:15-24 ................................................................................ 136 The Fig Tree Luke 13:1-9 ............................................................................................ 139 The Prodigal Son Luke 15:1-2, 11-32............................................................................. 142 The Good Samaritan Luke 10:25-37 .............................................................................. 145 The Unjust Steward Luke 16:1-8................................................................................... 148 Dictionary of Theology ................................................................................................... 153 Introduction ..................................................................................................................153 Evangelism .................................................................................................................... 199 Introduction ..................................................................................................................199 Why Should We Witness?............................................................................................. 200 Foundations are First .................................................................................................. 201 Three Important Verses in Witnessing ............................................................................ 203 Salvation is God's work ............................................................................................... 205 How to Memorize Scripture .......................................................................................... 207

The Importance of Prayer in Evangelism......................................................................... 209 The Do's and Don't's of Witnessing................................................................................ 211 Law and Gospel ......................................................................................................... 212 The Four Spiritual Laws ............................................................................................... 214 Christian CPR ............................................................................................................ 215 Leading Someone to the Lord ....................................................................................... 217 Trust God and Go Witness ........................................................................................... 218 Christian Issues ............................................................................................................. 219 What is a Christian World View and Why do Christians Need One? ...................................... 220 What are Some Elements of a Christian World View? ........................................................ 222 Christians and Education ............................................................................................. 223 Christianity and Homosexuality..................................................................................... 225 The Christian Family ................................................................................................... 227 Christianity and Science .............................................................................................. 229 The Failure of the Christian Church................................................................................ 231 To the Christian Church.................................................................................................. 233 Introduction ..................................................................................................................233 Introduction: Why this topic?....................................................................................... 234 What is the Christian church? ....................................................................................... 236 What is the Christian church supposed to be?.................................................................. 238 The need for unity in the church ................................................................................... 240 There is pride in the Christian Church ............................................................................ 242 Apostasy in the Christian church ................................................................................... 244 Examples of Apostasy in the Christian church.................................................................. 247 What are signs that a church is becoming secular?........................................................... 249 The elder in the church ............................................................................................... 251 Should unbelievers lead Christians in worship in a church service? ...................................... 253 What kind of a Christian are you?.................................................................................. 255 Do you know the basics of the Christian faith? ................................................................. 257 Answers to the questions on basics. .............................................................................. 259 Are you comfortable?.................................................................................................. 262 Apologetics.................................................................................................................... 265 Introduction ..................................................................................................................265 An Introduction to Apologetics...................................................................................... 266 Are you an apologist?.................................................................................................. 268 Logic in Apologetics.................................................................................................... 269 Prayer in Apologetics .................................................................................................. 271 Are there Guidelines for doing Apologetics?..................................................................... 272 Classical Apologetics................................................................................................... 273 Presuppositional Apologetics ........................................................................................ 275 Evidential Apologetics ................................................................................................. 276 The Cosmological Argument ......................................................................................... 277 The Teleological Argument ........................................................................................... 278 Apologetics Bibliography .............................................................................................. 279 Apologetics Dialogues .................................................................................................... 281 Introduction ..................................................................................................................281 Jesus' Resurrected Body, the Atonement, and Islam......................................................... 282 Discussion with a Gnostic on Jesus' Resurrection.............................................................. 284 Does God have a Body?............................................................................................... 286 A Christian having doubts because of school. .................................................................. 288 Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? .............................................................................. 289 The Resurrection of Jesus: Literal or Symbolic?.............................................................. 293 Pain can make us doubt God. ....................................................................................... 295 An Agnostic Questions the Trinity.................................................................................. 297 Claims to be a god ..................................................................................................... 298 Is it right to tell people that what they believe in is false?.................................................. 302 Dialogue with someone who claims to be one of the two witnesses of Revelation................... 305 Discussion on the possibility of Jesus' resurrection. .......................................................... 310

vi

Condemning words and pompous attitude ...................................................................... 313 An evolutionist says evolution is a fact ........................................................................... 318 Discussion with a Jehovah's Witness about a relationship with Jesus ................................... 321 Can the Muslim do enough good works to go to paradise? ................................................. 323 Discussion on how God can be one person as flesh and spirit. ............................................ 326 A Satanist judges God ................................................................................................. 329 Dialogues with Atheists ...................................................................................................330 An Atheist Says There Is No Evidence For God................................................................. 330 An Atheist Says He Knows There Is No God .................................................................... 331 Sickness as an argument against God's existence ............................................................ 333 Discussion with an obnoxious atheist ............................................................................. 336 Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God's existence. ........................................... 338 Dialogues with Catholics ..................................................................................................340 Two Catholics say baptism is necessary for salvation. ....................................................... 340 Discussion with a Catholic on interpreting the Bible .......................................................... 343 Dialogues with Mormons ..................................................................................................347 Two Mormons state that 3 Gods is really 1 God. .............................................................. 347 Discussion with a Mormon on God's Nature ..................................................................... 352 What is salvation and who is God?................................................................................. 356 Did Joseph Smith see God the Father? ........................................................................... 359 Feelings, gods, and Joseph Smith.................................................................................. 361 Mormo n and salvation and works .................................................................................. 364 40 Objections with Answers ........................................................................................... 367 Introduction ..................................................................................................................367 I am not a sinner. ...................................................................................................... 368 What is sin? .............................................................................................................. 368 I am too big a sinner. ................................................................................................. 368 What is salvation? ...................................................................................................... 368 What do I do to get saved? .......................................................................................... 368 Is baptism necessary for salvation? ............................................................................... 368 I am already good enough. .......................................................................................... 369 I am doing the best I can and I'm sincere....................................................................... 369 I am skeptical. ........................................................................................................... 369 I tried Christianity once............................................................................................... 369 I knew some Christians once and they wronged me.......................................................... 369 I'll take my chances.................................................................................................... 370 I am not that bad a person. ......................................................................................... 370 I am too old or too young. ........................................................................................... 370 I can't believe in a God who would send people to hell. ..................................................... 370 I will worry about it in the next life. ............................................................................... 370 I don't want to give up what I like doing......................................................................... 371 Christianity is boring. .................................................................................................. 371 I am an atheist. I don't believe in God. .......................................................................... 371 I am trying to be a Christian. ....................................................................................... 372 I am already religious. ................................................................................................ 372 I don't need God. ....................................................................................................... 372 I have things I need to do before I become a Christian. .................................................... 372 I prefer to remain open minded. ................................................................................... 372 I already believe in God............................................................................................... 372 I'll choose God later. ................................................................................................... 373 There are too many hypocrites in the church................................................................... 373 Why are we here? Or, Why did God make us? ................................................................. 373 What about those who have never heard the Gospel? ....................................................... 373 Jesus is only one of many great men of history ................................................................ 373 Why is there evil and suffering in the world? ................................................................... 374 What makes Jesus so special? ...................................................................................... 374 Why did Jesus have to die in order for me to go to heaven?............................................... 375 What makes you think the Bible is the word of God?......................................................... 375

vii

The New Testament was written so that it would only look like Jesus fulfilled prophecy........... 375 The Bible is full of contradictions. .................................................................................. 375 How do I know which religion is right? ........................................................................... 375 Religion is whatever you feel is right.............................................................................. 376 All religions are different paths to the same place. ........................................................... 376 What about dinosaurs and evolution?............................................................................. 376 Evidence and Answers ................................................................................................... 377 Introduction ..................................................................................................................377 Inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible............................................................................. 378 The Miracles of Jesus .................................................................................................. 380 Evidence supporting the Bible ...........................................................................................381 Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability................................................ 381 Illustratio n of Bible text manuscript tree......................................................................... 383 Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people ............................................ 384 Archaeological Evidence verifying biblical cities................................................................ 387 The writings of Josephus mention many biblical people and places ...................................... 390 When were the gospels written and by whom? ................................................................ 392 Evidence of biblical inspiration ...................................................................................... 395 Answers to Questions about the Bible ................................................................................398 Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document? ............................................... 398 Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ? ..................................... 401 Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore?...................... 404 Since the New Testament writers were biased, can we trust their testimony? ........................ 406 What is the gospel of Q and does it prove the Gospels are false? ........................................ 407 Why isn't there other evidence of the massacre of the babies? ........................................... 409 Do the lost books of the Bible prove that the Bible has been altered? .................................. 412 Is there non-biblical evidence of a day of darkness at Christ's death? .................................. 413 Evidence supporting Jesus' existence.................................................................................414 Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus........................................... 414 1 Cor. 15:3-4 demonstrates a creed too early for legend to corrupt..................................... 416 Answers to objections concerning Jesus' miracles and resurrection ..........................................418 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence......................................................... 418 Does the Bible provide extraordinary evidence for Jesus' Resurrection?................................ 421 It is improbable that Jesus rose from the dead ................................................................ 423 The Christians were mistaken about Jesus' resurrection .................................................... 424 The New Testament writers conspired together to gain power and influence ......................... 425 Jesus was a magician who made people hallucinate about His miracles ................................ 428 Jesus only appeared to have died on the cross - Swoon Theory .......................................... 429 The Disciples stole Jesus' body and faked His resurrection. ................................................ 431 There are no non-biblical accounts to the resurrection ...................................................... 434 Miracles cannot happen ............................................................................................... 436 Answers to Questions about Jesus .....................................................................................437 Was Jesus just a myth? ............................................................................................... 437 Did Jesus really die on the cross?.................................................................................. 440 Did Jesus rise from the dead? ....................................................................................... 441 Didn't Jesus simply rise in a non-physical, spirit form? ...................................................... 442 If Jesus is God in flesh, why did He not inherit original sin?................................................ 443 Can't all Jesus' miracles be explained naturally? .............................................................. 444 Other Objections answered ..............................................................................................448 Are the New Testament themes found in the Old Testament?............................................. 448 Apollonius of Tyana also did miracles and rose. What about him? ........................................ 450 Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false?............................................. 451 Why believe in Christianity over all other religions? .......................................................... 453 If God is all powerful and loving, why is there suffering in the world? .................................. 456 A loving God would never send anyone to hell ................................................................. 459 It is intolerant to say that Christianity is the only true religion. ........................................... 461 Why did animals have to die for the sins of Adam and Eve and others?................................ 462 Why would God have to die to save people from Himself?.................................................. 463

viii

If God is not the author of confusion, what about the Tower of Babel? ................................. 464 If babies die when they go to heaven, why is abortion wrong? ........................................... 464 Bible Difficulties ............................................................................................................ 465 Introduction ..................................................................................................................465 Introduction to Bible Difficulties and Bible Contradictions................................................... 466 1 & 2; Don't Gen. 1 and 2 present contradictory creation accounts? .................................... 467 Genesis ........................................................................................................................467 1:26, How many Gods are there, one or many?............................................................... 468 3:9, Doesn't God saying Adam where are you? show God didn't know something? ............... 469 4:17, Where did Cain get his wife? ................................................................................ 469 5:1-31, Did people really live hundreds of years according to Genesis? ................................ 470 6:19-20, How many kinds did Noah bring into the ark, two or seven?.................................. 471 37:28, Who purchased Joseph, the Ishmaelites or the Midianites? ...................................... 471 38:9, God kills a man for spilling his seed on the ground................................................... 472 Exodus .........................................................................................................................472 6:2-3, Has anyone seen God or not?.............................................................................. 472 20:5, Should you make graven images or not?................................................................ 473 20:8, Should we keep the Sabbath or not? ..................................................................... 474 Deuteronomy .................................................................................................................475 5:9, Do the sons bear the sins of the fathers or not? ........................................................ 475 1 Samuel ......................................................................................................................476 16:19-23, Did or did not Saul know who David was? ........................................................ 476 17:50, Who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan? .................................................................. 477 31:4, Who killed Saul, Saul or the Amalekite? ................................................................. 477 2 Samuel ......................................................................................................................478 6:23, Did Michal have any children or not? ..................................................................... 478 10:18, How many charioteers were killed, 700 or 7000? ................................................... 478 24:1, Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? God or Satan? ........................ 479 24:9, How many fighting men were found in Judah and Israel? .......................................... 479 24:13, God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine? ................... 480 1 Kings .........................................................................................................................480 4:26, How many stalls of horses did Solomon have, 4,000 or 40,000?................................. 480 5:16, How many supervisors were there? ....................................................................... 481 7:26, How many baths, 2000 or 3,000? ......................................................................... 482 2 Kings .........................................................................................................................482 8:26, How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem? .................................... 482 24:8, How long did Jehoiachin rule over Jerusalem? ......................................................... 483 2 Chronicles ..................................................................................................................483 11:20, Who was King Abijah's mother? .......................................................................... 483 36:9, How old was Jehoiachin when he became king? ....................................................... 483 Ezra Nehemiah ............................................................................................................484 2, Why are the statistics in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 different? ............................................ 484 Job ..............................................................................................................................485 1, If Job was blameless, why did God allow Satan to afflict him? ......................................... 485 Psalm...........................................................................................................................485 5:5; 11:5, Does God hate people or love them? ............................................................... 485 Isaiah...........................................................................................................................486 7:14, in Hebrew alma means maiden, not virgin. Therefore, it is not a prophecy. ................ 486 45:7, Is the Lord good or bad to people? ........................................................................ 487 Jeremiah.......................................................................................................................488 22:28-30, Did Coniah have children or not? .................................................................... 488 32:27, Is the Lord omnipotent or not? ........................................................................... 488 Jonah ...........................................................................................................................489 3:4,10, Did God destroy Nineveh or not?........................................................................ 489 Malachi .........................................................................................................................489 3:6, Does the Lord change or not? ................................................................................ 489 Matthew .......................................................................................................................490 1, Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3? .......................... 490

ix

4:5,8, Where did the devil take Jesus first, the pinnacle or somewhere else? ........................ 492 4:18, Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew? ............................................... 494 5:1; 6:9-13; 7:28, Who did Jesus tell the Lord's Prayer to? ............................................... 495 5:16; 6:1-4, Should or should we not let our good works be seen? ..................................... 496 5:22; 23:17, Can we call someone a fool or not? ............................................................. 497 8:5-13, Who brought the Centurion's request to Jesus? .................................................... 497 9:9, Was the taxman named Matthew or Levi? ................................................................ 499 9:18, Was Jairus' daughter alive or dead when he came to Jesus? ...................................... 499 11:2, When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah?....................................................... 500 11:13-14, Was John the Baptist really Elijah? .................................................................. 502 12:40, How long was Jesus in the tomb? ........................................................................ 503 17:1, After how many days did Jesus take the three men up the mountain? ......................... 505 20:20-21, Who made the request to sit beside Jesus in His kingdom? .................................. 505 21:12, Did Jesus cleanse the Temple on the first or second day? ........................................ 506 26:34,74-75, Did the cock crow once or twice before Peter's third denial? ............................ 506 27:3-8, How did Judas die, by hanging or falling down? .................................................... 508 27:34, Was the vinegar given to Jesus on the cross mingled with gall or myrrh? ................... 508 Mark ............................................................................................................................509 1:7-13, What did Jesus do after encountering John the Baptist? ......................................... 509 3:29, Can you be forgiven of all sins or not? ................................................................... 511 6:8, Did Jesus tell His disciples to take a staff or not?....................................................... 511 10:46, How many blind men did Jesus encounter when leaving Jericho? .............................. 512 11:2-7, Were one or two animals brought to Jesus? ......................................................... 512 11:14, Did the tree that Jesus cursed wither immediately or overnight?.............................. 513 14:43, Who arrested Jesus? ......................................................................................... 515 15:20-21, Did Jesus or Simon of Cyrene carry the cross? .................................................. 516 15:25, At what hour was Jesus crucified? ....................................................................... 517 15:26, What was written on the sign on the cross? .......................................................... 517 15:34, What are the last words of Jesus? ....................................................................... 518 15:40, Were the women close or far from the cross? ........................................................ 518 16:5, How many men or angels appeared at the tomb? .................................................... 519 16:6, What did the angels tell Mary?.............................................................................. 519 16:8, Did or did not the women tell what happened? ........................................................ 521 16:9, Who saw Jesus first? .......................................................................................... 521 16:9-20, Is the ending of Mark really scripture?............................................................... 522 Luke ............................................................................................................................523 14:26, Are we supposed to hate or not?......................................................................... 523 John.............................................................................................................................523 3:13, Did anyone ascend into heaven ............................................................................ 523 8:14, Was Jesus' witness of Himself true or not?.............................................................. 524 18:19, Who did Jesus see first upon his arrest, Annas or Caiaphas? .................................... 525 Acts .............................................................................................................................525 5:29, Shall we obey God's Law or human law? ................................................................ 525 9:3-4, When Paul saw the light, did all fall to the ground or not? ........................................ 525 9:7, Did the men with Paul hear the voice or not?............................................................ 526 Romans ........................................................................................................................527 3:23, Have all people sinned or not?.............................................................................. 527 5:1, Are we saved by faith or by baptism? ...................................................................... 527 9:17, God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Is that right? ......................................................... 528 15:33, Is the Lord a God of Peace or of war?................................................................... 528 1 Corinthians .................................................................................................................529 1:19, Will wisdom stand or not?.................................................................................... 529 15:29, Is baptism for the dead really Christian?............................................................... 529 Galatians ......................................................................................................................530 4:22, How many children did Abraham have, one or two? ................................................. 530 6:2,5, Do we bear one another's burdens or not?............................................................. 531 Ephesians .....................................................................................................................531 2:8-9, Are we saved by grace or works?......................................................................... 531

Colossians .....................................................................................................................532 1:15-17, Is Jesus or God the creator of all things? ........................................................... 532 Hebrews .......................................................................................................................532 11:21, Did Joseph worship at the head of the bed or leaning on a staff? .............................. 532 2 Peter .........................................................................................................................533 3:10, Does the earth abide forever or not? ..................................................................... 533 James ..........................................................................................................................533 1:13, Does God tempt people or not? ............................................................................ 533 Jude.............................................................................................................................534 14, Jude 14 quotes the book of Enoch. Is it scripture? ...................................................... 534 Table: Cleansing of the Temple .................................................................................... 535 Table: Crucifixion Chronology ...................................................................................... 537 Table: Total statistics of population from Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7....................................... 540 Table: Resurrection Chronology ................................................................................... 542 Table: Chronology of Jesus' Baptism and Temptation ....................................................... 545 Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 547 Oneness Pentecostal...................................................................................................... 549 Introduction ..................................................................................................................549 What is Oneness Pentecostal theology? .......................................................................... 550 What does Oneness Pentecostal teach? .......................................................................... 551 Issues and Answers ........................................................................................................552 Oneness and the word ................................................................................................ 552 Another look at Jesus, the Father, and two wills ............................................................... 554 Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? .............................................................................. 555 Baptism and Mark 16:16 ............................................................................................. 559 Baptism and Roman 6:3-5 ........................................................................................... 561 Baptism and Gal. 3:27 ................................................................................................ 564 Baptism and 1 Pet. 3:21 .............................................................................................. 565 Baptism and John 3:5 ................................................................................................. 567 Baptism and Acts 2:38 ................................................................................................ 569 Must baptism be "in Jesus' name"? ................................................................................ 573 Is speaking in tongues a necessary sign of salvation? ....................................................... 574 Who did Jesus pray to? ............................................................................................... 575 Jesus' resurrection and ascension.................................................................................. 576 God was seen in the Old Testament. Who was it?............................................................ 577 Isaiah 9:6, Is Jesus the Everlasting Father? .................................................................... 578 What is the real gospel message? ................................................................................. 579 Witnessing to Oneness People ...........................................................................................580 Witnessing to those who are in oneness churches ............................................................ 580 Questions to ask Oneness Pentecostal believers............................................................... 581 Answers and response to Questions to ask Oneness Pentecostal believers ............................ 582 Universalism.................................................................................................................. 585 Introduction ..................................................................................................................585 Universalism ............................................................................................................. 586 Christian Universalism................................................................................................. 588 Can a Christian be a universalist?.................................................................................. 590 Universalism and the Cults........................................................................................... 591 Texts examined..............................................................................................................592 Matt. 25:46 and Universalism....................................................................................... 592 Mark 3:28-29 and Universalism .................................................................................... 594 1 Tim. 4:10 and universalism....................................................................................... 597 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 3:9. Is it God's will that all people be saved? .................................... 599 Objections Answered to the paper, ................................................................................ 602 More objections answered to........................................................................................ 606 Words examined ............................................................................................................607 A look at the word aionion.......................................................................................... 607 What do Greek dictionaries say about ............................................................................ 609 Forever and Ever........................................................................................................ 611

xi

Issues and Answers ........................................................................................................613 Scriptures that say not all are saved .............................................................................. 613 The unforgivable sin and the age to come ....................................................................... 614 Does God hate anyone?............................................................................................... 618 Is Hell Eternal? .......................................................................................................... 620 The demonic forces will not be saved............................................................................. 623 Fallen angels go to the lake of fire forever ...................................................................... 624 Does eternal punishment deny God's justice? .................................................................. 626 The Danger of Universalism ......................................................................................... 627 The Danger of Universalism Illustrated........................................................................... 629 If election is true what is the danger in universalism? ....................................................... 631 Satan and universalism ............................................................................................... 635 A Challenge to Universalists ......................................................................................... 637 What is Unitarianism? ................................................................................................. 638 Concluding thoughts on Universalism............................................................................. 640 Roman Catholicism ........................................................................................................ 643 Introduction ..................................................................................................................643 Why is it necessary to write about Roman Catholicism? ..................................................... 644 Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition.................................................................... 645 Issues and Answers ........................................................................................................648 Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth? ............................................................... 648 Catholic Terminology .................................................................................................. 650 Mary ........................................................................................................................ 652 Did Mary Have Other Children? ..................................................................................... 653 Purgatory.................................................................................................................. 655 Does Purgatory Deny the Sufficiency of Christs Sacrifice? ................................................. 656 Purgatory and 1 Cor. 3:15 ........................................................................................... 658 Council of Trent: Canons on Justification ....................................................................... 660 The Roman Catholic view on justification ........................................................................ 662 Comparison Grid ........................................................................................................ 666 Is the Catholic Catechism's view on the Muslim god wrong? ............................................... 667 Christadelphianism ........................................................................................................ 669 Introduction ..................................................................................................................669 What do the Christadelphians Teach?............................................................................. 670 Christadelphian History ............................................................................................... 671 Is Christadelphianism Christian? ................................................................................... 672 Answering a .............................................................................................................. 674 Issues and Answers ........................................................................................................677 The Christadelphians, John 1_1, and.............................................................................. 677 Is God ever seen? ...................................................................................................... 679 Interesting Quotes from Christadelphianism.................................................................... 681 Interesting Quotes from Christadelphianism.................................................................... 681 Did Jesus have a sin nature? ........................................................................................ 682 Was Jesus' sacrifice blemished according to Christadelphian theology? ................................ 686 Can the Christadelphian Jesus with a fallen nature save anyone? ........................................ 689 The Christadelphian view of the Holy Spirit ..................................................................... 691 Questions for Christadelphians...................................................................................... 692 Has God performed the greatest act of love?................................................................... 692 Christian Science ........................................................................................................... 695 Introduction ..................................................................................................................695 What does Christian Science Teach? .............................................................................. 696 Christian Science History ............................................................................................. 697 Is Christian Science Christian? ...................................................................................... 698 Terms and Definitions of Christian Science...................................................................... 699 Jesus is the Christ ...................................................................................................... 701 Interesting Quotes from Mary Ba ker Eddy....................................................................... 703 Questions to Ask Christian Scientists ............................................................................. 704

xii

Shepherds Chapel ......................................................................................................... 705 Introduction ..................................................................................................................705 What is the Shepherd's Chapel?.................................................................................... 706 Who is Arnold Murray? ................................................................................................ 707 What does the Shepherd's Chapel teach? ....................................................................... 708 Is the Shepherd's Chapel Christian?............................................................................... 709 Did we exist as souls prior to Adam's creation?................................................................ 709 The serpent seed and the Kenites ................................................................................. 711 Shepherd's Chapel and the rapture ................................................................................ 713 An open letter to Arnold Murray of Shepherd's Chapel ...................................................... 715 International Church of Christ ........................................................................................ 719 Introduction ..................................................................................................................719 What does the International Church of Christ teach?......................................................... 720 Is the International Church of Christ a cult?.................................................................... 721 The International Church of Christ ................................................................................. 722 Verses showing justification by faith. ............................................................................. 725 Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? .............................................................................. 727 Baptism and Mark 16:16 ............................................................................................. 731 Baptism and Roman 6:3-5 ........................................................................................... 733 Baptism and Gal. 3:27 ................................................................................................ 736 Baptism and 1 Pet. 3:21 .............................................................................................. 737 Baptism and John 3:5 ................................................................................................. 739 Baptism and Acts 2:38 ................................................................................................ 741 Cults ............................................................................................................................. 745 Introduction ..................................................................................................................745 Cults! ....................................................................................................................... 746 What makes a church or group non-Christian?................................................................. 749 Comparison Chart ...................................................................................................... 751 Comparison Chart ...................................................................................................... 751 Justification and Sanctification: What is the Difference? .................................................... 753 Do we have the right to make these judgments?.............................................................. 754 What is the truth? ...................................................................................................... 755 What about the testimonies of people in cults? ................................................................ 758 An easy way to witness to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses ............................................ 760 The True Jesus .......................................................................................................... 764 Jehovahs Witnesses ...................................................................................................... 767 Introduction ..................................................................................................................767 Jehovah's Witnesses in a Nutshell ................................................................................. 768 What do the Jehovah's Witnesses Teach? ....................................................................... 770 Jehovah's Witness History ............................................................................................ 771 Is the Jehovah's Witness religion Christian? .................................................................... 772 Are Jehovah's Witness are Really Watchtowerites? ........................................................... 773 Has Jehovah performed the greatest act of love? ............................................................. 775 Issues and Answers ........................................................................................................776 The Watchtower Organization points to itself as the truth. ................................................. 776 Does the Watchtower organization control the Jehovah's Witnesses' thinking?...................... 777 Does Annihilation and resurrection make sense? .............................................................. 779 Does the Watchtower say the Bible teaches the Trinity? .................................................... 780 Questions for Jehovahs Witnesses ................................................................................ 781 The Lord's Supper and the 144,000 Anointed Class of Jehovah's Witnesses. ......................... 782 Are the Jehovah's Witnesses the faithful and discreet slave? .............................................. 784 Salvation according to the Watchtower Organization......................................................... 786 The New World Translation and Proskuneo (worship)........................................................ 788 Bad Translations of the Jehovah's Witness Bible, the New World Translation (NWT). .............. 791 Jehovah's Witnesses and Mental Health.......................................................................... 792 A Biblical Response to Jehovah's Witnesses..................................................................... 793

xiii

Watchtower Quotes ........................................................................................................797 Interesting Quotes from Watchtower Literature ............................................................... 797 Regarding the Trinity, Jesus, Adam, and immortality of the soul ......................................... 799 Problems in the Watchtower Organization ...........................................................................800 False Prophecies of the Jehovah's Witnesses ................................................................... 800 1914 A.D., 607 B.C., 586 B.C. and the Jehovah's Witnesses. ............................................. 802 Jehovah's Witness doctrine is not from the Bible alone ...................................................... 804 Contradictions in Watchtower Literature. ........................................................................ 805 More Contradictions in Watchtower Literature.................................................................. 806 Jehovahs Witness Attacks on Jesus ...................................................................................808 The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Resurrection of Jesus..................................................... 808 Did Jesus die on a stake or a cross?............................................................................... 810 Bible Verses Examined ....................................................................................................811 1 Chron. 29:20, is Jesus worshipped the same way David was? .......................................... 811 Matt. 3:3, Prepare the way of the LORD ......................................................................... 813 John 1:1 and the Jehovah's Witnesses ........................................................................... 814 John 5:30-32, By Myself I can do nothing. ...................................................................... 816 John 8:58 and the Jehovah's Witnesses and John 8:58 ..................................................... 817 John 8:58, & 10:30-33, I AM, and the Jeohovahs Witnesses.............................................. 821 John 17:3 and the Only True God.................................................................................. 823 1 Cor. 1:2, Call upon the name of the Lord Jesus ............................................................. 825 Col. 1:15 and the Jehovah's Witnesses........................................................................... 831 Col. 1:16-17 and the Jehovah's Witnesses ...................................................................... 832 Heb. 1:6 and the Jehovah's Witnesses ........................................................................... 834 Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6 and the Jehovah's Witnesses ..................................................... 836 Mormonism ................................................................................................................... 839 Introduction ..................................................................................................................839 Are you studying with the Mormons or thinking of joining .................................................. 840 What does Mormonism teach? ...................................................................................... 842 Mormonism in a Nutshell ............................................................................................. 844 Mormonism's History .................................................................................................. 845 Is Mormonism Christian? ............................................................................................. 846 Mormon Writings and the Church ......................................................................................848 A Quick Look at the Book of Mormon ............................................................................. 848 Some of the Many Changes in the Book of Mormon .......................................................... 850 The Book of Abraham Papyri and Joseph Smith ............................................................... 852 The Mormon Church Statistics...................................................................................... 856 Mormon Church Structure ............................................................................................ 857 Issues and Answers ........................................................................................................858 Does Mormonism Attack Other Religions? ....................................................................... 858 Mormon words don't mean the same thing...................................................................... 860 A Response From (and to) S.H.I.E.L.D.S......................................................................... 863 Jehovah is Elohim....................................................................................................... 873 A Biblical Response to Mormons .................................................................................... 875 A Comparison Between Christian Doctrine and Mormon Doctrine......................................... 879 What is Baptism for the Dead mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:29? ................................................. 881 The True Jesus .......................................................................................................... 882 Mormon Objections Answered....................................................................................... 884 Was the LDS Jesus born of the Virgin Mary? .................................................................... 887 Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................889 Hinckley says Mormons Believe in a Different Jesus.......................................................... 889 The Mormon Plan of Eternal Progression......................................................................... 890 Mormonism and the Negro ........................................................................................... 891

xiv

Quotes .........................................................................................................................893 Interesting Quotes from Joseph Smith the Founder of Mormonism ...................................... 893 Interesting Quotes from Brigham Young the Second Prophet of the Mormon Church............... 894 Interesting Quotes from the book Articles of Faith, by James Talmage ................................. 896 Interesting Quotes from Various Mormon Authorities ........................................................ 898 Mormonism Unvailed.......................................................................................................901 Mormonism Unvailed, eyewitness testimonies against Joseph Smith................................... 901 Mormonism Unveiled Defended ..................................................................................... 902 Mormonism Unveiled: Testimonies of Barton Stafford and Henry Harris ............................... 908 Mormonism Unveiled: Testimonies of Abigail Harris and Lucy Harris (Martin Harris' wife) ....... 910 Mormonism Unveiled, Testimony of Artemas Cunningham ................................................ 912 Mormonism Unveiled, Testimonies of Nahum Howard and Oliver Smith ................................ 914 Mormonism Unveiled, Testimony of John N. Miller............................................................ 915 Mormonism Unveiled, Testimonies of Roswell Nichols & Joshua Stafford ............................... 916 Atheism ......................................................................................................................... 917 Introduction ..................................................................................................................917 Atheism.................................................................................................................... 918 Terms and Definitions ................................................................................................. 920 Can Atheists be ethical? .............................................................................................. 922 Issues and Answers ........................................................................................................923 Mistake Christians make when dialoguing with Atheists..................................................... 923 Mistakes Atheists make when dialoguing with Christians. .................................................. 925 Is Atheism viable? ...................................................................................................... 926 Response to criticism of............................................................................................... 927 Another response to criticism of.................................................................................... 931 Response to criticism of - I lack belief in God .................................................................. 946 Another response to criticism of - I lack of belief in a god. ................................................. 949 Additional response to criticism of - lack of belief, and, Is atheism viable?............................ 952 Lack-of-belief analysis outline....................................................................................... 963 Answers to positions held by atheists............................................................................. 965 Comments from atheists.............................................................................................. 967 Answering Atheist's Objections .........................................................................................969 Concerning atheist attacks on Theism............................................................................ 969 I don't' see any convincing evidence for God ................................................................... 971 Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up? .............................................................. 972 God cannot exist because His attributes would require limits.............................................. 973 There is no proof that God exists .................................................................................. 975 If God is unchanging, why does the world change if it reveals God?.................................... 976 Only atheism offers a predictable universe ...................................................................... 977 All of reality and God's existence................................................................................... 979 If God exists, then...................................................................................................... 980 Any entity that is not the source of all power within reality is not God.................................. 982 If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God? ........................................... 984 How can something that cannot be described be said to exist? ........................................... 985 Why do you believe in Jesus but not Santa Claus?............................................................ 986 Why believe in Christianity over all other religions? .......................................................... 987 Proofs for the Existence of God .........................................................................................990 Entropy and Causality used as a proof for God's existence................................................. 990 Atheism, Evolution, and Purpose ................................................................................... 991 The Christian Worldview, the Atheist Worldview, and Logic................................................ 993 An answer to a refutation of the Transcendental Argument ................................................ 995 An answer to another response to the Transcendental Argume nt ........................................ 997

xv

Relativism ................................................................................................................... 1005 Introduction ................................................................................................................1005 What is relativism? ....................................................................................................1006 Ethical relativism.......................................................................................................1008 Cognitive relativism ...................................................................................................1010 Refuting relativism ....................................................................................................1011 What if relativism were true? An illustration. .................................................................1013 What is truth?...........................................................................................................1015 Islam .......................................................................................................................... 1017 Introduction to Islam ....................................................................................................1017 The Gospel for Muslims ..............................................................................................1018 What is Islam? ..........................................................................................................1020 Regarding Islam...........................................................................................................1022 Muhammad ..............................................................................................................1022 The Qur'an ...............................................................................................................1025 Chronology of early Islam...........................................................................................1026 Divisions within Islam ................................................................................................1029 Doctrines of Islam ........................................................................................................1031 What are the doctrines of Islam? ..................................................................................1031 The Five Pillars of Islam..............................................................................................1032 True faith in Islam.....................................................................................................1033 Islamic Terms ...........................................................................................................1034 Issues and Answers ......................................................................................................1036 Methods Muslims use to attack Christianity....................................................................1036 Comparison grid between Christianity and Islamic doctrine ...............................................1040 Does Islam teach salvation by works?...........................................................................1042 Questions for Muslims ................................................................................................1045 More questions for Muslims .........................................................................................1047 Differences between the Bible and the Qur'an ................................................................1048 The Qu'ran says the Bible is not corrupt ........................................................................1049 Who has performed the greatest act of love? Yahweh or Allah ...........................................1050 Jihad: holy struggle or holy war?.................................................................................1052 Is the Trinity possible? ...............................................................................................1055 Objections Answered.....................................................................................................1056 The Trinity makes no sense. It isn't logical. ...................................................................1056 Jesus cannot be God's son ..........................................................................................1058 If Jesus is God, then who did He pray to? ......................................................................1059 God cannot be tempted. Jesus was tempted. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God. ...................1060 God is infinite. Matter is finite. God could not become a man...........................................1061 Why is it necessary for God to die for our sins?...............................................................1063 The Qur'an ..................................................................................................................1065 Contradictions in the Qur'an........................................................................................1065 Interesting quotes from the Qur'an...............................................................................1067 Interesting Quotes about women from the Qur'an ...........................................................1069 The Hadith ..................................................................................................................1070 The Hadith ...............................................................................................................1070 Interesting Quotes from the Hadith ..............................................................................1071 Interesting Quotes from the Hadith, Part two. ................................................................1073 Interesting Quotes from the Hadith about Forgiveness .....................................................1077 Interesting Quotes from the Hadith on Jesus ..................................................................1079 Interesting Quotes from the Hadith on Jihad ..................................................................1081 Interesting quotes from the Hadith about Muhammad......................................................1083 Interesting Quotes from the Hadith on Satan .................................................................1085 Bibliography .............................................................................................................1088

xvi

Heresis ........................................................................................................................ 1089 Introduction ................................................................................................................1089 Adoptionism.............................................................................................................1090 Albigenses ...............................................................................................................1090 Apollinarianism .........................................................................................................1091 Arianism..................................................................................................................1091 Docetism .................................................................................................................1092 Donatism.................................................................................................................1092 Gnosticism...............................................................................................................1093 Kenosis ...................................................................................................................1094 Modalism .................................................................................................................1094 Monarchianism .........................................................................................................1095 Monophysitism..........................................................................................................1095 Nestorianism ............................................................................................................1096 Pelagianism..............................................................................................................1096 Socinianism..............................................................................................................1097 Tritheism .................................................................................................................1097 New Age Movement ..................................................................................................... 1099 Introduction ................................................................................................................1099 What is the New Age Movement ...................................................................................1100 More on the New Age Movement ..................................................................................1103 A Biblical Responses to the New Age Movement ..............................................................1105 Witnessing to New Agers ............................................................................................1106 Interesting Quotes from New Age Sources .....................................................................1107 Index .......................................................................................................................... 1110 1110

xvii

Christian Doctrine
Introduction
Christian doctrine is the basis of proper understanding of the Bible and of God. The Lord gave us the Bible and we have developed doctrinal statements which reflect the theology of Gods word. When reading through this section, note the basics of the faith. If you were to learn this section well, you would be able to recognize error. Knowing the truth is the way to strength and accuracy. Following are some questions you might want to answer.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

How many books in the Bible? p. 2 Is the Bible reliably transmitted to us from ancient times? p. 2 Who is God? p. 3, 13 What is the Trinity? p. 4, 53 How many persons in the Trinity? p. 4 How did the universe come into existence? p. 4 What are the effects of sin on mankind? p. 5. What is original sin? p. 5, 184 How many natures does Jesus have? pp. 6, 30 What is the hypostatic union? p. 6 What kind of body did Jesus rise in? p. 6, 41-45, 47 What priesthood does Jesus hold? p. 6 Is the Holy Spirit a person? p. 7, 14 What are some of His works? p. 7, 14 What is salvation? p. 7-8, 22 What must we do to be saved? p. 7-8 What is the difference between Justification and sanctification? p. 8 What is the church? p. 8 Is the Resurrection physical or spiritual? p. 8 What is the millennium? p. 8 What is the rapture? p. 9 What is the final Judgment? p.9 What are some verses that show justification by grace/faith? pp. 17-18 What is the difference between the law and the gospel? pp. 19-21 What is a covenant? pp. 24-29

Christian Doctrine
The following is an outline of basic Christian Doctrine. It's brief, accurate, and informative. As with any venture into learning you must first begin with the basics. The basics are the foundation of your Christian life. If you learn what is here, you will be well informed and knowledgeable. All you need to do is get grounded in the fundamentals and from there cultivate your Christian walk: "Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity" (Heb. 6:1). A building is only as strong as its foundation. 1. The Bible A. The Bible consists of 66 books: 39 in the OT and 27 in the new. (Note: 3 x 9 = 27). i. The OT has 23,214 verses. The NT has 7,959 verses. B. The Bible took about 1600 years to write. i. It was written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) by about 40 authors and is internally consistent throughout. ii. It was written on three continents: Africa, Asia, and Europe. iii. It was written by a variety of people: prophets, priest, cupbearer, a king, judges, fishermen, etc. C. The first English translation of the Bible was begun by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in A.D. 1388. D. The first American edition of the Bible was perhaps published some time before A.D. 1752. i. The Bible has been translated in part or in whole as of 1964 in over 1,200 different languages or dialects. E. The Bible was divided into chapters by Stephen Langton about A.D. 1228. i. The Old Testament was divided into verses by R. Nathan in A.D. 1448 and the New Testament by Robert Stephanus in A.D. 1551. F. Old Testament -- a total of 39 books and has 5 main divisions: i. Pentateuch (Genesis to Deuteronomy), Historical (Joshua to Esther), Poetic (Job to Song of Solomon), Major Prophets (Isaiah to Daniel), Minor Prophets (Hosea to Malachi). G. New Testament -- a total of 27 books and has 4 main divisions i. Gospels (Matthew to John), History (Acts), Epistles (Romans to Jude), Prophetic (Revelation). H. Reliability of the biblical documents. i. The Bible is 98 percent textually pure. This means that through all the copying of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 1% has any question about it. Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world even approaches the accuracy of transmission found in the biblical documents. ii. The 1 percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling. iii. The OT does not have as many supporting manuscripts as the NT but it is, nevertheless, remarkably reliable. a. The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT done around 250 B.C., attests to the reliability and consistency of the OT when it is compared to existing Hebrew manuscripts. b. The Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947 also verify the reliability of the OT manuscripts. c. The Dead Sea Scrolls were ancient documents that were hidden in a cave in Israel about 2000 years ago. The scrolls contained many OT books, one of them being Isaiah. i. Before the Dead Sea scrolls, the earliest existing manuscript of the OT was dated around 900 A.D. called the Masoretic Text. The Scrolls contained OT documents 1000 years earlier. A comparison between the manuscripts revealed an incredible accuracy of transmission through copying, so much so that critics were silenced.

iv.

I.

J.

K.

The NT has over 5000 supporting Greek manuscripts existing today with another 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing. There is less than a 1% textual variation in the NT manuscripts. v. Estimated time of writing of the NT documents1 a. Paul's Letters, 50-66 A.D. b. Matthew, 70-80 A.D. c. Mark, 50-65 A.D. d. Luke, early 60's e. John, 80-100 A.D. f. Revelation 96 A.D. vi. Some of the supporting manuscripts of the NT are: a. John Rylands MS written around 130 A.D., the oldest existing fragment of the NT b. Bodmer Papyrus II (150-200 A.D.) c. Chester Beatty Papyri (200 A.D.), contains major portions of the NT d. Codex Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), contains nearly all the Bible. e. Codex Sinaiticus (350 A.D.), contains almost all the NT and over half of the OT 2 f. No other ancient writing can boast of having copies so close to the original time of writing. With the Bible, the difference is about 50 years. With Plato and Aristotle, for example, the difference is measure in hundreds of years. Prophecy and mathematical odds of fulfillment. i. The odds of Jesus fulfilling 48 of the 61 major prophecies concerning Him are 1 in 10157 ; that is a one with 157 zeros behind it. ii. By comparison, the estimated number of electrons in the entire known universe is about 1079 ; that is a one with 79 zeros behind it. Inspiration and Inerrancy - The Bible is inspired by God. Inspiration means that God, through the Holy Spirit, caused the writers of the Bible to write the accurate and authoritative revelation of God. It is God breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) through the instrumentation of the apostles and prophets (2 Pet. 1:21). i. It is without error in the original manuscripts and absolutely reliable and true in all areas it addresses. ii. Every true Christian accepts the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Scientific Accuracies in the Bible. i. The spherical shape of the earth (Isaiah 40:22). ii. The earth is suspended in nothing (Job. 26:7). iii. The stars are innumerable (Gen. 15:5). iv. The existence of valleys in the seas (2 Sam. 22:16). v. The existence of springs and fountains in the sea (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Prov. 8:28). vi. The existence of water paths (ocean currents) in the seas (Psalm 8:8). vii. The water cycle (Job. 26:8; 36:27-28; 37:16; 38:25-27; Psalm 135:7; Ecc. 1:6-7). viii. The fact that all living things reproduce after their own kind (Gen. 1:21; 6:19). ix. The nature of health, sanitation, and sickness (Gen. 17:9-14; Lev. 12-14). x. The concept of entropy, that energy is running down (Psalm 102:26).

2.

God A. God is the only Supreme Being. He is Holy (Rev. 4:8), Eternal (Isaiah 57:15), Omnipotent (Jer. 32:17,27), Omnipresent (Psalm 119:7-12), Omniscient (1 John 3:20); etc. B. He is Love (1 John 4:8,16); Light (1 John 1:5); Spirit (John 4:24); Truth (Psalm 117:2); Creator (Isaiah 40:12,22,26), etc. C. He is to be worshiped (Gen. 24:26; Exodus 4:31; 2 Chron. 29:28; 1 Cor. 14:25; Rev. 7:11). D. He is to be served (Matt. 4:10; 1 Cor. 6:19; Phil. 3:7; 1 Thess. 1:9; Heb. 9:14). E. He is to be proclaimed (Matt. 28:19f.; John 14:15f.; Acts 1:8) i. "To worship God is to serve and proclaim Him; to serve God is to proclaim and worship Him; to proclaim God is to worship and serve Him." ii. The name of God is Jehovah, or Yahweh. It is comprised of the four Hebrew consonants yod-he-vah-he. The precise pronunciation of God's name has been lost. In Exodus 3:14

1 2

McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Heres Life Publishers. San Bernardino, CA, 1979, pp. 39-52. Ibid. pp. 46-47.

God proclaims His name to be "I AM." "God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.'" (NIV) 3. Trinity A. The Trinity is the doctrine that there is one God who exists simultaneously in three persons. Each is coequal, copowerful, and coeternal with the other. Each person, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is not the other. Without either there is no God; all comprise the one God. i. The Doctrine of the Trinity is opposed to: a. Modal Monarchianism, also known as Jesus Only - There is one person in the Godhead who took three consecutive forms or modes. First there was the Father who then became the Son who then became the Holy Spirit. i. Present groups are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic churches. This doctrine is incorrect. It denies the true doctrine of the Trinity. b. Dynamic Monarchianism - Only one person in the Godhead, the Father. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God. i. Present gro ups are the Jehovah's Witnesses, World Wide Church of God, Christadelphianism, and The Way International. This doctrine is incorrect. It denies the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the deity of the Holy Spirit. c. Tritheism the teaching that the godhead is three separate gods: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. B. Christianity is m onotheistic - Only one God in existence, anywhere, anytime. See Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9 for verses that teach monotheism. C. Christianity is opposed to: i. Polytheism - Belief in many Gods. a. Monolatry - Belief in more than one God but serves and worships only one, i.e. Mormonism. b. Henotheism - Belief in one God without denying the existence of others. ii. Pantheism - God is in the world, God is the world - New Age Movement. iii. Panentheism - The belief that God is in the universe. It differs with pantheism which states that God is the universe and all that it comprises. iv. Deism - God exists, but is not involved in the world. v. Theism - God exists, and is involved in the world. Creation A. God created the physical and spiritual universe out of nothing (Gen. 1:1f; Psalm 33:6; John 1:3; Rom. 4:17; 1 Cor. 1:28). i. He did not make the world out of part of Himself. ii. He did not make the world out of a substance called "nothing." B. Specifically it was Jesus, the firstborn (Col. 1:15), second person of the Trinity, who created all things (Col. 1:16-17; Isaiah 44:24). C. Because God created all things, He is before all things and beyond all things. Therefore, the entire universe is under His control. D. Because God created all things, He is able to provide for His creation through the means of His creation, i.e. weather, rain, plants, animals, sunshine, etc. E. Opinions on the duration of creation differ. Some say six days; others say six long periods. Man A. Creation of man i. Man is not only the crown of creation, but also the object of God's special care. ii. Man was originally made pure, without sin. iii. "Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:26-27; see also, 2:7,21-23). a. "Let us make man..." is a disclosure of the divine counsel before the creation of man, "us" being the Trinitarian counsel. See also Gen. 11:7.

4.

5.

B.

C.

Man was created different than the animals. He had the breath of life breathed into him from God (Gen. 2:7). The animals did not. Also Man was given dominion over the animals. Man can know God, worship Him, and love Him. Animals cannot. iv. Is Man made of two or three "parts"? a. Dichotomy is a term which signifies a division into 2 parts: Body and Soul. The words "spirit" and "soul" are often used interchangeably. i. "Mary said: My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,'" (Luke 1:46-47). ii. "My soul yearns for you in the night; in the morning my spirit longs for you...," (Isaiah 26:9). iii. For the term "Body and Soul" see Matt. 6:25; 10:28. iv. For the term "Body and Spirit" see 1 Cor. 5:3,51. b. Trichotomy is a term which signifies a division into 3 parts: Body, Soul, and Spirit. i. "May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Thess. 5:23). ii. "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart," (Heb. 4:12). c. There is no official orthodox position on the number of parts of man. v. The Origin of the soul a. Traducianism: "The souls of men are propagated along with the bodies by generation, and are therefore transmitted to the children by the parents." (Berkhoff, Systematic Theology. p. 197.) b. Creationism: "The soul is a creation of God, owing its origin to a direct creative act." (Berkhoff, p. 199). c. Except for Adam, the Bible makes no clear remark regarding the origin of the soul. vi. Man was created in the image of God. a. This means that Man has moral and intellectual abilities similar to God though not as perfect and vast. i. "God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness...'" (Gen. 1:26). ii. "...and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator" (Col. 3:10). b. Man is above the animals in "rational ability, moral awareness, pursuit of beauty, use of language, and spiritual awareness." Man before the Fall. i. The Law of God was written in their hearts. Adam and Eve were without sin and "endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after God's own image, with the ability to keep the Law of God." (Westminster Confession of Faith, 4:2.) ii. In this state man had free and unhindered access to God. This is exemplified in the account in Gen. 3:8 where God was walking in the Garden. Man, the Fall, and its effects i. Adam and Eve rebelled against God and sinned by eating the forbidden fruit. a. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12, NIV). ii. What was their sin? a. They listened to Satan and ate of the fruit that was forbidden by God (Gen. 3:1-13). iii. What was the c onsequence of their sin? a. Death (Rom. 6:23) and separation from God's presence (Isaiah 59:2) b. Transmission of the sin nature to their (and our) children (Psalm 51:5). c. Creation also fell (Gen. 3:17; Rom. 8:22). iv. How did their sin affect God? a. They became unfit for the presence of God (Isaiah 59:2). b. They became unable to do God's will (Rom. 6:16; 7:14). c. They became subject to the curse of the Law and death (Deut. 27:26; Rom. 6:23). v. Original Sin - The doctrine that we inherit our sin natures from Adam (Rom. 5:12-21). a. Adam was the Federal Head of all humanity; that is, he represented all people in the Garden of Eden.

b.

6.

"For as in Adam all die..." (1 Cor. 15:22). The phrase "in Adam" indicates our relation to Adam, that he represented us in the garden. In the same way, our being "in Christ" indicates our relation to Jesus, that He represent us on the cross (Rom. 5:18; 6:11; 8:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; 15:22; 2 Cor. 5:19). b. Our sin with Adam: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12). See also Rom. 5:18; 1 Cor. 15:22. D. Man after Death and before the resurrection. i. The intermediate state a. This is the condition of the soul between the death of the body and the resurrection. b. There is little spoken of it in the Bible, but it is a state of consciousness (2 Cor. 5:58; Luke 16:19-31). c. We are self aware and, apparently, with the Lord (Phil. 1:21-23). i. For the righteous this is a time of blessedness and joy (Luke 16:19-31). ii. For the unrighteous this is a time of suffering (Luke 16:19-31) as is exemplified in the account of Lazarus and the rich man. Jesus A. He is the creator (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17). B. He is uncreated (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17). C. He is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 8:58 with Exodus 3:14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8). D. His Incarnation and His deity i. Hypostatic Union - Jesus has two natures in one person. He was not half God and half man. He is both Human and Divine. He was completely God and completely man. This is the correct position concerning His two natures. See Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. ii. Jesus will remain as both God and man for eternity. iii. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). a. He was born under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and fulfilled all of the Law of God (John 4:34 ; 8:29), even to the point of death (Phil. 2:8). In His death He bore the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). Thus in the death of Christ the sins of His people were judged (Rom. 3:23-26) and forgotten (Heb. 8:12), and the result of His act of righteousness was eternal life (Rom. 5:18). iv. Jesus is worshiped - (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6). v. Jesus is prayed to - (Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2). vi. Jesus is called God - (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8). vii. He is the exact representation of the nature of God (Heb. 1:3). E. His death and the atonement i. Jesus bore the sins of the world (1 John 2:2) in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). ii. He was a propitiation, a satisfaction to God that appeased God's wrath. iii. He atoned. He made right that which was wrong between us and God. His shed blood is what cleanses us from sin (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22; Rom. 5:9; 1 John 1:7-9). a. He removed the enmity between God and Man (Rom. 5:10). iv. For whom did He die? - Some say for the sheep (Christians) only (John 10:11,15). a. The Sheep are the Christians. The Goats are the non-Christians (Matt. 25:32-46). v. Others say He died for everyone (1 John 2:2). Each side has good arguments. F. The Resurrection of Christ (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). i. Jesus rose in the same body that He died in (John 2:19-21; Luke 24:36-43). a. Jesus' body is resurrected.' We do not know exactly what His body is like, but the nature of the resurrected body is discussed by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:35-58. G. Right now Jesus is in heaven, still as, and eternally to be both God and man (1 Tim. 2:5; Col. 2:9). i. This is important because Jesus is the High Priest forever: "where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, (Heb. 6:20). A spirit cannot be a high priest, only a man can do that. Furthermore, Jesus always lives to make intercession for us "Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them," (Heb. 7:25).

i. ii.

H.

7.

8.

The Ascension of Christ (Acts 1:1-11.). i. After the resurrection Jesus appeared to His disciples during a period of forty days. He completed His message to them then. ii. In light of the cloud in the O.T. (Exodus 40:34; 1 Kings 8:10f.; Luke 9:34f.) as a manifestation of God's glory and presence, we have the necessary expectation of His glorious ascension. iii. He ascended in full view of the apostles who wrote of what they saw. I. The Doctrine of the Deity of Christ is opposed to: i. Docetism - Jesus was truly spirit and only appeared to be a man. ii. Gnosticism - Jesus was only a man taken over by the heavenly Christ which never became incarnate. The heavenly Christ returned to heaven before the crucifixion. iii. Arianism - Jesus was created slightly lower than God. Then Jesus created all things. J. The Hypostatic Union (Jesus having two natures in one person) is opposed to: i. Kenosis - Jesus lessened Himself in the incarnation, i.e., God minus something. ii. Eutychianism - The two natures of Jesus are completely mixed' and indiscernible. iii. Nestorianism - The two natures are not in contact with each other and that Jesus was two persons. iv. Monophycitism - The two natures combined and became one, a new type of being. (Then Jesus would be neither God nor man, but a third something.) The Holy Spirit A. With the ascension of Christ we have the arrival of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; Acts 2) who ministers to the Church through the mediation of Christ (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Scriptures. B. He is fully God; He is not a force. He is the third person of the Trinity. i. He has a will - 1 Cor. 2:11 ii. He speaks - Acts 13:2 iii. He loves - Rom. 15:30 iv. He can be grieved - Eph. 4:30 v. He convicts of sin - John 16:8 vi. He creates - Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4 vii. He gives gifts - 1 Cor. 12:8 viii. He Intercedes - Rom. 8:26 ix. He teaches - John 14:26 x. He testifies of Jesus - John 15:26 xi. He baptizes - 1 Cor. 12:13 xii. He guides - John 16:13 xiii. He encourages - Acts 9:31 xiv. He empowers - Micah 3:8 xv. He gives joy - Rom. 14:17 xvi. He comforts - John 14:16-26 C. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer (Rom. 8:11) and continues to work in him to bring about sanctification (Rom. 15:16). D. The Holy Spirit illuminates the mind of the believer (1 Cor. 2:12,13) and reveals to Him the things of God (1 Cor. 2:10,13; 1 John 2:27). Salvation A. Salvation is the deliverance out of or the saving from the judgment of God upon the sinner. This judgment is known as damnation and consists of God casting the unsaved into the lake of eternal fire. The saved go to heaven to be with the Lord forever. B. God is the sole agent of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9; John 1:12-13; Acts 13:48). Man does not cooperate with God to earn or keep salvation. If a person needed to do anything towards his/her salvation, then Jesus died needlessly (Gal. 3:21). C. Salvation is by faith, not by works (Rom. 3:21; Rom. 4:5; Gal. 3:21). It is a free gift (Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9). D. In salvation, the sins of the Christian are borne in Christ on the cross and the merits of Christ's righteousness are counted to the Christian.

The two main views on salvation in respect to man's choosing. i. Free will - Man is totally able to accept or reject God (John 3:16) based upon some quality or ability within him. ii. Predestination - God predestines who He chooses into salvation (Eph. 1:1-11; Acts 13:48). There is nothing within man that will allow him to choose God. God must call. 9. Justification and Sanctification A. Justification is the instantaneous event where God imputes to the believer, the righteousness of Christ. B. Sanctification means to be set apart for holy use. It means to consecrate. C. Where justification is that position of being declared righteous before God (Rom. 4:5; 5:9), sanctification is the growth in the life of the Christian in holiness in understanding, intent, thought, and action (1 Thess. 4:3-7). D. Sanctification is a transformation of the believer produced by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:22-23) where godly fruit is the result. E. The Christian's sanctification is tied to Christ: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me..." (Gal. 2:20, NIV). F. Further scriptures dealing with this are Rom. 6:1-23; Eph. 5:10-Gal. 6:10; Eph. 4:17-6:18) 10. The Church A. The church can be viewed in two ways: The visible church and the invisible church. i. The visible church is all who profess to be disciples of Christ. ii. The invisible church is all who truly are saved. B. The church is called the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23) with Christ as the head (Eph. 5:23). C. The church is to be united (Eph. 4:1-16) under one God (Eph. 4:4). D. The church is to be holy (1 Cor. 1:1-2; Eph. 5:27; 1 Pet. 2:9). E. The church is open to all (John 3:16) and to preach the word of God (Matt. 28:19-20). F. The church is called the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22-23; Rev. 19:7), the church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23), the church of God (1 Cor. 1:2), God's building (1 Cor. 3:9), etc. 11. The Resurrection A. The resurrection is when the dead in Christ are raised imperishable (1 Cor. 15:42,52-54). i. In general, God raises the dead (2 Cor. 1:9). Specifically it is said that Jesus raises the dead (John 5:21,25,28,29; 6:38-40,44,54; 1 Thess. 4:16). ii. It is also said to be the work of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:11). B. The resurrection occurs at the return of Christ, (1 Thess. 4:16-17; 1 Cor. 15). C. The resurrection is physical. i. Jesus is called the first-fruits of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20,23) and the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5). He was raised in the same body He died in (John 2:1921; Luke 24:39). Therefore, we shall also be raised in physical form as He was. ii. It is not known exactly what our bodies will be like but it is thought that they will be like Jesus' resurrection body (Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:42-54), not in His divinity, but in the state of His resurrection. D. There will be a resurrection of the good and of the wicked (Acts 24:15). i. The good, the Christians, will be raised to everlasting life Matt. 25:31-34). ii. The bad, the non-Christians, will be raised to everlasting punishment (Matt. 25:4-46). 12. The Millennium A. Millennium means 1000 years. There are three main views concerning the Millennium. i. Amillennialism - that we are in the millennial reign of Christ now. a. This view asserts that Satan was bound when Jesus first came to earth. It holds that at the return of Christ the rapture occurs, the judgment of the wicked takes place, and the new heavens and earth are created. ii. Premillennialism - that the millennial reign of Christ has not yet happened. a. This view asserts that Jesus will return (the rapture occurs near or at His return) and then bind Satan, cast him into the abyss, and rule on earth for 1000 years. At the end of that period Satan will be let loose to lead a rebellion. Jesus will then destroy him. Then comes the final judgment, followed by the new heavens and earth. iii. Postmillennialism - that the church will usher in the millennium of Christ through the preaching of the word and the conversion of the world.

E.

There is debate on whether or not the millennium is a literal or figurative period. Some say the period must be a literal 1000 years (Rev. 20:2), others say the period may be interpreted figuratively (2 Pet. 3:8). There are very good arguments on both sides of the issue. C. Historically, the church has held mainly to Amillennialism and Premillennialism with each gaining prominence at one time or another during the past 2000 years. 13. The Rapture A. The rapture is the time when, at Christ's coming, the Christians who are alive are changed into their resurrected bodies (1 Thess. 4:15-17). They are literally caught up to where Jesus is as He descends from heaven to collect His church. B. Those who have died beforehand come with Jesus and precede those who are on earth. C. The main debate on the Rapture is when it will occur in relation to the Tribulation. i. Pretribulation - the rapture will happen before the tribulation period. ii. Midtribulation - the rapture will occur half-way through the tribulation period. iii. Postribulation - the rapture will occur at the end of the tribulation period. 14. The Final Judgment A. This is the judgment of all people (Matt. 25:31-46) at the end of all things (Matt. 13:40-43). B. This judgment for the Christian is regarding his works (2 Cor. 5:10). It does not affect salvation because being in Christ (Rom. 8:1) our works play no part in our salvation (Rom. 4:5). i. The reward of the Christian is to be with the Lord forever (1 Thess. 4:17) in the new heavens and new earth. C. For the wicked the Day of Judgment (2 Pet. 3:7) is a judgment upon all their sinful actions (Acts 17:31; 1 Cor. 13:11-15). i. The wicked will be cast into hell (2 Thess. 1:6-10; Matt. 13:40-42). 15. The New Heavens and the New Earth A. At the consummation of all things, God will destroy the elements with intense heat (2 Pet. 3:12). B. There will be a new Earth which is the home of the righteous (2 Pet. 3:13). C. This heavenly life will be social since it is spoken of in the context of a perfect city (Heb. 12:28), as a holy temple (Ezekiel 40-48), and as a wedding feast (Rev. 19:7). D. This heavenly life will have no more marriage (Matt. 22:30), no death (Luke 20:36), no sorrow (Rev. 7:17), no pain (Rev. 21:4), etc. E. This condition of perfection and fellowship with the Lord will be without end (Matt. 25:46) in a condition of light without darkness (Rev. 22:5).

B.

Basic Christian Doctrine

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. There is only one God - Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9 God is a Trinity - 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2 There are no Gods before or after God - Isaiah 43:10 God knows all things - 1 John 3:20 God is all powerful - Psalm 115:3 God is everywhere - Jer. 23:23,24 God is sovereign - Zech. 9:14; 1 Tim. 6:15-16 God is spirit - John 4:24 God created all that exists - Gen. 1:1; Isaiah 44:24 Spirit does not have a body of flesh and bones - Luke 24:39 God has always been God - Psalm 90:2 Jesus is God - John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8 Jesus became a man - Phil. 2:5-8 Jesus has two natures: divine and human - Col. 2:99; 1 Tim. 2:5 Jesus was sinless - 1 Pet. 2:22 Jesus is the only way to God the Father - John 14:6; Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22 The Holy Spirit is God - Acts 5:3-4 The Holy Spirit is not a force. He is alive - Acts 13:2 The Bible is inspired by God - 2 Tim. 3:16 All people have sinned - Rom. 3:23, 5:12 Man did not evolve, he was created - Gen. 1:26 Adam and Eve were real people - Gen. 3:20; 5:1; 1 Tim. 2:13 Death entered the world because of Adam's sin - Rom. 5:12-15 Sin separates us from God - Isaiah 59:2 Jesus died for all our sins - 1 John 2:2; 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 Pet. 2:24 Jesus' sacrifice was a substitution, for us - 1 Pet. 2:24 Jesus rose from the dead in His physical body - John 2:19-21 Those who reject Jesus will go to Hell - Rev. 20:11-15 Hell is a place of fiery punishment - Matt. 25:41; Rev. 19:20 Hell is eternal - Matt. 25:46 The unsaved go to hell forever - Rev. 21:8 Salvation is a free gift of God - Rom. 4:5; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9 The Bible is the Word of God - 2 Tim. 3:16 Jesus will return visibly to earth - Acts 1:11 Christians will be raised from the dead when Jesus returns - 1 Thess. 4:14-17 There will be a rapture (being caught up into the clouds with Jesus) - 1 Thess. 4:14-17 There will be a final judgment - 2 Pet. 3:7 The damned will be thrown into a lake of fire - Rev. 20:15 Satan will be cast into the lake of fire - Rev. 20:10 There will be a new heavens and a new earth - 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1

10

Three Essential Doctrines of Christianity

The Bible itself reveals those doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith. They are 1) the Deity of Christ, 2) Salvation by Grace, and 3) the Resurrection of Christ. These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary. Though there are many other important doctrines, these three are the only ones that are declared by Scripture to be essential. The truly regenerate may be ignorant to some extent of one or more of them at the beginning of his/her new life in Christ, but he will come to a proper understanding of these three issues as he studies the Word of God. A non-regenerate person, or a cultist (i.e., Mormon or Jehovah's Witness), will deny one or more of these essentials. 1. The Deity of Christ A. Jesus is God in flesh (John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14). See also John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8 i. 1 John 4:2-3: "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." a. The above verse needs to be cross referenced with John 1:1,14 (also written by John) where he states that the Word was God and the Word became flesh. b. 1 John 4:2-3 is saying that if you deny that Jesus is God in flesh then you are of the spirit of Antichrist. ii. John 8:24, "I said, therefore, to you, that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins." iii. Jesus said here that if you do not believe "that I am" you will die in your sins. In Greek I am is 'ego eimi.' These are the same words used in John 8:58 where Jesus says "...before Abraham was, I am." He was claiming the divine title by quoting Exodus 3:14 in the Greek Septuagint. (The Septuagint was the Hebrew Old Testament translated into Greek.) B. Jesus is the proper object of faith i. It is not simply enough to have faith. Faith is only as valid as what it is put in. You must put your faith in the proper object. Cults have false objects of faith; therefore, their faith is useless--no matter how sincere they are. ii. If you put your faith in a vacuum cleaner, then you will be in a lot of trouble on the Day of Judgment. You might have great faith, but so what? It is in something that can't save you. C. The Doctrine of the deity of Christ includes: i. The Trinity - There is one God who exists in three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are all coeternal, and of the same nature. ii. Monotheism - There is only one God in all existence (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8). Mormons believe that many gods exist though they serve and worship only one. Therefore, they are polytheists which excludes them from the camp of Christianity. D. The Hypostatic Union - That Jesus is both God and man. i. The sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ - The sacrifice of Christ is completely sufficient to pay for the sins of the world ii. As God - Jesus must be God to be able to offer a sacrifice of value greater than that of a mere man. a. He had to die for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). Only God could do that. iii. As man - Jesus must be man to be able to be a sacrifice for man. a. As a man He can be the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).

11

2.

3.

Salvation by Grace A. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast, (Eph. 2:8-9, NIV). B. "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace, (Gal. 5:4). i. This verse and its context plainly teach that if you believe that you are saved by faith and works then you are not saved at all. This is a common error in the cults. Because they have a false Jesus, they have a false doctrine of salvation. (Read Rom. 3-5 and Gal. 3-5). ii. You cannot add to the work of God. Gal. 2:21 says, "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (NIV) C. "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin, (Rom. 3:20). i. "However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness, (Rom. 4:5). ii. "Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law, (Gal. 3:21). The Resurrection of Christ A. "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith, (1 Cor. 15:14). "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins, (1 Cor. 15:17). B. To deny the physical resurrection is to deny Jesus' work, sacrifice, and our resurrection. C. These verses clearly state that if you say that Jesus did not rise from the dead (in the same body He died in -- John 2:19-21), then your faith is useless.

A comment on Gal. 1:8-9, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (NIV). These two verses here in Galatians could be considered a fourth self declarative statement of the essentials. But, Gal. 1:8-9 is simply stating the necessity of believing the gospel message which, in its entirety, is that Jesus is God in flesh, who died for sins, rose from the dead, and freely gives the gift of eternal life to those who believe. 1 Cor. 15:1-4 defines what the gospel is: "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (NIV). Within these verses are the essentials: Christ is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9); Salvation is received by faith (John 1:12; Rom. 10:9-10), therefore it is by grace; and the resurrection is mentioned in verse 4. Therefore, this gospel message automatically includes the essentials.

12

Who is God?
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God Is One - Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4 Is Truth -Psalm 117:2; Jer. 10:10 is Light - 1 John 1:5 is Love - 1 John 4:8,16 Is Infinite - Jer. 23:24; Psalm 147:5 is All Knowing - 1 John 3:20 is Everywhere - Psalm 139:7-12 is All Powerful - Jer. 32:17,27 is Unequaled - Isaiah 40:13-25 Is Perfect - 1 Kings 8:27; Psalm 139 Is A Most Pure Spirit - John 4:24 Is Invisible - 1 Tim. 1:17 Does Not Have A Human Body - Luke 24:39; Deut. 4:15-16 Does Not Change - Num. 23:19; Mal. 3:6; James 1:17 Is Without Limit - 1 Kings 8:27; Jer. 23:23-24 Is Eternal - Psalm 90:2; 1 Tim. 1:17 Is Incom prehensible - Rom. 11:33; Psalm 145:3 Is The Almighty One - Rev. 1:8, 4:8 Is Most Wise - Rom. 16:27; Jude 25 Is Most Holy - Isaiah 6:3; Rev. 4:8 Is Most Free - Psalm 115:3 Is Most Absolute - Isaiah 44:6; Acts 17:24-25 Works According To His Will - Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:28 Receives Glory - Rom. 8:36; Rev. 4:11 Is Most Loving - 1 John 4:8-10 Is Gracious - Exodus 33:19; 1 Pet. 2:3 Is Merciful - Exodus 34:6; Psalm 67:1; James 5:11 Is Long-suffering - Psalm 86:15; 2 Pet. 3:15 Abounds In Goodness - Psalm 31:19; 52:1; Rom. 11:22 Is Forgiving - Dan. 9:9; Eph. 1:7; Psalm 86:5 Rewards Those Who Seek Him - Heb. 11:6 Is Just In All His Judgments - Neh. 9:32-33; 2 Thess. 1:6 Hates Sin - Psalm 5:5-6; Hab. 1:13 Is the Creator - Isaiah 40:12,22,26 Is Shepherd - Gen. 49:24

13

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity. He is fully God. He is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, has a will, and can speak. He is alive. He is a person. He is not particularly visible in the Bible because His ministry is to bear witness of Jesus (John 5:26). Some cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses say that the Holy Spirit is nothing more than a force (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 406-407). This is false. If the Holy Spirit were merely a force, then He could not speak (Acts 13:2); He could not be grieved (Eph. 4:30); and He would not have a will (1 Cor. 12:11). The truth is that the Holy Spirit is a person the same as the Father and the Son are within the Trinity. His Names God Acts 5:3-4 Lord 2 Cor. 3:18 Spirit 1 Cor. 2:10 Spirit of God 1 Cor. 3:16 Spirit of Truth John 15:26 Eternal Spirit Heb. 9:14 His Attributes Eternal Heb. 9:14 Omnipotent Luke 1:35 Omnipresent Psalm 139:710 Will 1 Cor. 12:11 Loves Rom. 15:30 Speaks Acts 8:29; 13:2 Symbols of Dove Matt. 3:15 Wind John 3:5 Fire Acts 2:3 ***** ***** ***** Sins Against Blasphemy Matt. 12:31 Resist (Unbelief) Acts 7:51 Insult Heb. 10:29 Lied to Acts 5:3 Grieved Eph. 4:30 Quench 1 Thess. 5:19 Power in Christ's Life Conceived of Matt. 1:18,20 Baptism Matt. 3:15 Led by Luke 4:1 Filled with Power Luke 4:14,18 Witness of Jesus John 15:26 Raised Jesus Rom. 8:11

The Works of the Holy Spirit Access to God - Eph. 2:18 Anoints for Service - Luke 4:18 Assures - Rom. 8:15-16; Gal. 4:6 Authors Scripture - 2 Pet. 1:20-21 Baptizes - John 1:232-34; 1 Cor. 12:13-14 Believers Born of - John 3:3-6 Calls and Commissions - Acts 13:24; 20:28 Cleanses - 2 Thess. 3:13; 1 Pet. 1:2 Convicts of sin - John 16:9,14 Creates - Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4 Empowers - 1 Thess. 1:5 Fills - Acts 2:4; 4:29-31; 5:18-20 Gives gifts - 1 Cor. 12:8-11 Glorifies Christ - John 16:14 Guides in truth - John 16:13 Helps our weakness - Rom. 8:26 Indwells believers - Rom. 8:9-14; Gal. 4:6 Inspires prayer - Eph. 6:18; Jude 20 Interc edes -Rom. 8:26 Interprets Scripture - 1 Cor. 2:1,14; Leads - Rom. 8:14 Liberates - Rom. 8:2 Molds Character - Gal. 5:22-23 Produces fruit - Gal. 5:22-23 Empowers Believers - Luke 24:49 Raises from the dead - Rom. 8:11 Regenerates - Titus 3:5 Sanctifies - Rom. 15:16 Seals - Eph. 1:1314; 4:30 Strengthens - Eph. 3:16; Acts 1:8; 2:4; 1 Cor. 2:4 Teaches - John 14:26 Testifies of Jesus - John 15:26 Victory over flesh - Rom. 8:2-4; Gal. 4:6 Worship helper - Phil. 3:3

14

The Atonement
Why is the atonement necessary? Because God is holy and we are not. Follow the outline below which leads us through scriptures that demonstrate the reason, the problem, and the solution for our sin problem. 1. God - is the standard of righteousness A. Is holy (1 Sam. 2:2; Isaiah 43:3,14,15; Rev. 4:8) B. Just (Deut. 32:4; Psalm 89:14; 97:2; 145:17) C. Righteous (Psalm 145:17) D. Judge (Psalm 50:6; 96:10,13; Isaiah 33:3-4) E. Visits wrath on the ungodly (Rom. 1:18) F. Too pure to look upon evil (Hab. 1:13) The Law - is a reflection of His character A. Comes from God (Exodus 20:1-26; Isaiah 33:22; James 4:12) B. Is holy (Rom. 7:12) C. Is covenantal (Deut. 4:13,23) D. Inaugurated with blood (Heb. 9:18-23) E. Brings the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20) F. Is perfect (Psalm 19:7) G. Cannot make man perfect (Heb. 7:19; 10:1) Man - is the Sinner or Law Breaker A. Sin is breaking the Law of God (1 John 3:4) B. Man is a law breaker (Rom. 3:23) C. Original Sin - Our inherited sinful nature from Adam (Gen. 3:1-6; Rom. 5:12) D. Human nature - We are by nature children of wrath because we are sinners (Eph. 2:3) i. Heart is wicked (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23) ii. Spiritually blind (1 Cor. 2:14) iii. Does not seek for God (Rom. 3:11). iv. Is lawless, rebellious, unholy, and profane (1 Tim. 1:9). v. Suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18) vi. Futile in heart and mind (Rom. 1:21 ) vii. Man is at enmity with God (Rom. 5:10) Judgment - is God's lawful action upon the sinner A. God punis hes evil (Exodus 20:5; Isaiah 11:4) B. According to the Law (Deut. 29:21; Joshua 8:34; Rev. 21:8) C. Eternal punishment (Matt. 3:12; Rev. 14:11) D. Separation from God (Isaiah 59:2) Reconciliation - Man's Need before God A. Reconciliation is the means God has ordained to make peace between Him and us. B. We need our sin removed. C. We need to regain fellowship with God. D. We need to find God's favor. E. We need to escape God's lawful judgment.

2.

3.

4.

5.

15

6.

7.

Atonement - The Means of Reconciliation A. The Nature of the Atonement is in the shedding of blood (Lev. 17:11) B. Law requirements of the atonement C. The sacrifice must be unblemished (Lev. 22:19) D. By appointed priests (1 Sam. 2:28) E. The High Priest had to be lawfully clean (Exodus 29:1-9;19-35) F. Jesus as the Atonement, the Sacrifice G. Unblemished (1 Pet. 1:19) H. According to the Law (Heb. 9:22; Lev. 17:11 ) I. As the High Priest (Heb. 4:14; 6:20) J. Substitutionary (1 Pet. 2:24; Isaiah 53; Eph. 5:2) K. Our propitiation - He removed God's wrathful judgment (1 John 2:2; 4:10) L. Jesus as God and Man (Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8) M. Man - to atone for men (Heb. 2:14; 5:1) N. God - to offer an infinite and satisfactory sacrifice to God (Eph. 5:2,10) Justification - Result of the Atonement A. We are lawfully righteous before God (Rom. 3:24-26) B. We are clothed in righteousness (Isaia h 61:10) C. We have Imputed righteousness (Rom. 4:6) i. Active - Christ's obedience to the Law and his fulfillment of it (Rom. 8:3-4) ii. Passive - Christ being led to the cross to atone for us (John 19:16-18; 1 Pet. 2:24) D. We escape the judgment of God (Rom. 8:1) E. We are restored to fellowship (1 Thess. 5:9-10) F. We are at peace with God (Rom. 5:1) G. We are reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:19) H. We are righteous before God (2 Cor. 5:21) I. We have access to God (Eph. 2:18) J. We have an advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1)

16

Verses showing justification by faith

Justification is the legal act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his or her sins. It is not that the sinner is now sinless, but that he is "declared" sinless. This declaration of righteousness is being justified before God. This justification is based on the shed blood of Jesus, "...having now been justified by His blood..." (Rom. 5:9) where Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again (1 Cor. 15:1-4). God imputes (reckons to our account) the righteousness of Christ; at the same time our sins were imputed to Christ when he was on the cross. That is why it says in 1 Pet. 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." Also, 2 Cor. 5:21 says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Additionally, we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1) apart from works of the Law (Rom. 3:28). To be saved means that God has delivered us (saved us) from His righteous wrathful judgment due us because of our sins against Him. It means that we will not be judged for our sins and be sentenced to eternal damnation. To be saved means that we are justified before God. Only Christians are saved. Only Christians are justified. The issue at hand is whether or not this salvation, this justification, is attained by faith or by faith and something else. Following is a list of verses that show that salvation/justification is by faith. Bold references are particularly pointed.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction." Rom. 3:24, "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;" Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one." Rom. 4:3, For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness," Rom. 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also," Rom. 4:16, "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the fait h of Abraham, who is the father of us all." Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," Rom. 5:9, "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him." Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith." Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Rom. 10:9-10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

17

15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified." Gal. 3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations shall be blessed in you." Gal. 3:14, "in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Gal. 3:22, "But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith." Eph. 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvationhaving also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise." Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith." 1 Tim. 1:16, "And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life." James 2:24, not by faith alone

It should be clear that we are saved (justified) by faith in with Christ has done on the cross. This faith alone saves us. However, James 2:24 says, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses James 1:1-7 instruct us to not show favoritism. Verses 813 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works. James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith, verses 14. He then immediately gives an example of what true and false faiths are. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17). Then he shows that that type of faith isn't much different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith by showing Abraham and Rahab as examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds. James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20). Also, notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul uses to support the teaching of justification by faith in Rom. 4:3. James 2:23 says, "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example. Conclusion Justification is by faith. True faith results in regeneration of the sinner which, in turn, results in good works. But it is not these works that earn our place with God. That was accomplished by Jesus on the cross. All that we need, we have in Jesus. All we need to do to be saved, to be justified, is to truly believe in want God has done for us in Jesus on the cross. This true belief will result in justification and regeneration, which results in good works.

18

The law and the gospel The Law is the dos and donts of moral behavior. God gave the Law so that people would have a guide to live by and a standard by which they might recognize Gods purity and their sinfulness. There are 613 commandments in the OT. They oversee moral, judicial, and religious behavior. The Law is a reflection of the character of God because the Law comes forth from the very heart of God. The Bible says out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Matt. 12:34). When God gave the Law, He was speaking out of the abundance of His heart. He was speaking from what was in Him. Therefore, the Law is good, pure, right, and holy. It is wrong to lie, because it is against Gods nature to lie. It is wrong to steal because it is against Gods nature to steal. This Law, then, by its very nature of coming out of the heart of God, and being spoken to men, is a standard for human conduct, a perfect standard. Because it was perfect, and we are not, it is impossible for sinful people to keep. It was for this reason that the Law became a stumbling block. It became an obstacle to Man because it is an unattainable perfect standard. The Law, then, brings about the opposite of what it requires. The Law says to be perfect, but shows you where you are not. It says to be holy but condemns you when you are not. Since it is not possible for us to keep the Law and therefore earn our position with God, we then need the holiness of God given to us -- because there simply isnt any way for us to attain to the standard of God. Therefore, "...the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith," (Gal. 3:24). That is, the Law shows us that we cant get to God by what we do. We need the grace of God in Christ Jesus manifested in His sacrifice. 1. The Law reveals our sinfulness. A. "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin," (Rom. 3:20). B. "What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, Do not covet," (Rom. 7:7). The Law is for those who are not under grace. A. "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God," (Rom. 3:19). B. "For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace," (Rom. 6:14). The Law justifies no one. A. "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law," (Rom. 3:20). The Law makes no concessions; it makes demands. A. "Cursed is every man who does not abide by everything written in the book of the law to perform them," (Gal. 3:10). The Law is spiritual: It works on the Spirit, not on the body. A. "For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh," (Rom. 7:14). B. "Thou shalt not..." applies to the heart, not the body. We are made righteous in Gods eyes by grace apart from the Law of God. A. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law," (Rom. 3:28). B. "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1). C. "knowing that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified," (Gal. 2:16). The Law brings judgment. A. "...because law brings wrath," (Rom. 4:15).

2.

3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

19

8.

The Law prepares us for the gospel A. The Law shows us that the free gift of the gospel is the only way to attain righteousness. B. "The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith," (Gal. 3:24). i. Being saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8) is only found in the Christian religion. Only Christianity has the message of free, unearned, grace. 9. The Law is for the ungodly. A. "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God," (1 Tim. 1:8-11). 10. The Law differs from the gospel in: A. The manner of revelation. i. The Law is revealed in the hearts of man. a. "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts..." (Rom. 2:14-15). b. It would be impossible to convert anyone if the Law had not been written on their hearts because the Law reveals sin, (Rom. 3:20). ii. The gospel is by direct revelation; it is not written on the heart. a. "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand," (1 Cor. 15:1). B. Contents. i. The Law tells what people are to do (our works). It makes demands (Deut. 27:26). ii. The Gospel reveals what God is doing (Gods work). Therefore, it makes no demands on us except faith (Rom. 6:23). iii. The Law is the list of dos and donts (Exodus 20) iv. The Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4). a. It contains grace and truth (John 1:17) because the gospel is about Jesus. C. Promises i. The Law and the gospel both promise eternal life: a. The Law by complete obedience to all its commands (Lev. 18:5; Luke 10:26). b. The gospel by grace unconditionally (Rom. 3:22-24, Eph. 2:8-9). It demands nothing, makes no threats. It removes from sinners the desire to sin. 11. Effects of preaching the Law. A. It tells us what to do, but does not enable us to do it. This can frustrate us because we cannot keep it! B. Reveals to man his sins. It offers no help to get him out; hurls man into despair. i. "...I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, You shall not covet," (Rom. 7:7). C. It brings to our awareness damnation, hell, and hopelessness. i. "But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear," (Isaiah 59:2). ii. "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," (Gal. 3:13).

20

12. Effects of preaching the gospel A. It demands faith and gives it to us. i. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ," (Rom. 10:17). B. It does not reprove the sinner. i. "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 8:1). C. It does not require anything good for man to do, either in heart, mind or body because it is a free gift. i. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord," (Rom. 6:23). 13. Who the Law and the Gospel are preached to. A. The Law is preached to sinners, those secure in their sin. i. "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching," (1 Tim. 1:8-10). B. The Gospel is preached to those who are alarmed, frightened, smitten by the law; to those who are made thirsty for the Gospel message. i. "...through the law we become conscious of sin," (Acts 4:20). ii. "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith," (Gal. 3:24).

21

Salvation: What does it mean to be a Christian?

Theologically speaking, a Christian is someone who has received the Lord Jesus as Savior (John 1:12), trusts Him alone for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 4:12), has put not trust in His own efforts (Isaiah 64:6) to please God, and repented from his/her sins (Mark 1:15). Experientially speaking, the life of a Christian does not consist only of theological knowledge. It is theology that defines who Jesus is and what He has done, but it is not the end of all things. We are Christians who believe the above points, yes, but we have a living and open relationship with the Lord Jesus. We experience Him through His indwelling Spirit. As Christians, we seek to do the will of the Lord, to follow in His footsteps, and to honor and glorify God in all he does. It is not necessary as a Christian to perform good works in order to please God because, first of all, our good deeds are but filthy rags to God (Isaiah 64:6) and, most important, we are made righteous in the eyes of God by the finished work of Jesus on the cross (Rom. 5). This is one of the areas where the cults error. They confuse good works with the forgiveness of sins. They combine the two and teach that God will not accept us if we are not trying to be good. Because they have a wrong view of who Jesus is, they have a wrong view of salvation. A common objection to this doctrine of justification by faith is that if a Christian believes in God the way I say, then he does not need to do anything good, that he could then go out and sin all he wanted. First of all, this objection is answered in Romans 6. We are not saved for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification (1 Thess. 4:7). We do not use the grace of God to sin. Second, a Christian is called to be Holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Third, a Christian is called to do good works (Eph. 2:10). It is just that these works are not combined with our faith to merit the forgiveness of our sins; they are, instead, a natural result of our saved condition. We do good works because we are Christians, not to become Christians. Additionally, being a Christian means that you are serving the true Jesus, not a false one. In order for a person to follow Jesus, he must first accurately understand who He is. If someone called their pet iguana Jesus, even though he had great faith in Jesus the iguana, his faith is useless. Faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. The Mormon Jesus is the brother of the devil begotten through sexual intercourse from a god and goddess who used to be people on another planet (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 321). The Jehovah's Witness Jesus is Michael the archangel who became a man, died on a torture stake, did not rise from the dead in the same body he died in, and then went back to being an angel (Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 1152; New Heavens and a New Earth, p. 30). The New Age Jesus is a man in tune with the divine consciousness. In opposition to this, the Jesus of Christianity is both God and Man. See the two natures of Jesus for more information on this. Being a Christian Means Fellowship with Jesus Why did God create? Was their some lack in God that moved Him to create the universe and man in it? Was God lonely? We can't fully answer these questions, but we can look into the Bible for clues to their answer. 1 John 4:8 says that God is love. John 3:16 says that "...God so loved the world He gave..." The nature of love is to give. It is "other" centered. It focuses on another. Read 1 Cor. 13 for confirmation of this. That is why God gave His Son. That is why, I believe, that God created us: to love us, to give to us Himself which is the very best thing in the universe. But sin entered the picture and God, in His loving mercy, sent His Son into the world to save the world. Love is not a doctrine; it is an experience, an action. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve walked with God. They actually walked with the creator of the universe. They had fellowship with Him. Fellowship is an intimate communion between two or more persons. Adam and Eve had this intimate communion with the Lord. But when they sinned, that fellowship was broken. God then shed blood, by killing an animal to get the skins, and covered Adam and Eve. Incidentally, Jesus said in John 6:46 that no one has ever seen the Father. If Adam and Eve were walking with God in the Garden of Eden, but it wasn't the Father, then who was it. It must have been Jesus. So God sought Adam and Eve, remember they hid themselves from Him. In Exodus 25:8, God told the Israelites to build a sanctuary so that He might dwell among His people. In John 1:14, Jesus, God in flesh, dwelt again among His people. In 1 Cor. 1:9 we are called by God to be in fellowship with

22

Jesus. In these statements are profound clues. We are called to have a personal relationship, the way it was in the Garden of Eden, with Jesus. This can only be done through Jesus. Additionally, the word for fellowship' in the Greek is the same word used for communion.' When we partake of communion, we are partaking in fellowship with the Lord. Communion is a covenantal sign of the promise of God to give us eternal life and it is representative in that sense of God's promises to be with His people. But the real communion, the real fellowship with the Lord, is through the indwelling Holy Spirit who always bears witness of Jesus (John 15:26). Therefore, the Christian, the true Christian, will have an intimate and real personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. The cultist cannot have this intimate and personal relationship with Jesus, first because their Jesus is false (Matt. 24:24). Second, because their Jesus is not prayed to the way the Jesus of the Bible is (Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2; Acts 7:55-60); third, because their Jesus is not worshiped equally with the Father (John 5:22-23; Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6); and fourth, because their Jesus is not their Lord and God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8). The Jesus of the cultist is not God (he might be one god among many, or he might be a lesser god). Therefore, he is not to be sought in a personal and intimate way. The Christian, on the other hand, has a real relationship with the real Lord Jesus. This is accomplished only through the real Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible. To be a Christian is to experience the Lord, to have a sweet and real fellowship with Jesus, to be able to pray to Him, and seek Him.

"God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord," (1 Cor. 1:9).

23

Covenant
A covenant is a contract or agreement between two or more parties. Covenant is how God has chosen to communicate to us, to redeem us, and to guarantee us eternal life in Jesus. These truths, revealed in the Bible, are the basis of Christianity. The Bible is a covenant document. The Old and New Testaments are really Old and New Covenants. The word "testament" is Latin for Covenant. There is a pattern to the covenants found in the Bible. Basically, it is as follows. The initiating party describes himself and what He has done, then there is a list of obligations between the two (or more) parties. What follows is the section dealing with rewards and punishments that govern the keeping and breaking of the covenant. The Ten Commandments fit this pattern and are a covenant document. Covenant is how God first decided to deal with Mankind. We know this from studying the Eternal Covenant mentioned in Heb. 13:20, "May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep" (NIV). In this covenant God the Father and the Son made an agreement with regard to the elect. This covenant was made before the universe was created and it consisted of the Father promising to bring to the Son all whom the Father had given Him (John 6:39; 17:9,24). The Son would become man (Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5), become for a while lower than the angels (Heb. 2:7), and be found under the Law (Gal. 4:4-5). The Son would die for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:24) and the Father would raise the Son from the Dead (Psalm 2). The Eternal Covenant, then, leads to the Covenant of Grace. Where the Eternal Covenant was made between the Father and the Son, the Covenant of Grace is made between God and Man. This latter covenant is where God promises to Man eternal salvation based upon the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The manifestation of that covenant occurs in our world in a sequence of additional covenants that God made with individuals: Adam (Gen. 2:15-17), Noah (Gen. 9:12-16), Abraham (Gen. 17), the Israelites at Mount Sinai (Exodus 34:28), believers in the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-37), etc. I present the view that there are two main covenants. However, there is disagreement as to the number of Covenants. Some say there is really only one, the Eternal Covenant, with all others falling under it. Some say two, some say three, and others four, etc. There really is no absolute answer. Understanding Covenant is important for several reasons: 1. We learn that God deals with Man covenantally. 2. Since a Covenant is an agreement, it is a promise made by God. Since we can rely on God's word for eternity, we can take great comfort in His covenant promising us eternal life in His Son. 3. It helps us to see the Bible as a covenant document. The Old and New Testaments are Old and New Covenants. 4. With Covenant understood as a framework through which the Bible was written we can better understand it, Gods dealings with us through it, and our responsibilities to God as well as His to us. 5. We can better understand the symbols used by God in covenant ratification: The Lords Supper and Baptism. 1. Requirements and Promises in the Eternal Covenant A. The Father required of the Son, that He should atone for the sins of those whom the Father had given Him (1 John 2:2; John 6:39; 10:11,15), and should do what Adam failed to do by keeping the law (Gal. 4:4-5; 1 Pet. 2:22). B. This requirement included the following particulars: i. That he should assume human nature (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9). ii. That He should place Himself under the law (Gal. 4:4-5) iii. That He, after accomplishing forgiveness of sins and eternal life, should apply them to the elect (Rom. 5:18; 1 Cor. 15:22; 2 Cor. 5:14).

24

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

The Relation of the Eternal Covenant and the Covenant of Grace A. The Eternal Covenant is the model for the Covenant of Grace. The former is eternal, that is, from eternity, and the latter temporal in the sense that it is realized in time. The former is a compact between the Father and the Son as a surety and head of the elect, while the latter is a compact between the triune God and the elect sinner. i. If there had been no Eternal Covenant between the Father and the Son, there could have been no Covenant of Grace between God and sinful man. ii. The Holy Spirit, which produces faith in the sinner, was promised to Christ by the Father, and the acceptance of the way of life through faith was guaranteed by Christ. The Covenant with Adam also known as the Covenant of Works A. This was a covenant made between God and Adam where Adam would have everlasting life based upon obedience to God. This apparently was possible since Adam did not have a sin nature. i. "And the LORD God commanded the man, You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die," (Gen. 2:16-17). B. God entered into a covenant with Adam. i. The promise connected to that covenant was life. The condition was perfect obedience. Its penalty was death. The Covenant with Noah A. This covenant was Gods promise to Noah to never again destroy the world with a flood. God gave the rainbow as a sign. i. "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you -- the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you -- every living creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." So God said to Noah, This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth," (Gen. 9:9-17). The Covenant with Abraham A. God promised a land and descendants to Abraham, who was commanded to "keep" the covenant (Gen. 17:9f., 14) and was given circumcision as the sign (Gen. 15:8-18; 17:1-14). i. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates," (Gen. 15:18). The Covenant with Moses A. In the giving of the Law, the nation of Israel was constituted a holy nation and given stipulations to follow to ensure fellowship with God. The covenant was ratified by a covenant sacrifice and the sprinkling of blood (Exodus 24:4-8). B. "Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. 5Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the LORD. 6Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey. 8Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words," (Exodus 24:4-8, NIV).

25

7.

8.

9.

The Covenant with David A. God gave a promise to David that his descendants should have an everlasting kingdom and be known as his sons. i. "You said, I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to David my servant, I will establish your line forever and make your throne firm through all generations," (Psalm 89:3). ii. It was through the descendants of David that Jesus was born. The New Covenant A. This is the new covenant of the Messianic age where the Law of God would be written upon the hearts of men. i. "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people," (Jer. 31:31,33). B. It was promised in Eden i. "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel" (Gen. 3:15). C. It was proclaimed to Abraham i. "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you," (Gen. 12:3). D. It was fulfilled in Christ i. "Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come and has redeemed his people. He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago), salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us -- to show mercy to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath he swore to our father Abraham: to rescue us from the hand of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace," (Luke 1:68-79). The Covenant of Grace A. This may be defined as that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this by faith, promising a life of faith and obedience (John 1:12-13; 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10).

26

10. Comparison of the Covenant of Works (the Adamic Covenant) and the Covenant of Grace Covenant of Works God is the Creator and Lord. Established because of His love and benevolence. Man appears simply as Gods creature, rightly related to his God No Mediator Righteousness is based upon the obedience of a changeable man which is uncertain. The way of life is by keeping the Law. The covenant is partly known in nature, since the law of God is written in the heart of Man. Covenant of Grace God is the Redeemer and Father. Established because of His mercy Man appears as a sinner who has perverted his ways, and can only appear in union with Christ and grace. Jesus is Mediator Based on the obedience of Christ as Mediator which is absolute and certain. The way of life is by faith in Jesus Christ. The covenant is known exclusively through special revelation: the Bible.

Just as in the covenant of works, so in the covenant of grace God is the first of the contracting parties; He takes the initiative and determines the relation in which the second party will stand to Him. It is not easily determined who the second party is. But in general, it may be said that God naturally established the covenant of grace with fallen man. The idea that the covenant is fully realized only in the elect is a perfectly scriptural idea, as appears, for instance, from Jer. 31:21-34; Heb. 8:8-12. It is also entirely in line with the relation in which the Covenant of Grace stands to the Eternal Covenant.

27

The Two Main Covenants

God works covenantally in the Bible. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. In fact, the Latin word "testamentum" is the word "covenant." Following is a chart that represents a two-division analysis of covenant. There are different interpretations of how many covenants there are, but I lean towards two. Therefore, following is a brief chart demonstrating the breakdown of the two main covenants.

THE COVENANT NAME PARTIES INVOLVED

TWO

MAIN

COVENANTS COVENANT OF GRACE

ETERNAL COVENANT ALSO CALLED THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION (HEB. 13:20) Father and Son (Inter Trinitarian) The Father would... Prepare the Son a body (Luke 1:35; Heb. 10:5). Give the Son the Spirit without measure (Isaiah 43:1,2; 61:1). Always support and comfort the Son (Isaiah 49:1-7; 49:8). Deliver the Son from the power of Death (Psalm 2; Psalm 16:10). Bring to the Son all whom the Father had given Him (John 6:39; 17:9,24). Give the Son a number of redeemed that no one could number (Psalm 22:27; 72:17).

God and Man

Eternal life for mankind The complete restoration of fellowship between God and man.

PROMISE

The Son... CONDITION MEDIATOR Was to assume human nature (Gal. 4:4,5; Heb. 2:10,44,14,15). Was to be under the Law (Psalm 40:8; Gal. 4:4,5; Phil. 2:5-8). Was to bear our sins (1 Pet. 2:24). No Mediator

Faith in Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ

28

Divisions under the covenant of grace

God works covenantally. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. The chart below helps you to see some of the major covenants made between God and man. This is important because it helps us see that God is a keeper of His word. That is, since a covenant is an agreement, God cannot break His word, His covenant. Furthermore, God has signs to His covenants. They help us to remember the promises and faithfulness of God.

Some Divisions Under the Covenant of Grace COVENANT NAME ADAMIC NOAHIC ABRAHAMIC SINAITIC DAVIDIC God and David NEW God and the Elect

PARTIES INVOLVED

God and God and Noah Adam; therefore all Mankind (his descendants and all living creatures) Eternal Life based on keeping Gods word. To not destroy the world again with a flood (Gen. 9:818)

God and God and the Abraham Israelites at (his Mt. Sinai descendants)

THE PROMISE

Land and descendants to Abraham (Gen. 15:818; 17:1-14)

Continued Fellowship with God (Exodus 34:27-28; 19:5; 24:48) Perfect Obedience A sacrifice and sprinkling of blood (Exodus 24:4-8)

His descendants would have an everlasting kingdom Psalm 89:3)

Law written on their hearts. God will be their people (Jer. 31:31-33)

THE Perfect CONDITION Obedience The Tree SIGN AND SEAL

No Condition Circumcision A Rainbow Circumcision

No Condition Faith in Jesus None because it was to be fulfilled in Jesus sacrifice. The Messiah The Blood of Christ (Baptism and the Lords Supper)

MEDIATOR

No Mediator

Jesus Christ

29

Jesus' Two Natures

Jesus is God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully God and fully man. At the incarnation He added to His divine nature the nature of man. Thus He has two natures: divine and human. He is both God and man at the same time. He is not me rely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word," (Heb. 1:3, NIV). Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," nor are they combined into a new God- man nature. They are separate yet act as a unit. This is called the Hypostatic Union. The following chart should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action": GOD He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33). He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8) He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1) He is prayed to (Acts 7:59). He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15). He knows all things (John 21:17). He gives eternal life (John 10:28). All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9). MAN He worshiped the Father (John 17). He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5). He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37) He prayed to the Father (John 17). He was tempted (Matt. 4:1). He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52). He died (Rom. 5:8). He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).

One of the most common errors that non-Christian cults make is not understanding the two natures of Christ. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses focus on Jesus' humanity and ignore His divinity. The repeatedly quote verses dealing with Jesus as a man and try and set them against scripture showing that Jesus is also divine. On the other hand, the Christian Scientists do the reverse. They focus on the scriptures showing Jesus' divinity to the extent of denying His true humanity. For a proper understanding of Jesus and, therefore, all other doctrines that relate to Him, His two natures must be properly understood and defined. Jesus is one person with two natures. This is why He would grow in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) yet know all things (John 21:17). He is the Divine Word that became flesh (John 1:1,14). The Bible is about Jesus (John 5:39). The prophets prophesied about Him (Acts 10:43). The Father bore witness of Him (John 5:37; 8:18). The Holy Spirit bore witness of Him (John 15:26). The works Jesus did bore witness of Him (John 5:36; 10:25). The multitudes bore witness of Him (John 12:17). And, Jesus bore witness of Himself (John 14:6; 18:6). Other verses to consider when examining His deity are John 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:58; Heb. 1:6-8; and 2 Pet. 1:1. 1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Right now, there is a man in heaven on the throne of God. He is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). He is our Savior (Titus 2:13). He is our Lord (Rom. 10:9-10). He is Jesus.

30

Bible verses that show Jesus is God

Following are verses used to show that Jesus is God in flesh. The scriptures used here are from the New American Standard Bible. The links to the verses are to the King James Version of the Bible here on CARM. 1. 2. John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." A. John 1:14, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 5:18, "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." John 8:24, "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins." A. Note: In the Greek, "He" is not there. John 8:58, - "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'" Exodus 3:14, "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." John 10:30-33 - "I and the Father are one." 31The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." John 20:28, "Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." Phil. 2:5-9, , Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name Heb. 1:8, "But of the Son He says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom." A. Quoted from Psalm 45:6, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom." Matt. 4:10, "Then Jesus *said to him, 'Begone, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only."" Matt. 2:2, - "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him." Matt. 2:11, "And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell down and worshiped Him; and opening their treasures they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh." Matt. 14:33, - "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly Gods Son!" Matt. 28:9, "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him." John 9:35-38, "Jesus heard that they had put him out; and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" 36He answered and said, "And who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" 37 Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you." 38And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him." Heb. 1:6, "And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.'"

3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

10.

11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16.

17.

31

Jesus is prayed to
1. Acts 7:55-60, "But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; 56and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." 57But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears, and they rushed upon him with one impulse. 58And when they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him, and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" 60And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" And having said this, he fell asleep." 1 Cor. 1:1-2, "Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours." (The phrase, "to call upon the name of the Lord" is a phrase used to designate prayer.) A. 1 Kings 18:24, "Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord, and the God who answers by fire, He is God." And all the people answered and said, "That is a good idea." B. Zech. 13:9, "And I will bring the third part through the fire, refine them as silver is refined, and test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, and I will answer them; I will say, They are My people, and they will say, The Lord is my God." C. Rom. 10:13-14, "for 'whoever will call upon the name of the Lord' will be saved." 14How then shall they c all upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard?" (Paul is speaking of calling upon Jesus. (The phrase "Call upon the name of the Lord" is a quote from Joel 2:32). i. Joel 2:32, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call." (LORD here is YHWH, the name of God as revealed in Exodus 3:14. Therefore, this quote, dealing with God Himself is attributed to Jesus.) First and Last A. Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me." B. Rev. 1:17, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades."

2.

3.

32

Jesus is Jehovah (YHWH)

Jehovah Psalm 102:25, "Of old Thou didst found the earth; and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Isaiah 45:20 "I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance." Jesus Heb. 1:10, "And, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands"; Phil. 2:10-11, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Rev. 17:14, "These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful." Rev. 22:12-13, "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Titus 2:14, "who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." Rev. 1:7, "Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. Even so. Amen."

Deut. 10:17, "For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality, nor take a bribe." Isaiah 44:6 "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." Psalm 130:7-8, "O Israel, hope in the Lord; for with the Lord there is lovingkindness, and with Him is abundant redemption. 8And He will redeem Israel from all his iniquities." Zech. 12:10, "And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born. Joel 2:32, "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, as the Lord has said, even among the survivors whom the Lord calls."

Rom. 10:13 , "for 'Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.'"

33

The True Jesus

There is a simple way to see if someone has the true Jesus or not. By true Jesus, I mean the one of the Bible, not the one of Mormonism who is the brother of the devil, nor the Jehovah's Witness Jesus who is Michael the Archangel, and certainly not the one of the New Age Movement who is simply a man in tune with the divine consciousness. The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:12). The Jesus of the Bible is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6) The Jesus of the Bible is called God (John 10:28; Heb. 1:8).

In cult theologies, Jesus is a creation in one form or another (this is why the Jehovah's Witnesses add the word other' four times to Col. 1:16-17). Therefore, He is not to be prayed to, worshiped, or called God. If you are a Christian then you will be able to pray to Jesus, not just through. You will be able to worship Jesus equally with the Father. And you will be able to call Jesus your Lord and God. A cultist cannot do this. A cultist has a false Jesus, and, therefore, a false hope of salvation. The following is an expansion of the above points If you put your faith in a Jesus that is not true, then your faith is useless. The power of faith does not rest in the act of believing, but in its object; the greatest faith in someone false is the same as no faith at all. Sincerity and false messiahs do not bridge the chasm of sin between God and man, only the Jesus of the Bible does that. Who then, is the true Jesus? Jesus said that He was the only One who reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27 and Luke 10:22): "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him," (NIV). So, to know the true Father you must first know the true Jesus. The question is how do you recognize the true Jesus? Simple: Look in the Bible. If you were to say, "Father receive my spirit," who would you be praying to? The Father, right? If you were to say, "Jesus receive my spirit," who would you be praying to? Jesus. In Acts 7:59, Stephen, while full of the Holy Spirit (v. 55), prayed to Jesus: And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (See also Acts 9:14; Rom. 10:13.) Stephen prayed to Jesus, not just through Him. If it is acceptable for him then it should be alright for you. The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to. I pray to Jesus. Do you? If yes, good. If not, why? But you might say, "Jesus said to pray to the Father." I do. But I also pray to Jesus as Stephen did. If the church is only to pray to the Father then why did Stephen, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, address Jesus in His prayer? Was he wrong? See also 1 Cor. 1:1-2 with Psalm 116:4 where calling upon the name of the Lord is prayer and prayer is addressed to Jesus by the Corinthian church. Jesus was also worshipped. The verses are: And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's son! (Matt. 14:33). And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him, (Matt. 28:9). See also Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6.

34

The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to and worshiped. Do you do what Jesus' disciples did? Do you pray to and worship the true Jesus? Since it is against Mormon and Jehovah's Witness theologies to pray to Jesus but only through if you do worship Jesus, how can you do that without praying to Him? And, do you honor Him equally with the Father as Jesus said to do in John 5:23? If you do not, then why not? There is just one more issue to address. Do you call Jesus your Lord and God? After Jesus' resurrection He showed Himself to many people. One of them was Thomas. John 20:28: Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], "My Lord and my God!" The literal Greek says, "The Lord of me and the God of me."

"My God!" is a pagan expression used today. Two points can be made from this. First, do you agree that Thomas a devout Jew was swearing, like a pagan of today? Second, there is no biblical account of swear words. Peter did swear in Mark 14:71 by swearing he did not know Jesus. To say Thomas was swearing, or merely exclaiming profound surprise has no evidence. God calls Jesus God in Heb. 1:8: But of the Son He [the Father] says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever..."

Unfortunately, in the Jehovah's Witness Bible in Heb. 1:8 you'll see that it says, "God is your throne, forever and ever." This, technically speaking, is a legitimate translation. The reason this is so lies in the nature of the Greek language and the fact that the form of the word "God" and "Throne" both end in a noun construction that is interchangeable, therefore making the NWT translation legitimate. It is unfortunate that the Watchtower has chosen to do this. Nevertheless, if you'd like to read more about this, then go to The Jehovah's Witnesses and Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6. Conclusion The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2), worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6), and called Lord and God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8). If I have the wrong Jesus, and therefore I serve the wrong God, then why do I pray to Jesus, worship Him, and call Him my Lord and God as the Scriptures teach? But, if you have the true Jesus, why is it you don't do those things? Why does JW theology not agree with the scriptures? I think the answer is simple. The Jesus of the cults is not the true Jesus. Therefore, they are wrong.

35

100 Truths about Jesus

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Jesus claimed to be God - John 8:24; 8:56-59 (see Exodus 3:14); John 10:30-33 Jesus created all things - John 1:3; Col. 1:15-17 Jesus is before all things - Col. 1:17 Jesus is eternal - John 1:1,14 ; 8:58 Jesus is honored the same as the Father - John 5:23 Jesus is prayed to - Acts 7:55-60 Jesus is worshipped - Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6 Jesus is called God - John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13 Jesus is omnipresent - Matt. 28:20 Jesus is with us always - Matt. 28:20 Jesus is our only mediator between God and ourselves - 1 Tim. 2:5 Jesus is the guarantee of a better covenant - Heb. 7:22; 8:6 Jesus said, "I AM the Bread of Life" - John 6:35,41,48,51 Jesus said, "I AM the Door" - John 10:7,9 Jesus said, "I AM the Good Shepherd" - John 10:11,14 Jesus said, "I AM the Way the Truth and The Life" - John 14:6 Jesus said, "I AM the Light of the world" - John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; Luke 2:32 Jesus said, "I AM the True Vine" - John 15:1,5 Jesus said, "I AM the Resurrection and the Life" - John 11:25 Jesus said, "I AM the First and the Last" - Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13 Jesus always lives to make intercession for us - Heb. 7:25 Jesus cleanses from sin - 1 John 1:9 Jesus discloses Himself to us - John 14:21 Jesus draws all men to Himself - John 12:32 Jesus forgives sins - Matt. 9:1-7; Luke 5:20; 7:48 Jesus gives eternal life - John 10:28; 5:40 Jesus gives joy - John 15:11 Jesus gives peace - John 14:27 Jesus has authority - Matt. 28:18; John 5:26-27; 17:2; 3:35 Jesus judges - John 5:22,27 Jesus knows all men - John 16:30 Jesus opens the mind to understand scripture - Luke 24:45 Jesus received honor and glory from the Father - 1 Pet. 1:17 Jesus resurrects - John 5:39; 6:40,44,54; 11:25-26 Jesus reveals grace and truth - John 1:17 see John 6:45 Jesus reveals the Father - Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22 Jesus saves forever - Matt. 18:11; John 10:28; Heb. 7:25 Jesus bears witness of Himself - John 8:18; 14:6 Jesus' works bear witness of Himself - John 5:36; 10:25 The Father bears witness of Jesus - John 5:37; 8:18; 1 John 5:9 The Holy Spirit bears witness of Jesus - John 15:26 The multitudes bear witness of Jesus - John 12:17 The Prophets bear witness of Jesus - Acts 10:43 The Scriptures bear witness of Jesus - John 5:39 The Father will honor us if we serve Jesus - John 12:26 see Col. 3:24 The Father wants us to fellowship with Jesus - 1 Cor. 1:9 The Father tells us to listen to Jesus - Luke 9:35; Matt. 17:5 The Father tells us to come to Jesus - John 6:45 The Father draws us to Jesus - John 6:44 Everyone who's heard & learned from the Father comes to Jesus - John 6:45

36

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100.

The Law leads us to Christ - Gal. 3:24 Jesus is the Rock - 1 Cor. 10:4 Jesus is the Savior - John 4:42; 1 John 4:14 Jesus is King - Matt. 2:1-6; Luke 23:3 In Jesus are the treasures of wisdom and knowledge - Col. 2:2-3 In Jesus we have been made complete Col. 2:10 Jesus indwells us - Col. 1:27 Jesus sanctifies - Heb. 2:11 Jesus loves - Eph. 5:25 We come to Jesus - John 5:50; 6:35,37,45,65; 7:37; We sin against Jesus - 1 Cor. 8:12 We receive Jesus - John 1:12; Col. 2:6 Jesus makes many righteous - Rom. 5:19 Jesus is the image of the invisible God - Heb. 1:3 Jesus sends the Holy Spirit - John 15:26 Jesus abides forever - Heb. 7:24 Jesus offered up Himself - Heb. 7:27; 9:14 Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for all time - Heb. 10:12 The Son of God has given us understanding - 1 John 5:20 Jesus is the author and perfecter of our faith - Heb. 12:2 Jesus is the Apostle and High Priest of our confession - Heb. 1:3 Jesus is preparing a place for us in heaven - John 14:1-4 Jesus cleanses us from our sins by His blood - Rev. 1:5; Rom. 5:9 Jesus is the Light of the world - Rom. 9:5 Jesus has explained the Father - John 1:18 Jesus was crucified because of weakness - 2 Cor. 13:4 Jesus has overcome the world - John 16:33 Truth is in Jesus - Eph. 4:21 The fruit of righteousness comes through Jesus Christ - Phil. 1:11 Jesus delivers us from the wrath to come - 1 Thess. 1:10 Disciples bear witness of Jesus Christ - John 15:27 Jesus died and rose again - 1 Thess. 4:14 The Christian dead have fallen asleep in Jesus - 1 Thess. 4:15 Jesus died for us - 1 Thess. 5:10 Jesus tasted death for everyone - Heb. 2:9 Jesus rendered the devil powerless - Heb. 2:14 Jesus is able to save completely - Heb. 7:25 Jesus was a ransom for many and to serve - Matt. 20:28 Jesus came to be a high priest - Heb. 2:17 Jesus came to save - John 3:17; Luke 19:10 Jesus came to preach the kingdom of God - Luke 4:43 Jesus came to bring division - Luke 12:51 Jesus came to do the will of the Father - John 6:38 Jesus came to give the Father's words - John 17:8 Jesus came to testify to the truth - John 18:37 Jesus came to die and destroy Satan's power - Heb. 2:14 Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets - Matt. 5:17 Jesus came to give life - John 10:10,28 Jesus came to taste death for everyone - Heb. 2:9 Jesus came to proclaim freedom for believers - Luke 4:18

37

Who is Jesus according to John the Apostle?

Who is Jesus according to John the apostle? Is He a mere man, an angel in flesh, or is He God incarnate? The answer is very important because it determines where you stand in relationship to the truth. Since faith is only as good as who you place it in, it is crucial that you place your faith in the true Savior. So, who is the true Savior? Is he God or not? Is he an angel who became a man or not? Or is he merely a great teacher? John's gospel is different than the other three. In fact, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the synoptic gospels because they are so similar. However, John presents Jesus in a different light from the other three. Additionally, John wrote the epistles of John and the book of Revelation. In each of them, Jesus is presented in a special way. Let's take a look at how John sees Jesus. John's concept of Jesus begins with the introductions of his gospel (John 1:1,14) and his first epistle (1 John 1:1,10). It is not a mere coincidence that John writes in such parallel to the opening chapters of Genesis. Undoubtedly, John's opinion of Jesus was sufficient to equate him with God's creative work of "in the beginning." Let's look. Gospel of John 'In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God 2He was in the beginning with God," (1:12). "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being," (1:3) In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.. . . (1:4-5). and the word became flesh and dwelt among us. . ." (1:14). ". . . of life, (1:1b). 1 John Genesis

"What was from the beginning, "In the beginning. . .," (1:1a) what we have heard what we have seen with our eyes, what we behold and our hands handled concerning the word, . . (1:1a). " . . . God created the heavens and the earth," (1:1b)

"Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness," (1:34)

" . . .God is light and in Him there "And they heard the sound of is no darkness," (1:5). the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. . .," (3:8).

The parallels between the gospel of John, 1 John, and Genesis are immediately evident. The terminology is very similar. The themes are almost identical. Obviously, John considers Jesus to be of preeminent importance and uses many figures of speech equated with God. But John does not abandon the thematic comparison between the Word and God after the opening chapters. He continues to show the divine qualities of Jesus throughout his writings.

38

In the Gospel of John I have already mention John 1:1,14 where the Word is in the beginning with God, and was God, the Word became flesh. This is obviously referencing Jesus. John also presents Jesus as 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. giving eternal life (John 10:27); the bread of life (John 6:35,51 - an obvious allusion to the manna given by God out of heaven in 6:32,35); the way the truth and the life (14:6); the light of the world (8:12); proceeding from the Father (8:24). being the 'I am" (8:58) -- see also Exodus 3:14 where God calls Himself I AM. being one with the Father (10:30) for which the Jews wanted to kill him - see Lev. 24:16; sharing the glory of God before creation (17:5; note that God shares His glory with no one, Isaiah 42:8); calling Jesus His own Father making Himself equal with God (John 5:18); receiving the same honor that you give to the Father (John 5:23); Lord and God (John 20:28). knowing all things (John 21:17 - something only God can do). And in John 18:5, in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus answers those who came to arrest Him with the statement, "I am", they fall back to ground.

Is it safe to say that John in his gospel merely considers Jesus a man or even a special angel? Is a mere man or an angel the giver of eternal life or is this something God does? Is a mere man or an angel the way, the truth, and the life, or the light of the world. Is a creature one with the Father, or does a creature share in God's glory, or even knowing all things? No. Not at all. In the Book of Revelation John continues with OT themes dealing with God and applies them to Jesus in the book of Revelation. "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades," (Rev. 1:1718). "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end," (Rev. 22:12-23). "These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful," (Rev. 17:14; 19:16). "for the Lamb in the center of the throne shall be their shepherd, and shall guide them to springs of the water of life; and God shall wipe every tear from their eyes," (Rev. 7:17). "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me," (Isaiah 44:6). "Behold, the Lord God will come with might, with His arm ruling for Him. Behold, His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him," (Isaiah 40:). "that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which He will bring about at the proper time--He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords," (1 Tim. 6:15-16). "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. 2He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside quiet waters," (Psalm 23:1-2)

39

Divine themes run through the book of Revelation. Both Jesus and God are called the first and last. Both are coming to give out their reward. Both are the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings. Both are the divine shepherds. It is no wonder in three significant verses in the gospel; John records Jesus saying about Himself: "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins," (John 8:24). "Jesus therefore said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me," (John 8:28). "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," (John 8:58), see Exodus 3:14.

It is apparent that John considered Jesus more than a man and more than an angel. He is God in flesh: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. . ., " (John 1:1,14).

40

Jesus' Resurrection was physical

The resurrection of Jesus is a fundamental and essential doctrine of Christianity. The resurrection of Jesus is so important that without it Christianity is false. Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:14, "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." Three verses later, in verse 17, he again says, "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." Though there are many subjects with which Christians may disagree and still be considered Christian, this is not one of them. To deny the resurrection of Jesus is to deny the heart of Christianity itself. However, the problem in the resurrection isn't so much in agreeing that Jesus rose, but in how He rose. Unfortunately, cults attack the resurrection of Christ and reinterpret it in different ways, thereby denying His physical resurrection. We must ask if Jesus rose from the dead in the very same body He died in or did His rise in a spirit body that was not flesh and bones? The answer to this question is vital. It separates true Christians from false systems. Therefore, here is the correct doctrine of Christ's resurrection. I consider it so important, that it must be set off by itself as a statement of truth. Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body that He died in. This resurrected body was a glorified, spiritual body. The above statement is the correct doctrine of scripture. As such, it stands against the Jehovah's Witness and the Shepherd's Chapel groups that state that Jesus did not rise bodily, but spiritually. Neither group seeks to deny the obvious biblical declaration of Christ's resurrection, but they change the meaning of the resurrection so that it really didn't happen. Did Jesus rise from the dead in the same glorified body He died in? Yes! After the resurrection Jesus was able to eat (Luke 24:4243). He showed people His hands and feet with the nail prints in them (Luke 24:51; John 20:27), and people even grabbed His feet and worshipped Him (Matt. 28:9). After the reports of Jesus' resurrection were spreading, Thomas, who was doubting the resurrection of Christ, said, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe," (John 20:25). Later, Jesus appeared to Thomas and said to him, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing," (John 20:27). If Jesus' body had not risen, then He would not have feet and hands with the same holes of the nails of the crucifixion. Consider the following verses as further proof that His very body was raised: "When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and *said to them, "Peace be with you." 20And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord," (John 20:19-20). "And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have," (Luke 24:38-39).

It is obvious that Jesus was raised in the same body He died in, with the same holes in His hands and feet. We see that Jesus proclaimed He had flesh and bones? Does a "spirit body" consist of flesh and bones? Not at all. I have heard it said that Jesus physical body died but His spiritual body was raised. If this is so, then does the spiritual body consist of flesh and bones as well as the physical one? It makes no sense. Also, if Jesus did not rise physically, then what happened to His body? Was it dissolved? Was it moved somewhere? There is no biblical account of what happened to Jesus' body other than that it was raised from the dead. Therefore, His body was raised from the dead.

41

John 2:19-21 "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:19-21). The phrase "I will raise" is translated from the single Greek word "egeiro." "Egeiro" is the future, active, indicative, 1st person singular. The active voice in Greek designates who is performing the action. In this case, since it is first person, singular ("I"), Jesus is saying that He Himself would perform the action of the resurrection. This is precisely what the Greek says. However, some still deny that Jesus rose from the dead physically -- even when examining John 2:19-21. We can clearly see that Jesus prophesied that He would raise up the temple of His body as is clarified in verse 21 by John the apostle who states that Jesus was speaking of "the temple of his body." Therefore, this should be conclusive proof that Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in. Clearly, John 2:19-21 shows us that Jesus predicted He would raise His very body -- and He did so. Is this enough to put this issue to rest? You'd think so, but resistance persists. 1 Cor. 15:35, 39, 42-44
35

But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?. . .39All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. . .42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Verse 44 above is used in an attempt to establish the idea that Jesus did not rise physically, but spiritually. Of course, I've already established above that Jesus was raised in the same body He died in, with the same holes in His hands and feet. We also saw that Jesus proclaimed He had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Again, does a "spirit body" consist of flesh and bones? The scripture no where declares such a thing. Paul is not stating that there are two separate bodies to each person, the physical and the spiritual and that after the physical one dies, the second and different spirit body takes over. Rather, when referencing the same body he states, "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body," (v. 44). The "it" is referring to the same body in both clauses, not separate and different ones. This same body becomes a resurrected body -- which is the spiritual body He is referring to. In other words, the spiritual body is the very same body he previously had, though it had been changed into a spiritual one. "For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory," (1 Cor. 15:53-54). Our perishable and mortal bodies put on the imperishable and immortal aspects of the spiritual body which is the physically resurrected and changed body of the believer. Jesus was simply the first fruits of this resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20). Therefore, we can see that our future resurrected bodies will be spiritual bodies. But, those spiritual bodies are in fact physical, the same bodies we have now, only glorified. Otherwise, there is no resurrection.

42

Objections to Jesus' physical resurrection answered Even though the bible teaches us that Jesus rose from the dead in the same body that He died in and that His resurrected body was a glorified body, people still resist accepting this truth -- to their detriment. Various objections are raised against such biblical support as... "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:19-21). "When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and *said to them, "Peace be with you." 20And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord," (John 20:19-20). "And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39). It seems clear that Jesus' physical resurrection is a reality. Unfortunately, objections to it have been raised. Objection 1: Jesus was put to death physically but was raised spiritually according to 1 Pet. 3:18. 1 Pet. 3:18 is often used as a counter John 2:19-21. Instead of harmonizing the Scriptures, some people use one scripture to "refute" another or to justify their interpretations which seem to favor their positions. Such is the case with 1 Pet. 3:18-19: "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit," (1 Pet. 3:18). The point that they try to make in this verse is that Jesus did not rise in the flesh, but "in the spirit." Some even say that Jesus ceased to exist and then was made alive" in the spirit. However, because Jesus is the Word made flesh (John 1:1,14), His spirit is immortal and does not need to be made alive. Nevertheless, they assert that Jesus was not speaking literally in John 2:19-21, otherwise it would contradict their doctrine that Jesus did not rise physically. Of course, they are incorrect. Here is why. Let's look at the context of 1 Pet. 3:18. Here is 1 Pet. 3:17-20, "For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. 18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water," (1 Pet. 3:17-20). We must acknowledge right away that these verses have different interpretations among scholars. It says Jesus was in the spirit when He went and made proclamation. But what does that mean? Did Jesus, between the time of his death and resurrection, go and make a proclamation to spirits in prison, or was it after His resurrection? Also, the Greek word used is "proclaim," (karuso) not "preach," (evangelizo), so it was not a message of salvation to those spirits in prison. Also, who are the spirits, angels or men? In the spirit realm, angels are said to be in prison (Rev. 20:7; 2 Pet. 2:4), but never people. What was the proclamation? Most probably, it was the proclamation of Christ's victory at the cross, according to scripture, which was proclaimed to spirits of old who were disobedient in the time of Noah and who were being held in bonds (See also, 2 Pet. 2:4-5). In my opinion, between His death and resurrection, Jesus went and made a proclamation of His victory on the cross to those fallen angels who were being held in prison. But since there is no definitive answer on this, I am open to further discussion on it.

43

Verse 18 does not require the interpretation that Jesus did not rise physically. In fact, logically speaking, if we held to the "spirit only" idea of His resurrection, we would have a contradiction with other verses in the Bible; namely, John 2:19-21 and Luke 24:39 cited above. Since John 2:19 clearly teaches that the temple of Christ's body was raised, 1 Pet. 3:18, which has different interpretations among scholars, cannot be held in a way that would contradict other, clearer scriptures such as John 2:19-21 and Luke 24:39). Furthermore, different Bibles translate verse 18 differently. Some say Jesus was "made alive by the Spirit, (KJV, NKJV, NIV, MLB) while others say "...made alive in the spirit, (NASB, NEB, RSV, JB, and the 1901 ASV). It is certainly possible that Jesus was made alive by the Holy Spirit which is consistent with the Trinitarian aspect of Jesus' resurrection where God raised Jesus (1 Thess. 1:10), the Father raised Jesus (Gal. 1:1), and Jesus raised Himself (John 2:19-21), and the Holy Spirit was also involved in His resurrection (Rom. 8:11). It is also accurate to say that Jesus was raised in the spirit in that His spiritual body, which is His physical glorified body, was quickened, made alive, became real as the first fruits of all creation (1 Cor. 15:20). Finally, it is our bodies that are redeemed as well, not just our spirits. "And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body," (Rom. 9:23). The body here spoken of is the physical one, not a "spiritual" non-flesh body. To summarize about this verse: 1 Pet. 3:18 does not say that Jesus was raised a spirit creature. It says that He was "made alive in the spirit." What does that mean? Quite simply, it means that Jesus was raised in an imperishable body. This is what 1 Cor. 15:35-45 says when it refers to the body as being sown perishable, but raised imperishable; sown in dishonor and raised in glory; sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, etc. Jesus was the "Last Adam" a life giving spirit. Paul is typifying the resurrection body. In this passage Paul is talking about the resurrection of all people. All Christians will be raised in physical bodies. It is the same with Jesus. Objection 2: The Bible says that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50), therefore, Jesus could not have been raised from the dead in the same body He died in. The problem with this objection is that it fails to recognize the fact that after the resurrection, Jesus said, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have," (Luke 24:39), not "flesh and blood." This is not simply a play on words. Every word in the Bible is inspired and Jesus used this phrase on purpose. The term "flesh and blood" is a phrase used in scripture in different contexts, but denotes the natural order. "And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven," (Matt. 16:17). "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places," (Eph. 6:12). "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil," (Heb. 2:14).

Jesus had shed His blood on the cross. It quit literally had drained out of His body. We see that when Jesus rose from the dead, He still had the holes in His hands and feet (Luke 24:39). Since He retained the characteristics of His bodily ordeal, it is logical to state that His blood, which was literally drained from His body, was likewise still shed. Therefore, His body could be raised and the blood remained shed as the thing that "makes atonement": "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement," (Lev. 17:11). That is why after the resurrection, to prove that He had risen in the same body He died in, Jesus told people to touch His hands and feet because it was the hands and feet that had the holes in them. What more proof do you need to but see and touch the very same hands and feet that had the holes in them from the nails on the cross! Furthermore, in the same statement Jesus said that He possessed flesh and bones, not flesh and blood. He had risen!

44

Objection 3: The sacrificial offering was the body of Christ; therefore, it could not rise lest the sacrifice be made invalid by "being taken back. The answer to this objection is similar to the one above. Jesus' resurrection is the proof that His sacrifice was accepted by the Father who had promised, "For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay," (Psalm 16:10). Because Jesus offered a perfect sacrifice for sin, He was guaranteed a physical resurrection. You see, physical death is the result of sin. But, Jesus successfully took care of the sin problem and, in the process, conquered death whic h is the result of sin (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:56). The proof is found in the fact that He rose from the dead in the same body He died in. Furthermore, the truth is that Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and took our place (2 Cor. 5:21). His body was used as the means to shed the blood that cleanses of sin. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement," (Lev. 17:11). "And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness," (Heb. 9:22).

So, the blood of Christ is what removes our sin and the physical resurrection of Christ is proof that the sacrifice was accepted by the Father. Objection 4: Jesus manifested different physical forms in order to convince the disciples that He had been raised. This is faulty for several reasons. First, it would mean that Jesus was tricking His disciples into believing that His body had been raised when it hadnt. Second, it disregards the clear teaching of Jesus Himself who said His very body would be raised: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:19-21). Jesus said that His body would be raised. Third, 1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." Jesus is said to be a man. If He was not raised physically, then how could he be a man without a body of flesh and bones? Objection 5: The Father raised Jesus; He didn't do it Himself, therefore John 2:19-21 cannot be literal because Jesus didn't raise Himself. This objection simply fails to take into account the Trinitarian nature of God and the resurrection. We see that each of the members of the Godhead was involved in the resurrection of Christ. Father - "Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead)," (Gal. 1:1). Son - "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:19-21). The Holy Spirit - "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you," (Rom. 8:11).

Likewise, we see that other Trinitarian aspects are observed throughout scripture on different subjects: Each is called God: Father (Phil. 1:2), the Son (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9) and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). Each is the Creator: Father (Isaiah 64:8; 44:24), the Son (John 1:3; Col. 1:15-17), and the Holy Spirit (Job 33:4; 26:13), etc. When looking at the whole of scripture we see no contradiction dealing with Jesus' resurrection. Instead, we see an affirmation of the truth that Jesus did, in fact, raise His body just as He said He would in John 2:19-21.

45

What did Jesus come to do?

1. To reveal the Father, Matt. 11:27, All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." To be a ransom for many, Matt. 20:28, "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." To serve, Matt. 20:28, "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." To save the world, John 3:17; Luke 19:10, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." To preach the good news of the kingdom of God, Luke 4:43, "But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent." To bring division, Luke 12:51, "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." To do the will of the Father, John 6:38, "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me." To give the Father's words, John 17:8, "For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me." To testify to the truth, John 18:37, "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." To die and destroy Satan's power, Heb. 2:14, "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death -- that is, the devil." To destroy the devil's works, 1 John 3:8, "He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work." To fulfill the Law and the Prophets, Matt. 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." To give life, John 10:10,28, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full...I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand." To taste death for everyone, Heb. 2:9, "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." To become a high priest, Heb. 2:17, "For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people." To atone for sin, Heb. 2:17, "For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people." To proclaim freedom for believers, Luke 4:18, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed." To proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, Luke 4:19, "to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." To bring judgment, John 9:39, "Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." To take away sin, 1 John 3:5, "But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin." To preach, Mark 1:38 , "Jesus replied, 'Let us go somewhere else -- to the nearby villages -- so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.'" To c all sinners, Mark 2:17, "On hearing this, Jesus said to them, 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.'"

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

10. 11.

12. 13.

14.

15. 16.

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

46

Jesus is a man right now

One of the lesser known biblical doctrines concerns Jesus as a man right now. Many do not know that right now, in heaven, Jesus is a man, though in a glorified body. Some object to this and cite various reasons (answered at the end of this paper) for denying His present humanity. They are in error. Following is a biblical demonstration that Jesus is still both divine and human in nature. It is biblically correct to say that Jesus is a man right now in heaven -- though a glorified man. But, it would wrong to say He was only a man. He is both divine and human in nature at the same time (Col. 2:9); He is both God and man, right now. Furthermore, Jesus' humanity now is important for two reasons. First, this is what the Bible teaches. Second, as a man, Jesus is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. As a priest He forever intercedes for us. "where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, (Heb. 6:20). "Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them," (Heb. 7:25).

In order to be a priest, Jesus has to be a man. A spirit cannot be a priest after the order of Melchizedek and if Jesus is not a man now, He could not hold His priesthood and He could not be forever interceding for us. Therefore, to deny Jesus' present humanity is to deny His priesthood and His intercession on our behalf. Without His intercession, we are lost. 1. Jesus died There is no dispute that Jesus died on the cross --except for some non-Christian religions and various atheistic groups who deny the biblical record. Nevertheless, the scriptures teach us that Jesus died. "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus," (1 Thess. 4:14). 2. Jesus rose from the dead physically The bible teaches us that Jesus rose from the dead. Unfortunately, some Christians are not aware that Jesus actually rose from the dead in the same body He died in, though it was a glorified body. We see that Jesus prophesied the resurrection of His physical body in John 2:19-21 and fulfilled this in other verses: "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:19-21). After Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection He appeared to various people to demonstrate that He had risen physically. "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have," (Luke 24:39). "When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and *said to them, "Peace be with you." 20And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord," (John 20:19-20). "Then He *said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing," (John 20:27).

In these verses we see that Jesus said He would raise the temp le of His body. This He did and the body He rose in was the same one He died in since it retained the physical wounds of His crucifixion -- He still had holes in His hands and side!

47

I would like to note here that if anyone denies the resurrection of Christ, his faith is in vain and he is not a true Christian. 1 Cor. 15:14, "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. It is not enough to say that Jesus rose. You must acknowledge that He rose physically. A "spirit" resurrection is not a resurrection of the body and without the resurrection of the body of Christ, death has not been conquered and our faith would be in vain. 3. Jesus' resurrected body was a glorified body Jesus rose from the dead physically in the same body He died in. But, what kind of a body was this physical body He rose in? Was it subject to death again? Would it grow tired or grow old? The Bible tells us about the resurrected body, of which all Christians will receive in the future. "But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?...40There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49And just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly," (1 Cor. 15:35,40-49). These verses tell us that something happens to the body that is raised from the dead. Notice that verse 44 says that "it is sown a natural body. It is raised a spiritual body." The same body that is sown (dies) is raised. The natural body is the body we are born with. The natural body dies and is raised from the dead. But, when it is raised, it is changed into a spiritual body. The resurrected body is different than the natural body in its abilities and qualities as Jesus demonstrated; however, and this is vitally important, it is the same body as before -- only "improved," "glorified," "spiritualized," etc. We see this in the fact that Jesus retained the wounds of His crucifixion as evidenced by the holes in His hands and side (John 20:27), yet He was able to simply appear in a room with the disciples without entering through the door (John 20:19-20). He was raised in the same body He died in, though it had been glorified. 4. Jesus is a man in a glorified body We have already seen that Jesus was raised from the dead in the same body He died in, but that body is a resurrected body. However, some people believe that at Jesus' ascension, He was somehow changed and His physical body was no longer needed. But, this is not what the Bible teaches. There is no place where it states that Jesus stopped being a man. If anything, the New Testament says He is still a man. "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form," (Col. 2:9). Notice that this verse speaks in the present tense ("dwells"). Colossians was written well after Jesus' ascension into heaven, yet Paul tells us that Jesus is in bodily form. What body would that be? Why, it would be the same body He was raised in. To clarify that Jesus is a man, read the next verse. "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," (1 Tim. 2:5). We see here that Jesus is called a man. Like Col. 2:9 above, this verse uses the present tense ("is"). It clearly states that Jesus is a man.

48

"And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades," (Rev. 1:17-18).

In Rev. 1:17-18, Jesus is in heaven and John the Apostle falls at Jesus' feet and Jesus laid His right hand on him. Clearly, from these verses we can see that Jesus is in bodily form as a man. 1. Objections Answered A. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. Some argue that the Bible says that flesh and blood cannot go to heaven as is stat ed in 1 Cor. 15:50, "Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." The term "flesh and blood" is a phrase used to designate the natural state, even the carnal state of man. i. "And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven," (Matt. 16:17). ii. "to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood," (Gal. 1:16). iii. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places," (Eph. 6:12). iv. "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil," (Heb. 2:14). After the resurrection, Jesus said, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have," (Luke 24:39). Jesus specifically stated that He had flesh and bones, not flesh and blood. This may seem like a word game, but it is not. Every word is inspired in the Bible and Jesus chose His words for a reason. Remember, Jesus' blood was drained out of His body on the cross. It is His blood that cleanses us of our sins: "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin," (1 John 1:7). Jesus was the sacrifice and His blood cleanses us. Therefore, flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, but flesh and bones can. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 1 Cor. 15:45 says, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." This verse is not saying that Jesus is without a body, but that He is a life giving spirit. That is, as the last Adam, He is the one who gives life to people (John 10:27-28). Furthermore, it is designating that Jesus' resurrected body is equipped to be in both the physical realm and the spiritual.

49

Jesus is God
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me," (Isaiah 43:10).

JESUS John 1:3, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." Col. 1:16-17, "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Rev. 1:17, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last." Rev. 2:8, "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again." Rev. 22:13, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." John 8:24, "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NKJV) John 8:58, "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" See Exodus 3:14 John 13:19, "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He." 2 Tim. 4:1, "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge..." 2 Cor. 5:10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." Matt. 2:2, "...Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We

IS

GOD, "YAHWEH" Job 33:4, "The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life." Isaiah 40:28, "Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom."

Creator

First and Last

Isaiah 41:4, "Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD -- with the first of them and with the last -- I am he." Isaiah 44:6, "This is what the LORD says -Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." Isaiah 48:12, "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last." Exodus 3:14, "God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you." Isaiah 43:10, "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." See also Deut. 32:39 Joel 3:12, "Let the nations be roused; let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side." Rom. 14:10, "You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat."

I AM "ego eimi"

Judge

King

Jer. 10:10, "But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he

50

saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." Luke 23:3, "So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied." See also John 19:21 John 8:12, "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." Luke 2:32, "a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel." See also John 1:7-9 1 Cor. 10:4, "...for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." See also 1 Pet. 2:. John 4:24, "They said to the woman, We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world." 1 John 4:14, "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world." John 10:11, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." Heb. 13:20, "May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep," See also John 10:14,16; 1 Pet. 2:25

is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath." Isaiah 44:6-8, "This is what the LORD says -Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." See also Psalm 47 Psalm 27:1, "The LORD is my light and my salvation -- whom shall I fear?" Isaiah 60:20,"our sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end." 1 John 1:5, "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." Deut. 32:4, "He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he." See also 2 Sam. 22:32 and Isaiah 17:10. Isaiah 43:3, "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior." Isaiah 45:21, "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

Light

Rock

Savior

Shepher d

Psalm 23:1, "The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want." Isaiah 40:11, "He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young."

Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are from the NIV.

51

If Jesus were not God, then explain...

If Jesus is not God, then explain... 1. 2. 3. 4. Why Thomas calls Jesus God in John 20:28? (Note, Thomas addresses Jesus specifically.) Why does God call Jesus God in Heb. 1:8? Why does John the apostle state that Jesus was the Word which was God that became flesh (John 1:1,14)? Why is the phrase "Call upon the name of the LORD" (Hebrew, YHWH, i.e., Psalm 116:4) used only of God on the OT, and translated into the Greek in the LXX as "Call upon the name of the LORD (Greek, KURIOS)," applied to Jesus in the NT (1 Cor. 1:2) if Jesus is not God in flesh? Why does the apostle John say that Jesus was, "...calling God His own Father, making Himself equal to God," (John 5:18)? What did Jesus say that caused the Pharisees to claim that Jesus was making Himself out to be God? How was it possible for Jesus to know all things, (John 21:17)? How can Jesus know all men, (John 16:30)? How can Jesus be everywhere, (Matt. 28:20)? How can Jesus, the Christ, dwell in you, (Col. 1:27)? How can Jesus be the exact representation of the Nature of God, (Heb. 1:3)? How can Jesus be eternal, (Micah 5:1-2)? How can Jesus be the one who gives eternal life, (John 10:27-28)? How can He be our only Lord and Master, (Jude 4)? How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) if there is only one God in existence, (Isaiah 44:6-8; 45:5)? How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) and "God" also be called the Mighty God in Isaiah 10:21? How was Jesus able to raise Himself from the dead, (John 2:19-21)? How can Jesus create all things (Col. 1:16-17), yet it is God who created all things by Himself, (Isaiah 44:24)? How can Jesus search the hearts and minds of the people, (Rev. 2:23)? Why was Jesus worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6) when He says to worship God only (Matt. 4:10)? (Same Greek word for worship is used in each place.) In the OT God was seen (Exodus 6:2-3; 24:9-11; Num. 12:6-9; Acts 7:2), yet no man can see God, (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18). It was not the Father that was seen in the OT, (John 6:46). Who, then were they seeing? See John 8:58. Then why did Jesus claim the divine name, "I AM", for Himself in John 8:58? see Exodus 3:14. Then why did Jesus say you must honor Him even as you honor the Father, (John 5:23)? Then why is it that both the Father and the Son give life, (John 5:21)? Then why did Jesus bear witness of Himself, (John 8:18; 14:6)?

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24. 25.

52

The Trinity, what is it?

The word "trinity" is a term used to denote the Christian doctrine that God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet related in essence. Each is divine in nature, but each is not the totality of the Godhead. Each has a will, loves, and says "I", and "You" when speaking. The Father is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit who is not the same person as the Father. Each is divine, yet there are not three gods, but one God. There are three persons individual subsistences, or persons. The word "subsistence" means something that has a real existence. The word "person" denotes individuality and self awareness. The Trinity is three of these, though the latter term has become the dominant one used to describe the individual aspects of God known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Included in the doctrine of the Trinity is a strict monotheism which is the teaching that there exists in all the universe a single being known as God who is self-existent and unchangeable (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). Therefore, it is important to note that the doctrine of the trinity is not polytheistic as some of its critics proclaim. Trinitarianism is monotheistic by definition and those who claim it is polytheistic demonstrate a lack of understanding of what it really is. The Trinity God is three persons Each person is divine There is only one God

Many theologians admit that the term "person" is not a perfect word to describe the three individual aspects/foci found in God. When we normally use the word person, we understand it to mean physical individuals who exist as separate beings from other individuals. But in God there are not three entities, nor three beings. God, is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one. Yet, within the single divine essence are three individual subsistences that we call persons. Each of the three persons is completely divine in nature though each is not the totality of the Godhead. Each of the three persons is not the other two persons. Each of the three persons is related to the other two, but are distinct from them.

The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. But this does not mean that the concept is not taught there. The word "bible" is not found in the Bible either, but we use it anyway. Likewise, the words "omniscience," which means "all knowing," "omnipotence," which means "all powerful," and "omnipresence," which means "present everywhere," are not found in the Bible either. But we use these words to describe the attributes of God. So, to say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument. Is there subordination in the Trinity? There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity in regard to order but not substance or essence. We can see that the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third. The Father is not begotten, but the Son is (John 3:16). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 5:26). The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). The Father creates (Isaiah 44:24), the Son redeems (Gal. 3:13), and the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16). This subordination of order does not mean that each of the members of the Godhead are not equal or divine. For example, we see that the Father sent the Son. But this does not mean that the Son is not equal to the Father in essence and divine nature. A wife is to be subject to her husband but this does not negate her humanity, essence, or equality. By further analogy, a king and his servant both share human nature. Yet, the king sends the servant to do his will. Jesus said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me, (John 6:38). Does this mean

53

that the one sent must, therefore, be of different nature than the one who sent him? Of course not. Critics of the Trinity will see this subordination as proof that the Trinity is false. They reason that if Jesus were truly God, then He would be completely equal to God the Father in all areas and would not, therefore, be subordinate to the Father in any way. But this objection is not logical. If we look at the analogy of the king and in the servant we certainly would not say that the servant was not human because he was sent. Being sent does not negate sameness in essence. Therefore, the fact that the Son is sent does not mean that He is not divine any more than when my wife sends me to get bread, I am not human. Is this confusing? Another important point about the Trinity is that it can be a difficult c oncept to grasp. But this does not necessitate an argument against its validity. On the contrary, the fact that it is difficult is an argument for its truth. The Bible is the self revelation of an infinite God. Therefore, we are bound to encounter conc epts which are difficult to understand -- especially when dealing with an incomprehensible God who exists in all places at all times. So, when we view descriptions and attributes of God manifested in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we discover that a completely comprehensible and understandable explanation of God's essence and nature is not possible. What we have, however, done is derive from the Scripture the truths that we can grasp and combine them into the doctrine we call The Trinity. The Trinity is, to a large extent, a mystery. After all, we are dealing with God Himself. It is the way of the cults to reduce biblical truth to make God comprehensible and understandable by their minds. To this end, they subject God's word to their own reasoning and end in error. The following verses are often used to demonstrate that in the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed biblical. Matt. 28:18, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christs gift. 1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure." Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."

Sources: Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Everett Harrison, ed. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1960. Berkhoff's Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1988. Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1994.

54

The Trinity Chart

God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God. (See also, "Another Look at the Trinity") There is, though, an apparent separation of some functions among the members of the Godhead. For example, the Father chooses who will be saved (Eph. 1:4); the Son redeems them (Eph. 1:7); and the Holy Spirit seals them, (Eph. 1:13). A further point of clarification is that God is not one person, the Father, with Jesus as a creation and the Holy Spirit is a force (Jehovah's Witnesses). Neither is He one person who took three consecutive forms, i.e., the Father, became the Son, who became the Holy Spirit. Nor is God the divine nature of the Son (where Jesus had a human nature perceived as the Son and a divine nature perceived as the Father (United Pentecostal). Nor is the Trinity an office held by three separate Gods (Mormonism). The chart below should help you to see how the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from Scripture. The list is not exhaustive, only illustrative. The first step is to establish how many Gods exist: one! Isaiah 43:10; 44:6; 45:14,18, 21, 22; 46:5,9. "I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God," (Isaiah 45:5). The Trinity FATHER Called God Creator Resurrects Indwells Everywhere All knowing Sanctifies Life giver Fellowship Eternal A Will Speaks Love We belong to Savior We serve Believe in Gives joy Judges Phil. 1:2 Isaiah 64:8 1 Thess. 1:10 2 Cor. 6:16 1 Kings 8:27 1 John 3:20 1 Thess. 5:23 1 John 1:3 Psalm 90:2 Luke 22:42 Matt. 3:17; Lk 9:25 John 3:16 John 17:9 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10 Matt. 4:10 John 14:1 . . . John 8:50 SON John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9 John 1:3; Col. 1:15-17 John 2:19, 10:17 Col. 1:27 Matt. 28:20 John 16:30; 21:17 Heb. 2:11 1 Cor. 1:9 Micah 5:1-2 Luke 22:42 Luke 5:20; 7:48 Eph. 5:25 Rev. 2:23 John 17:6 2 Tim. 1:10; Titus 1:4; 3:6 Col. 3:24 John 14:1 John 15:11 John 5:21,30 HOLY SPIRIT Acts 5:3-4 Job 33:4, 26:13 Rom. 8:11 John 14:17 Psalm 139:7-10 1 Cor. 2:10-11 1 Pet. 1:2 2 Cor. 3:6,8 2 Cor. 13:14; Phil. 2:1 Rom. 8:11; Heb. 9:14 1 Cor. 12:11 Acts 8:29; 11:12; 13:2 Rom. 15:30 1 Cor. 2:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . John 14:7 . . .

Gen. 2:7: John 5:21 John 1:3; 5:21

Searches the heart Jer. 17:10

55

Another Look at the Trinity

The Trinity can be a difficult concept to understand. Some think it is a logical contradiction. Others call it a mystery. Does the Bible teach it? Yes it does, see trinity, but that doesn't automatically make it easier to comprehend. The Trinity is defined as one God who exists in three eternal, simultaneous, and distinct persons known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Such a definition may suffic e for some, but for others this explanation is insufficient. Therefore, to help understand the Trinity better, I offer the following analogy that, I think, is hinted at in Rom. 1:20: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." Notice that this verse says God's attributes, power, and nature, can be clearly seen in creation. What does that mean? Should we be able to learn about God's attributes, power, and nature by looking at what He has made? Apparently, according to the Bible, this is possible. When a painter paints a picture, what is in him is reflected in the painting he produces. When a sculptor creates a work of art, it is from his heart and mind that the source of the sculpture is born. The work is shaped by his creative ability. The creators of art leave their marks, something that is their own, something that reflects what they are. Is this the same with God? Has God left His fingerprints on creation? Of course He has. Creation Basically, the universe consists of three elements: Time, Space, and Matter. Each of these is comprised of three 'components.' Time Space Matter TIME Past Height Solid Present Width Liquid SPACE Future Depth Gas MATTER

As the Trinitarian doctrine maintains, each of the persons of the Godhead is distinct, yet they are all each, by nature, God. With time, for example, the past is distinct from the present, which is distinct from the future. Each is simultaneous. Yet, they are not three 'times,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: time With space, height is distinct from width, which is distinct from depth, which is distinct from height. Yet, they are not three 'spaces,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: space. With matter, solid is not the same as liquid, which is not the same as gas, which is not the same as solid. Yet, they are not three 'matters,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: matter. Note that there are three sets of threes. In other words, there is a trinity of trinities. If we were to look at the universe and notice these qualities within it, is it fair to say that these are the fingerprints of God upon His creation? I think so. Not only is this simply an observation, but it is also a good source for an analogy of the Trinity.

56

A Criticism of Trinitarianism Some critiques of the Trinitarian doctrine say that the Trinity is really teaching three gods, not one. They will say that God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit would make three gods, since the Father plus the Son plus the Holy Spirit would make three. But this is not a logical necessity. Instead of adding, why not multiply? One times one times one equals one. Why must addition be the criteria by which the doctrine is judged? It need not be. Rather, the doctrine should stand or fall based upon biblical revelation, not human logic. Nevertheless, let me draw an analogy from creation itself to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity. An Analogy of the Trinity To continue with the observation about the Trinitarian nature of creation, I would like to use 'time' to illustrate the Trinity. Is the "past" plus the "present" plus the "future" a total of three times? Not at all. It simply is a representation of three distinct aspects of the nature of time: past, present, and future. Likewise, the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit are not three separate beings or entities, but three distinct persons in the one nature of the Godhead. One more comment about Jesus. All cults deny that Jesus is God, the creator of the universe, in flesh. Various objections are raised saying that Jesus could not be God, otherwise, He would be praying to Himself, etc. Let's work with the analogy above, and continue with 'time' as our illustration. Let's take 'present' and add to it human nature. Present, then, would have two natures: time and man. If 'present' were truly human then he would be able to communicate with us, tell us much, and we could see and touch him. But, because he is also 'time' by nature, he would be able to tell us both the past and the future as he manifested the 'time' nature within him. If 'present' then, communicated with the past and the future, it would not mean he was communicating with himself, but with the distinctions known as the Past and the future. I know that this is only an analogy. But I think it is a good, though basic, illustration of God's nature as expressed in Trinitarian expression.

57

Early Trinitarian Quotes

There are cult groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, Christadelphians, etc.) who deny the Trinity and state that the doctrine was not mentioned until the 4th Century until after the time of the Council of Nicea (325). This council "was called by Emperor Constantine to deal with the error of Arianism which was threatening the unity of the Christian Church." The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea. Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle. "O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040). Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr. "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI). Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. "In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988). "We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.) Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons. "The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l) Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. "We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7). Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. A disciple of Origen. Defended Christianity. He wrote much about Christianity. "If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty

58

God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132). "For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4) "Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

If, as the anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not "officially" taught until the time of the Council of Nicea is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith. Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined. The early church believed in the Trinity, as is evidenced by the quotes above, and it wasn't necessary to really make them official. It wasn't until errors started to creep in, that councils began to meet to discuss the Trinity as well as other doctrines that came under fire.

59

60

The Bible
Introduction

The Bible is the foundation and source of the Christian faith given by God as a record of the creation, fall, history, and redemption of man. Knowing it, knowing its truths, and knowing the facts concerning it are important foundational issues necessary to more fully grow in relationship with the Lord Jesus.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

How many men wrote the Bible over how many years? p. 62 What is the Pentateuch? p. 68 What is the last book in the Old Testament? p. 69 About how many authors wrote Psalms? p. 72 Are there other books mentioned in the Bible? Is this important? p. 74 Which came first, the birth of Noah or Abraham? p. 75 What are some of the non-biblical references to biblical events? pp. 79-81 What is the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch? p. 82-83 What did Jesus say about the Pentateuch? p. 86 What are some things you should consider in biblical interpretation? p. 87 Give two scientific accuracies of the Bible. p. 91 Give two O.T. prophecies of Jesus, with verse location. P. 92-95 What are the mathematical Odds of Jesus fulfilling 48 prophecies? p. 95 What is redaction criticism? p. 96

61

The Bible
It has been reported for about 50 years that the Bible has been the largest seller of all books published in the history of the world. The Bible was written by about 40 men in about 1600 years dating from 1500 B.C. to about 100 A.D. These men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). They wrote not in words of human wisdom but in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13). English Bible The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in A.D. 1388. The first American edition of the Bible was perhaps published some time before A.D. 1752. The Bible has been translated in part or in whole as of 1964 in over 1,200 different languages or dialects. Stephen Langton divided the Bible into chapters about A.D. 1228. The Old Testament was divided into verses by R. Nathan in A.D. 1448 and the New Testament by Robert Stephanus in A.D. 1551. There are 66 books in the Bible, 39 in the OT and 27 in the new. (Note: 3 x 9 = 27). The OT has 929 chapters and 23,214 verses. The NT has 260 chapters and 7,959 verses. In the OT, the longest book is Psalms. The shortest book is Obadiah. In the NT, the longest book is Acts. The shortest is 3 John. The word "God" occurs 4,379 times. The word "Lord" occurs 7,738 times. Isaiah is referenced 419 times in 23 NT books; Psalms 414 times in 23 books; Genesis 260 times in 21 books. Unusual things in the Bible Methuselah who lived to be 969 years old (Gen. 5:27). Sons of God married the daughters of men (Gen. 6:2). Baby had a scarlet thread tied around its hand before it was born (Gen. 38:28-29). Battle won because a man stretched out his hand (Exodus 17:11). Man was spoken to by a donkey (Num. 22:28-30). One who had a bed 13 feet long and 6 feet wide (Deut. 3:11). The women who had to shave their heads before they could marry (Deut. 21:11-13). Sun stood still for a whole day (Josh. 10:13). An army with 700 left handed men (Judges 20:16). Man whose hair weighed about 6 pounds when it was cut annually (2 Sam. 14:26). Man who had 12 fingers and 12 toes (2 Sam. 21:20). Father who had eighty-eight children (2 Chron. 11:21). The sun traveled backward (Isaiah 38:8). A harlot was an ancestor of Christ (Matt. 1:5).

62

The Greek and Hebrew Alphabet with numeric equivalents

In English, we have alpha and numeric characters: a,b,c,d,e, etc., & 0,1,2,3,4, etc. Both Greek and Hebrew have only one set of characters used for both words and numbers. When a word in Greek, for example, is written out, it has a mathematical value. This value is called the gamatria. The Greek word for Jesus () has a mathematical equivalent of 888. There are many very interesting mathematical relationships when the gamatria of words and sentences are examined.

Greek Letter

Greek Name alpha Beta Gamma delta epsilon

English Letter father boy god dog end

Numeric Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 is sigma, final form

Greek Letter

Greek Name nu xi omikron pi

English Letter new box off pet

Numeric Value 50 60 70 80

, , , , ,

, , , , , ,,*

90 is
rho rat 100

sigma

sam (s,V) 6, 200

, , , , , , ,

zeta eta theta iota kappa lamda mu

zebra hey thick (q) it kit low mike

7 8 9 10 20 30 40

, , , , , ,

tau upsilon phi chi psi omega

test up

300 400

phone (f) 500 bach cups (y) orange (w) 600 700 800 900 = sampsi

Hebrew Hebrew English Numeric Letter Name Letter Value

Hebrew Hebrew Letter Name

English Letter low mike new

Numeric Value 30 40 50 60

? ? ? ?

aleph Bet gimel deled

silent (?) 1 or 1000 boy god dog 2 3 4

? ?,? * * ?,? ?

lamed mem nun

samech sam

63

? ? ? ? ? ? ?,?*

heh vov zayin ches tes yod chof

hi

very, up 6 zebrea bach test you kit 7 8 9 10 20

? ?,?* ?,?* ? ? ? ?

ayin pey tzadi kuf reish shin tof

silent pet, phone nets q, kit race

70 80 90 100 200

sam, she m 300 test 400

*final form is form of letter found when it occurs at the end of a word.
Letter final form Hebrew Name final chof final mem final nun final pey final tzadi Numeric Value 500 600 700 800 900

? ? ? ? ?

64

Papyri p1 through p76 200 A.D. to 700 A.D.

The following are extant papyrus fragments and copies. These manuscripts, designated by p1, p2, etc., are part of the overall existing biblical manuscript scope that we now possess. This range of papyri are very old. They represent the extant copies made in the dates so designated. Manuscript # p1 p4 p5 p6 p8 p10 p13 p15 p23 p24 p25 p27 p30 p37 p38 p39 p40 p45 p46 p47 p48 p49 p51 p64 p65 p66 p67 p70 p71 p72 p76 Content Gospels Gospels Gospels Gospels Acts Epistles of Paul Epistles of Paul Epistles of Paul General Epistles Revelation Gospels Epistles of Paul Epistles of Paul Gospels Acts Gospels Epistles of Paul Gospels, Acts Epistles of Paul Revelation Acts Epistles of Paul Epistles of Paul Gospels Epistles of Paul Gospels Gospels Gospels Gospels General Epistles Gospels Location Philadelphia Paris London Strassburg Berlin Cambridge, Mass London and Florence Cairo Urbana, 111. Newton Center, Mass. Berlin Cambridge Ghent Ann Arbor, Mich. Ann Arbor, Mich. Chester, Pa. Heidelberg Dublin: Chester Beatty, and Vienna Dublin: Chester Beatty, and Ann Arbor, Mich. Dublin: Chester Beatty Florence New Haven, Conn. P. Oxy. 2157 Oxford Florence Geneva: P. Bodmer ii Barcelona P. Oxy. 2384 P. Oxy. 2385 Geneva: P. Bodmer xvii Geneva: P. Bodmer xiv, xv Date Copied (Century) 3rd 3rd 3rd 4th 4th 4th 3rd/4th 3rd Early 3rd 4th Late 4th 3rd 3rd 3rd/4th About 300 3rd 3rd 3rd About 200 Late 3rd Late 3rd Late 3rd About 400 About 200 3rd About 200 About 200 3rd 4th 3rd/4th Early 3rd

65

Minuscules 2 through 399 - 9th to 16th century copies

Minuscules are lowercase Greek letters. These manuscripts were written in the Greek lower case. They represent copies made from the 9th to the 16th centuries. Number 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 10 16 17 18 21 22 25 29 31 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 47 51 53 55 56 57 58 Content Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Gospels Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Epistles of Paul Gospels Gospels Gospels Gospels Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul, Revelation Gospels Gospels Gospels Gospels Gospels Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul, Revelation Acts & Catholic Epistles Gospels Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Gospels Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul, Revelation Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Gospels Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Gospels Gospels, Gospels Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Gospels Date 12th 12th 13th 15th 14th 13th 11th 11th 13th 14th 15th 1364 12th 12th 11th 10th 13th 11th 12th 11th 13th 11th 11th 12th 15th 13th 14th 13th 15th 10th/11th 15th

66

Minuscules 404 through 999 -- 8th to 16th century copies

Minuscules are lowercase Greek letters. These manuscripts were written in the Greek lower case. Number 404 407 418 424 425 429 431 435 437 440 441 442 450 453 455 456 459 460 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 471 506 517 522 914 915 917 918 Gospels Gospels Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul, Revelation Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul; Revelation Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Gospels Acts & Catholic Epistles Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul, Revelation Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul, Revelation Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul, Revelation Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul, Revelation Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul, Revelation Gospels Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Episltes of Paul, Revelation Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Episltes of Paul, Revelation Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles, Episltes of Paul, Revelation Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Content Acts & Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul Date 14th 12th 15th 11th 1330 14th;15th 11th 10th 11th 12th 13th 13th 10th 14th 8th/9th 10th 1092 13th 13th 12th 11th 11th 11th 15th 13th 13th 12th 11th 11th/12th 1515 13th 13th 12th 16th

67

Old Testament Books

Old Testament - 39 books total Pentateuch - 5 books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy Historical Books - 12 books Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First Samuel, Second Samuel, First Kings, Second Kings, First Chronicles, Second Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Poetic - 5 books Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon Prophetic - 17 books Major Prophets - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel Minor Prophets - Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Pentateuch - 5 books 1. Genesis - Creation, the Fall, the Flood, spread of the nations, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. Enslavement in Egypt. 2. Exodus - Enslavement, Moses, 10 plagues, Passover, Leave Egypt, Red Sea Crossing, Mt. Sinai and the 10 commandments 3. Leviticus - Instructions on sacrificial system and the priesthood. Instructions on moral purity. 4. Numbers - Still at Mt. Sinai, people make false idol, punishment, 40 years wandering begins. 5. Deuteronomy - Moses' discourses on God's Acts for Israel the Decalogue, the ceremonial, civil, and social Laws, and covenant ratification. Historical Books - 12 books total 1. Joshua - First half of Joshua describes the 7 year conquest of the Land of Promise. The last half deals with partitioning the Lands to the people. 2. Judges - Time of Judges. Many were quite bad. The Israelites did not drive out all the inhabitants of Canaan and begin to take part in their idolatry. 7 cycles of foreign oppression, repentance, and deliverance. In the end, the people failed to learn their lesson. 3. Ruth - Kinsman redeemer in Boaz, redeeming Ruth, a Moabitess. Speaks of righteousness, love, and faithfulness to the Lord. The next 6 books trace the time from Samuel to the Captivity 1. First Samuel - Samuel carries them from judges to King Saul 2. Second Samuel - David as King, adultery, and murder. 3. First Kings - Solomon, Israel is powerful. Solomon dies in 931 B.C., then division of tribes: 10 to the north and 2 to the south. 4. Second Kings - The Divided Kingdom. All 19 kings of Israel were bad; therefore, captivity in Assyria (722 B.C.). In Judah, 8 of 20 rulers were good but went into exile too. 5. First Chronicles - A recounting of the history of Israel to the time of the captivities. 6. Second Chronicles - continued recounting of the life of Solomon, building of temple. History of Judah only.

68

The Next 3 books deal with Israel's Restoration. 1. Ezra - Cyrus let the most of the Jews return to their land of Israel. Zerubbabel led the people (539 B.C.). Ezra returned later with more Jews (458 B.C.) Built the temple. 2. Nehemiah - Building the walls of Jerusalem. Nehemiah got permission from the king of Persia to rebuild the walls (444 B.C.). Revival in the land. 3. Esther - Took place during chapters 6 and 7 of Ezra. Mordecai. Plot to kill the Jewish people. Poetical - 5 books 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Job - a righteous man tested by God. Deals with God's sovereignty. Psalms - Consists of 5 divisions. Worship in song. Large variety of subjects Proverbs - Practical wisdom in everyday affairs. Ecclesiastes - All is vanity. The wisdom of man is futility. Song of Solomon - A song between Solomon and his Shulammite bride displaying the love between a man and a woman.

Prophetical - 17 books Major Prophets - 5 books 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Isaiah - Looks at the sin of Judah and proclaims God's judgment. Hezekiah. Coming restoration and blessing. Jeremiah - Called by God to proclaim the news of judgment to Judah, which came. God establishes a New Covenant. Lamentations - 5 lament poems. Description of defeat and fall of Jerusalem. Ezekiel - He ministered to the Jews in Captivity in Babylon. Description of the end of times. Daniel - Many visions of the future for the Gentiles and the Jews. Minor Prophets 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Hosea - Story of Hosea and his unfaithful wife, Gomer. Represents God's love and faithfulness and Israel's spiritual adultery. Israel will be judged and restored. Joel - Proclaims a terrifying future using the imagery of locusts. Judgment will come but blessing will follow. Amos - He warned Israel of its coming judgment. Israel rejects God's warning. Obadiah - A proclamation against Edom, a neighboring nation of Israel that gloated over Jerusalem's judgments. Prophecy of their utter destruction. Jonah - Jonah proclaims a coming judgment upon Nineveh which repents and are spared. Micah - Description of the complete moral decay in Israel. God will judge but will forgive. Nahum - Nineveh is now in apostasy (appr.. 125 years after Jonah) and will be destroyed. Habakkuk - Near the end of the kingdom of Judah, Habakkuk asks God why He is not dealing with Judah's sins. God says He will use the Babylonians. Habakkuk asks how God can use a nation that is even worse than Judah. Zephaniah - The theme is developed of the Day of the Lord and His judgment with a coming blessing. Judah will not repent, except for a remnant, who will be restored. Haggai - The people failed to put God first, by building their houses before they finished God's temple. Therefore, they had no prosperity. Zechariah - Zechariah encourages the Jews to complete the temple. Many messianic prophecies. Malachi. - God's people are lax in their duty to God. Growing distant from God. Moral compromise. Proclamation of coming judgment.

14. 15. 16. 17.

69

New Testament Books

Historical Books - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts Pauline Epistles - Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon Non-Pauline Epistles - Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation

Historical Books 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Matthew - Presents Jesus as the Messiah. Genealogy of Jesus through Joseph. Fulfillment of O.T. prophecy. Mark - Presents Jesus as the Servant. 1/3 of the gospel deals with the last week of His life. Luke - Presents Jesus as the Son of Man to seek and save the lost. Genealogy of Jesus through Mary. Largest of the gospels. John - Presents Jesus as God in flesh, the Christ, so that you might believe. Acts - Historical account from Jesus ascension to travels of Paul in his missionary journeys.

Pauline Epistles 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Romans - A systematic examination of justification, sanctification, and glorification. Examines Gods plan for the Jews and the Gentiles. 1 Corinthians - This letter deals with factions and corrections due to immorality, lawsuits, and abuse of the Lords Supper. Also mentions idols, marriage, and the resurrection. 2 Corinthians - Pauls defense of his apostolic position. Galatians - Paul refutes the errors of legalism and examines the proper place of grace in the Christians life. Ephesians - The believers position in Christ and information on Spiritual warfare. Philippians - Paul speaks of his imprisonment, his love for the Philippians. He exhorts them to godliness and warns them of legalism. Colossians - Paul focuses on the preeminence of Jesus in creation, redemption, and godliness. 1 Thessalonians - Pauls ministry to the Thessalonians. Teachings on purity and mention of the return of Christ. 2 Thessalonians - Corrections on the Day of the Lord. 1 Timothy - Instructions to Timothy on proper leadership and dealings with false teachers, the role of women, prayer, and requirements of elders and deacons. 2 Timothy - A letter of encouragement to Timothy to be strong. Titus - Paul left Titus in Crete to care for the churches there. Requirements for elders. Philemon - a letter to the owner of a runaway slave. Paul appeals to Philemon to forgive Onesimus.

70

Non Pauline Epistles. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Hebrews - A letter to the Hebrew Christians in danger of returning to Judaism. It demonstrates the superiority of Jesus over the O.T. system. Mentions the Melchizedek priesthood. (Hebrews may be of Pauline origin. There is much debate on its authorship). James - a practical exhortation of to live a Christian life evidencing regeneration. It urges self examination of the evidence of the changed life. 1 Peter - Peter wrote this letter to encourage its recipients in the light of their suffering and be humble in it. Mentions baptism. 2 Peter - Deals with the person on an inward level, warnings against false teachers, and mentions the Day of the Lord. 1 John - John describes true fellowship of the believer with believer and with God. Describes God as light and love. Encourages a holy Christian walk before the Lord. Much mention of Christian love. 2 John - Praise for walking in Christ and a reminder to walk in Gods love. 3 John - John thanks Gaius for his kindness to Gods people and rebukes Diotrephes. Jude - Exposing false teachers and uses O.T. allusions to demonstrate the judgment upon them. Contend for the faith. Revelation - A highly symbolic vision of the future rebellion, judgment, and consummation of all things.

71

When was the Bible written and who wrote it?

The following dates are not always exact, but are very good estimates. Old Testament Book Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalms Author Moses Moses Moses Moses Moses Joshua Samuel Samuel Samuel Ezra? Jeremiah? Jeremiah? Ezra? Ezra? Ezra Nehemiah Mordecai? Job? David Date Written ? - 1445 B.C. 1445 - 1405 B.C. 1405 B.C. 1444 - 1405 B.C. 1405 B.C. 1404-1390 B.C. 1374-1129 B.C. 1150? B.C. 1043-1011 B.C. 1011-1004 B.C. 971-852 B.C. 852-587 B.C. 450 - 425 B.C. 450 - 425 B.C. 538-520 B.C. 445 - 425 B.C. 465 B.C. ?? 1000? B.C.

Son of Korah wrote Psalms 42, 44-49, 84-85, 87; Asaph Psalms 50, 73-83; Heman Psalm 88; Ethan Psalm 89; Hezekiah Psalms 120-123, 128-130, 132, 134-136; Solomon Psalms 72, 127. Solomon wrote 1-29 Agar wrote 30 Lemuel wrote 31 Solomon Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Jeremiah Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah 950 - 700 B.C. 935 B.C. 965 B.C. 740 - 680 B.C. 627 - 585 B.C. 586 B.C. 593-560 B.C. 605-536 B.C. 710 B.C. 835 B.C. 755 B.C. 840 or 586 B.C. 760 B.C.

Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah

72

Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi New Testament Book Author Matthew John Mark Luke John Luke Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul (Paul, Apollos, Barnabas...?) James, half brother of Jesus Peter Peter John John John Jude, half brother of Jesus John

700 B.C. 663 - 612 B.C. 607 B.C. 625 B.C. 520 B.C. 520 - 518 B.C. 450 - 600 B.C.

Date Written 60's late 50's, early 60's 60 late 80's, early 90's 61 55 54 55 49 60 61 60 50 - 51 50 - 51 62 63 62 60 60's 40's or 50's 63 63 - 64 late 80's, early 90's late 80's, early 90's late 80's, early 90's 60's or 70's late 80's, early 90's

Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation

73

Other books mentioned in the Bible

Sometimes cult groups will attempt to justify the existence of newly inspired books (i.e., Book of Mormon) by citing reference to other books mentioned in the Bible. They erringly conclude that because the Bible sometimes mentions another book that the book is either a lost book of the Bible or it somehow justifies their claim to newly inspired writings. Just because the Bible references another book does not mean that that book is inspired. The Jews knew which were and were not inspired books and did not consider the following books to be inspired. The exception, of course, is when the Bible references other inspired books within itself. Nevertheless, these books are not lost books of the Bible. They were never considered inspired. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The Book of Wars - Num. 21:14 The Book of Jasher - Josh. 10:13 The Chronicles of David - 1 Chron. 27:24 The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah - 2 Chron. 27:7; 35:27; 36:8 The Book of the Kings of Israel - 1 Chron. 9:1; 2 Chron. 20:34. The Words of the Kings of Israel - 2 Chron. 33:18. The Decree of David the King of Israel - 2 Chron. 35:4. The Chronicles of Samuel the Seer - 1 Chron. 29:29 The Chronicles of Nathan the Prophet - 1 Chron. 29:29 The Book of Gad - 1 Chron. 29:29 The Book of the Prophet Iddo - 2 Chron. 13:22 The Words of Shemaiah the Prophet - 2 Chron. 12:15 The Deeds of Uzziah by Isaiah the Prophet - 2 Chron. 26:22; 32:32 The Book of Jehu - 2 Chron. 20:34 The Record book of Ahasuerus - Esther 2:23; 6:1 The Book of Remembrance - Mal. 3:16 The Book of Life - Dan. 12:1; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 20:11; 22:19 The Book of Judgment - Dan. 7:10; Rev. 20:12 The seven-sealed book - Rev. 5:1, 13. An angel's book - Rev. 10:2

74

Chronology of the Old Testament

The following chronological list is adapted from The Chronological Bible. Its purpose is to help you develop an overall understanding of the order of the major people and events of the Bible. The dates are disputed here and there, but overall, they can give you a reference in time and order.

The Pre-existent Christ Creation Satan cast out of heaven Six days of creation Garden of Eden Fall of Adam and Eve Expulsion from Eden Cain kills Abel Noah is born The Flood The Tower of Babel Abram (Abraham) is born Job Abram becomes Abraham Birth of Isaac, then Jacob, then Joseph Joseph sold into slavery to Egypt Famine and move of Hebrews to Egypt The Hebrew population grows Their bondage and oppression Moses is born The 10 plagues against Egypt The Hebrews are freed then pursued Crossing the Red Sea Receiving the 10 Commandments Israel wanders in the desert for 40 years The conquest and division of Canaan Israel becomes a world power Samson is born Saul becomes first King David and Goliath David becomes King David with Bathsheba Absalom's rebellion David prepares temple materials Solomon becomes King Solomon asks God for wisdom The building of the Temple Solomon's downfall

John 1 Gen. 1:1 Isaiah 14:12-17 Gen. 1:3-26 Gen. 2:8-17 Gen. 3:1-7 Gen. 3:21-24 Gen. 4 Gen. 5:28-29 Gen. 7:10-24 Gen. 11 Gen. 11:27 Job 1 Genesis 17 Genesis 21-30 Genesis 27- 28 Gen. 41 Genesis 47:27 Exodus 8 Exodus 6:20 Exodus 7 - 11 Exodus 12 Exodus 13 - 15 Exodus 20 Numbers 14 Joshua 6 - 12 1200 - 750 B. C. Judges 13 1 Samuel 9 1 Samuel 17 2 Samuel 5 2 Samuel 11 2 Samuel 12 1 Chronicles 22 1 Kings 1 1 Kings 3 1 Kings 6 1 Kings 11

From the Creation to the Flood

The Flood to the Patriarchs

The Patriarchs to the Exodus 1606 - 1462 B. C.

The Exodus to Entering Canaan 1462 - 1422 B.C.

Canaan to the Reign of King Saul 1422 - 1065 B. C.

The Reign of King David 1025 - 985 B. C.

The Reign of King Solomon 985 - 945 B. C.

75

The nation of Israel divided into two: Israel to the north and Judah to the south. This period was full of judges, not kings, who ruled each realm. Many of the judges were evil. Other gods were worshiped occasionally. During this time Elijah has his ministry. Hosea preached. Jonah dealt with Nineveh. Rome was founded. The temple was restored. Both Israel and Judah fall to foreign powers. Micah prophesies. Isaiah is martyred. Jeremiah is born. Daniel is born. Zephaniah prophesies. Ezekiel is born. Jeremiah preaches. Ezekiel prophesies as Jerusalem falls Nebuchadnezzar's image Daniel's vision of the four beasts Daniel's vision of the 70 weeks Fall of Babylon to Persians Dedication of the Temple Deliverance of the Jews Ezra prepares to return to Jerusalem Building of the wall of Jerusalem Malachi's Prophecies Greece is the world power from Rome is the world power from God does not speak for about 400 years Ezekiel 33 Daniel 3 Daniel 7 Daniel 9 Isaiah 13, Jer. 25 Ezra 6 Esther 8 Ezra 7 Nehemiah 2 Malachi 333 - 63 B. C. 63 B. C. - 476 A.D.

The Divided Kingdom (Israel and Judah) From Solomon to the Fall of Israel 945 - 586 B. C. The Fall of Israel to the Fall of Judah 721 - 586 B. C.

Israel is taken into Captivity 586 - 516 B.C.

The Restoration from Captivity 516 -400 B. C.

Time Between the Testaments 400 B. C. - 5. A.D.

76

Bible Chronology of the New Testament

The following chronological list is adapted from The Chronological Bible. Its purpose is to help you develop an overall understanding of the order of the major people and events of the Bible. The dates are disputed here and there, but overall, they can give you a reference in time and order.

Jesus is born Flight to Egypt Childhood at Nazareth In Jerusalem at 12 John the Baptist Jesus' Baptism Temptation in the wilderness Turns water into wine First cleansing of the Temple Jesus and Nicodemus Discourse with the woman at the well Galilean ministry Miracles by the sea Visit to Jerusalem

5 B. C. Matt. 1; Luke 2 4 B. C. Matt. 2:13-18 Luke 2:40 Luke 2:41-50 Matt. 3; Mark 1; Luke 3 Matt. 3 Matt. 4 John 2 John 2:13-22 John 3:1 John 4 Luke 4:14; John 4:43 Matt. 8 John 7

The life of Jesus Matthew, Mark, Luke, John 5 B.C. - 29 A.D.

Jesus anointed by Mary His triumphal entry Second cleansing of the Temple Cursing of the fig tree Judas agrees to betray Christ Preparation for Passover Institution of the Lord's supper Jesus washes the disciples' feet Jesus prays at Gethsemane Jesus is betrayed and arrested

John 12:8-11 Matt. 21 Matt. 21:12 Matt. 21:18 Matt. 26:14-16 Mark 14:12-16 Luke 22:14-23 John 13:1-17 Mark 14:26-42 John 18:2-11

Jesus' Last Week

77

Jesus is tried and condemned Peter denies the Lord Jesus before Pilate Jesus before Herod Barrabas released Jesus' walk to Golgotha Jesus is crucified Darkness at noon Jesus dies Jesus' body entombed Resurrection Women visit the tomb Stone rolled away Message of angels Christ appears to disciples The great commission given Jesus' ascension

Matt 26:57-68 Matt 26:58; 69-75 Matt. 27:11-14 Luke 23:6-12 Mark 15:6-15 Matt. 27:32-24 Matt. 27:35 Mark 15:33 Matt. 27:50 John 19:42 Luke 24:1-8 Matt. 28:1 Matt. 28:2-4 Matt. 28:5-8 Mark 16:14 Matt. 28:19-20 John 20:26-29

The Crucifixion to The Ascension

Pentecost Conversion of Saul (Paul) Peter imprisoned and delivered Death of Herod Paul's first missionary journey Paul attends council at Jerusalem Paul's second missionary journey Paul's third missionary journey Paul goes from Macedonia to Corinth Arrest of Paul Paul's fourth missionary Paul's first imprisonment Death of Paul and Peter Temple at Jerusalem destroyed

Acts 2 Acts 9 Acts 12:1 Acts 12:20-23 Acts 13:1 Acts 15:1-12 Acts 15 Acts 18 Acts 20 Acts 21 Acts 27 Acts 28:16 A.D. 67-68 A.D. 70

The Ministries of Paul and Peter 29 - 67

78

Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2 A. "Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness." Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. A. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. i. There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19. A. "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done." Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2 A. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money B. Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth." Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus Annals A. "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." B. Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt

79

6.

7.

8.

Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun. A. "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." B. Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two." C. The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been. D. Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the AnteNicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996. Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112. A. "They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of foodbut food of an ordinary and innocent kind." B. Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996. The Talmud A. "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!" B. Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." C. Luke 22:1, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people." D. This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

80

9.

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician. A. "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this daythe distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." B. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996. C. Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

___________________ Sources McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, San Bernardino, CA, Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1979. Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996. Encarta on the Web at http://encarta.msn.com .

81

The Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch also known as the JEDP Theory
Some of the critics of the Bible have come up with some sophisticated arguments in their attempts to disprove its authenticity and reliability. One of these attempts is known as the Documentary Hypothesis, or the JEPD theory. In short, this theory states that the first five books of the Bible, called the Pentateuch consisting of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, were not written completely by Moses, who died in 1451 B.C. according to Bishop Ussher's Chronology, but by different post-mosaic authors. It is alleged that these authors are detectable through the variations of usage of different words within those books. These authors are known as the Jehovist, the Elohist, the Priestly, and the Deuteronomist. If you are not aware, YHWH (not to be confused with JEDP) are the four letters used to represent the name of God in the Old Testament. From YHWH we get the word Jehovah, the name of God, mentioned in Exodus 3:14. The word in Hebrew "elohim" is simply the word 'god.' So, YHWH is the name of God (elohim). According to Oswald T. Allis there were four main areas considered by these critics when supporting the Documentary Hypothesis: 3 1. 2. 3. 4. The The The The Variations in the Divine Names in Genesis; Secondary Variations in Diction and Style; parallel or Duplicate Accounts (Doublets); Continuity of the Various Sources.

One of, if not the earliest, appearances of this type of approach to Scripture was by H.B. Witter in the early 1700s who asserted that there were two parallel accounts in the creation story that were distinguishable by the word usage in the text. This method of analysis really took root in 1753 when a French physician named Austruc analyzed the book of Genesis and asserted that it had two main sources: a Jehovist and an Elohist. However, he did not deny Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch at this time. What this analysis entails is the assumption that where the word Jehovah appears in large quantities in a section of writing, it is the result of an author who used the word "Jehovah" or the tetragramaton YHWH predominantly. Additionally, it is stated that where the term Elohim appears more frequently, it is the result of an Elohist, or someone who used that word more frequently than another person. Another person to use this method was Eichhorn whose analysis of 1787 was similar to Austruc's. However, neither of these men denied Mosaic authorship and neither carried the analysis past the book of Exodus. A few years later, a gentleman named, De Wette (1805), assigned Deuteronomy to the time of Josiah (post Moses period). This prompted other writers to tackle the issue. In 1823 Eichhorn had given up on his claim of Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch. The letters associated with this issue are J and E. Hupfeld In 1853, Hupfeld proposed that there are two Elohistic source documents in Genesis: chapters 1-19 by one author and chapters 20 - 50 by another. He also put great importance upon the redactor, or the one who assembled the various documents, who used editor rights during the compilation of the book of Genesis. Therefore, his arrangement of the documents was thus: First Elohist, Second Elohist, Jehovist, Deuteronomist: J, E, and D.

Oswald T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1949, p. 22.

82

Graf-Wellhausen Later, Karl H. Graf in the 1860's and Julius Wellhausen in the 1870's said that "according to the historical and prophetical books of the Old Testament the priestly legislation of the middle books of the Pentateuch was unknown in pre-exilic time, and that this legislation must therefore be a late development."4 The letter P became associated with this view. Basically they arranged the Pentateuch authorship in the following manner: 1. "The earliest part of the Pentateuch came from two originally independent documents, the Jehovist (850 B.C.) and Elohist (750 B.C.). 2. From these the Jehovist compiled a narrative work (650 B.C.). 3. Deuteronomy came in Josiah's time and its author incorporated this into the Jehovist's work. 4. The priestly legislation in the Elohist document was largely the work of Ezra and is referred to as the Priestly Document. A later editor(s) revised and edited the conglomeration of documents by about 200 B.C. to form the extant Pentateuch we have today."5 There have been slight modifications of this list, but it is basically the same form used by those holding to the Documentary Hypothesis.

Oswald T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses, p. 17. Josh McDowell, More Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1981, p. 45.

83

Answering the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP)

It is not my intention to attack the character of those who advocate the Documentary Hypothesis. But the Bible says in Rom. 1:18-21 that men suppress the truth of God's word in their unrighteousness. This is what is happening here. They are suppressing the truth. They are devising elaborate methods to deny the inspiration and authenticity of the Bible, particularly the Pentateuch. Nevertheless, there are several issues worth examining when answering their claims. 1. Presuppositions: By far, the majority of those holding to the JEDP theory presuppose that the miraculous cannot happen. Therefore, they must conclude beforehand that the Pentateuch is not inspired and Moses could not have written it. They must find another explanation for the mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible. Such a presupposition does not allow a proper examination of the documents and will result in inaccurate conclusions. 2. The Critics are claiming a great deal. The Pentateuch was written centuries ago in a different language, in a different culture, and a different land. The critics are claiming that "they are able to decide exactly what a writer could or could not say, and on this basis to determine what part of the document belongs or does not belong to him."6 In other words, the critics are basing their argument on their own ability to read a document that is 3000 years old, divide it up into word usage groups, and assert hidden divisions, and separate authors. And not only this, but they are claiming they can do it on a consistent basis. This is hardly an exact science and is open to wide range of error depending upon the presuppositions and purposes of the critic. 3. Writing Styles change within Writers What writer writes with a consistent style? Yes, there are styles to writers, but the subject matter affects the content. A technical work is different from a narrative or historical piece. The Pentateuch has components of all of these. Therefore, different styles are expected. Additionally, what the writer has in mind can easily cause him to use a different concentration of words. Should the intention change, so would the word usage. Did Moses sit down at one sitting and write everything out? Of course not. Upon reflection, reading, prayer, etc., his focus and purpose within sections of Scripture can change as he moves to a new subject. 4. One writer can produce different analysis results WordPerfect has a Grammar Analyzer for readability. I ran both the paper explaining the Documentary Hypothesis and this paper refuting it through the analyzer. The results are interesting. Analysis Flesch-Kincaid grade level Passive voice (% of finite verb phrases) Sentence Complexity (100 = very complex) Vocabulary Complexity (100 = very complex) Explaining JEDP 13.64 9% 60 38 Answering JEDP 10.35 9% 43 22

We could conclude that though there are similarities, because there are definite differences, there must be two authors. After all, the first paper has more complex sentences and more verb complexity

Oswald T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses, p. 70.

84

than the second as well as being 13th grade level. The funny thing is, I wrote this in two sittings: One before church and the other after church on the same day. 5. A look at the actual analysis In the back of Oswald T. Allis' book, pages 291-293, is a breakdown of the JEDP analysis of the Pentateuch. I chose a small section dealing with Genesis 1 - 7 and supplied the verses (NASB version) so you can see for yourself if these divisions are warranted. J P 1:12:4a 2:4b4:26 5:1-28 5:29 v. 28, "And Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of a son." v. 29, "Now he called his name Noah, saying, 'This one shall give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed.'" 5:30-32 v. 30, "Then Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years after he became the father of Noah, and he had other sons and daughters." 6:1-8 6:9-22 7:1-5 7:6 7:7-10 7:11 v. 5, "And Noah did according to all that the Lord had commanded him." v. 6, "Now Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of water came upon the earth." v. 7, "Then Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him entered the ark because of the water of the flood." v. 11, "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened." v. 12, "And the rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights." 7:1316a 7:16b 7:17a 7:17b v. 16a, "And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him. . ." v. 16b, ". . . and the Lord closed it behind him." v. 17a, "Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days" v. 17b, "and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth." Text of Genesis

7:12

85

7:18-21 v. 18, "And the water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21And all flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind" 7:22-23 v. 22-23, "of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark." 7:24 v. 24, "And the water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days."

As you can see, the first seven chapters of Genesis are chopped up into bite-size pieces. In some places, sentences are cut in half and attributed to different sources. I cannot see any reason to divide the sections of scripture up the way they have. 6. Jesus attributed the 5 books to Moses Whether or not a biblical critic wants to take Jesus' word for anything is up to the individual. But no less than Jesus authenticated the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Jesus divided the Old Testament into three sections in Luke 24:44: Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms. Also, he attributed all the individual JEDP defined sections of the Pentateuch to Moses. In Mark 10:4-8, Jesus quoted Gen. 2:24, which would be J, as coming from Moses. Mark 7:10, Jesus quoted the Ten Commandments, which fall into the E category, as coming from Moses. In Mark 10:3, Jesus refers to Deut. 24:1f, which would be D, as being from Moses. In Matt. 8:4, Jesus quoted Lev. 14, which would be equivalent to P, as coming from Moses. This is a brief look at the Documentary Hypothesis. In my opinion, it is a fabrication based upon false presuppositions and inaccurate analysis. It contradicts what Jesus said and it is an unreliable way to analyze a document that is thousands of years old.

86

Biblical Interpretation
The Bible is Gods Word. But some of the interpretations derived from it are not. There are many cults and Christian groups that use the Bible claiming their interpretations are correct. Too often, however, the interpretations not only differ dramatically but are clearly contradictory. This does not mean that the Bible is a confusing document. Rather, the problem lies in those who interpret and the methods they use. Because we are sinners, we are incapable of interpreting Gods word perfectly all of the time. The body, mind, will, and emotions are affected by sin and make 100% interpretive accuracy impossible. This does not mean that accurate understanding of Gods Word is impossible. But it does mean that we need to approach His word with care, humility, and reason. Additionally, we need, as best as can be had, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting Gods Word. After all, the Bible is inspired by God and is addressed to His people. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand what Gods word means and how to apply it. On the human level, to lessen the errors that come in our interpretations, we need to look at some basic biblical interpretive methods. Ill list some of the principles in the form of questions and then apply them one at a time to a passage of scripture. I offer the following principles as guidelines for examining a passage. They are not exhaustive nor are they set in concrete. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Who wrote/spoke the passage and to whom was it addressed? What does the passage say? Are there any words or phrases in the passage that need to be examined? What is the immediate context? What is the broader context in the chapter and book? What are the related verses to the passages subject and how do they affect the understanding of this passage? What is the historical and cultural background? What do I conclude about the passage? Do my conclusions agree or disagree with related areas of scripture and others who have studied the passage? What have I learned and what must I apply to my life?

In order to teach you how these questions can affect your interpretation of a passage, I have chosen one which, when examined closely, may lead you into a very different interpretation than what is commonly held. I leave it to you to determine if my interpretation is accurate. The passage that I am going to use is Matt. 24:40, "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left"(NIV). 1. Who wrote/spoke the passage and who was it addressed to? Jesus spoke the words and they were recorded by Matthew. Jesus spoke them to His disciples in response to a question, which we will get to later. 2. What does the passage say? The passage simply says that one out of two men in a field will be taken. It doesnt say where, why, when, or how. It just says one will be taken. It doesnt define the field as belonging to someone or in a particular place. 3. Are there any words in the passage that need to be examined? No particular word in this verse really stands out as needing to be examined, but to follow this exercise, I will use the word "taken." By using a Strong Concordance and a dictionary of New Testament words (Vines, for example), I can check the Greek word and learn about it. The word in Greek is paralambano. It means "1) to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self, 2) to receive something transmitted." A point worth mentioning about word studies is that a word means what it means in context. However, by examining how a word is used in multiple contexts, the meaning of the word can take on

87

a new dimension. For example, the word for "love" in Greek is "agapao." It is generally believed to mean "divine love." This seems obvious since it is used in John 3:16 in that way. However, the same word is used in Luke 11:43. Jesus says, "Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces," (NIV). The word used there is "agapao." It would seem then that the meaning of the word might mean something more along the lines of "total commitment to." However, we must be careful not to insert a meaning of a word from one context into that of another. For example: 1) That new cadet is green. 2) That tree is green. The first green means "new and inexperienced." The second one means the color green. Would we want to impose the contextual meaning of one into the other? It wouldnt be a good idea. 4. What is the immediate context? This is where this particular verse will come alive. The immediate context is as follows, Matt. 24:37-42, "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come," (NIV). Immediately we can see that the person taken in verse 40 is paralleled by people being taken in verse 39. That is, the "being taken" are of the same kind. A further question needs to be asked. Who was taken in verse 39? Was it Noah and his family or was it the people who were eating and drinking? The answer to that question might help us understand the original passage better. Therefore, the next interpretive step will help us greatly. 5. What is the broader context in the chapter and book? A passage should always be looked at in context, not only in its immediate context of the verses directly before and after it, but also in the context of the chapter it is in and the book in which it is written. Jesus discourse from which our verse was taken began with a question. Jesus had just left the temple and in verse 2 told His disciples that "...not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." Then in verse 3 the disciples asked Jesus, "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (NIV). Jesus then goes on to prophesy about things to come at the end of the age. He speaks of false Christs, of tribulation, of the sun being darkened, of His return, and of two men in a field where one will be taken and the other left. The context then is eschatological. That means that it deals with the last things, or the time shortly before Jesus return. Many people think that this verse in Matt. 24:40 refers to the rapture spoken of in 1 Thess. 4:16-17. It may. But it is interesting to note that the context of the verse seems to suggest that the wicked are taken, not the good. Now, about this time you might be thinking that this method of interpreting passages isnt that good. After all, the "one taken, one left" verse is obviously about the rapture. Right? Well, maybe. You see, we all come to the Bible with preconceived ideas. Sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong. We should always be ready to have our understanding of the Bible challenged by what it says. If we are not willing, then we are prideful. And God is distant from the proud (Psalm 138:6). 6. What are the related verses to the passages subject and how do they affect the understanding of this passage? It just so happens that there are related verses, in fact, a parallel passage found in Luke 17:2627. "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all," (NIV). Immediately we discover that related verses do indeed affect how we understand our initial verse. It is clear fro m this passage in Luke that the ones taken by the flood are those who were eating and drinking and being given in marriage. In other words, it wasnt the godly people who were taken, it was the wicked.

88

As you can see, this has a profound impact on how we understand our passage in Matt. 24:40. Does the context suggest that the one in the field who is taken is the one who is wicked? Also, how does this context affect my preconceived ideas about this verse? Lets read the verse again in context. Matt. 24:37-42, As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come, (NIV). What do you think now? Is the one taken the good or the bad? Also, does this verse refer to the rapture or not? Just asking. Of related interest is a passage in Matt. 13:24-30 where Jesus gives the parable of the sower who sows good seed in his field and someone sows tares. The servants asked if they should go immediately and gather up the wheat. But, in verse 30, Jesus says, "Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn." The point worth noting here is that the first ones gathered are the weeds, not the wheat. This is most interesting since Jesus explains the parable in Matt. 13:36-43 and states that they will be cast into the furnace. Additionally, when we turn to Luke 17:1, which is the parallel passage of Matt. 24, we discover that the disciples ask Jesus a question in response to Jesus statement that "two will be in the field and one will be taken." In verse 37 they ask, "Where, Lord?" they asked. He [Jesus] replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather." They are taken to a place of death. 7. What is the historical and cultural background? This is a more difficult question to answer. It requires a bit more research. A commentary is worth examining here since they usually provide the historic and cultural backgrounds that help to unravel the text. In this context, Israel was under Roman rule. They had been denied the right of capital punishment, of self-rule, and the ability to wage war. Rome had dominated the small nation. Judaism was tolerated among the Roman leadership. After all, Israel was a small far-away country with a people that were fanatical about their religion. So, Rome allowed Israel to be ruled by Jewish political puppets. The Temple was the place of worship for the Israelite community. It was there that the blood sacrifices were made by the high priest for the atonement of the nation. It had taken 46 years to build (John 2:20). Jesus said the temple would be destroyed which prompted the question which lead to His discourse which contains the passage we are examining. Culturally, the Jewish people were dedicated to the Old Testament. Within those pages were prophecies of the Messiah, of the end of the age, and of the delivery from bondage. The Jewish people knew that and were in a state of expectation. Along comes Jesus with miracles and words of great power. Naturally, they would look to him as a possible deliverer. 8. What do I conclude about the passage? Since the context of the passage suggests that it is the wicked that are taken, I am going to conclude that the one taken in the field is not the good, but the bad. I also am tempted to conclude that the wicked are taken to a place of judgment.

89

9. Do my conclusions agree or disagree wit h related areas of scripture and others who have studied the passage? Ive already presented other verses which seem to agree with my conclusion. However, it is not in agreement with all of the commentaries Ive read on this verse. At this point I would need to present my conclusion to others to see what they think. Just because I studied the Word and arrived at a conclusion does not mean that it is correct. But it doesnt mean it is wrong either. By consulting with others, by examining the word again, and by seeking God and his illumination, I can only hope to arrive at the best possible conclusion about a passage. 10. What have I learned and what must I apply to my life? Interpretation of scripture is for a purpose: To understand Gods word more accurately. With a better understanding of His word, we can then more accurately apply it to the area that it addresses. In this case, the passage deals with an area of the future, and area of judgment. It is information that Jesus has revealed and that He wants us to know about. The application then would be that God will execute judgment upon the unrighteous at the end of the age. Concluding remarks: This article is only an illustration. It is basic and does not cover all the points of biblical interpretation. But it does give a direction and an example for you to apply. As I said before, pray. Read His word. Look into the scriptures as best you can with as much understanding and skill as is possible. Be humble in your approach and test everything by the Bible.

One last thing: did you agree with my conclusion?

90

Scientific Accuracies of the Bible

Many people doubt the Bible for various reasons. One of them is that the Bible is not accurate scientifically. But this just isn't so. The Bible is not a book about science, but when it does speak scientifically, it is accurate. In fact, it was far ahead of any other writing of its time. Please consider the following. 1. The Spherical Shape of the Earth A. "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in, (Isaiah 40:22, NIV). The Earth is suspended in nothing A. "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job. 26:7, NIV). The Stars are Innumerable A. "He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars -- if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be, (Gen. 15:5, NIV). The Existence of Valleys in the Seas A. "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils, (2 Sam. 22:16, NIV). The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas A. "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month - on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" (Genesis 7:11, NIV). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28. The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas A. "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!...When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,...You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas, (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8, NIV). The Hydrologic Cycle A. "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight, (Job. 26:8, NIV). B. "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job. 36:27-28, NIV) C. "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV). The Concept of Entropy A. "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded" (Psalm 102:22-26, NIV). The Nature of Health, Sanitation, and Sickness A. The listing for this section is too large for this page. But the scriptural references are Leviticus 12-14.

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

91

Prophecy, the Bible and Jesus

How do you respond to someone's claim that the Bible is not inspired? Is there a way to prove inspiration or, at least, intelligently present evidence for its inspiration? The answer is "Yes!" One of the best ways to prove inspiration is by examining prophecy. There are many religious books in the world that have many good things to say. But only the Bible has fulfilled prophecies--with more fulfillments to come. The Bible has never been wrong in the past, and it won't be wrong in the future. It claims inspiration from God (2 Tim. 3:16). Since God is the creator of all things (Isaiah 44:24), then He is also the creator of time. It is under His control. Only God, then, would always be right about what is in the future, our future. Fulfilled prophecy is strong evidence that God is the author of the Bible because when you look at the mathematical odds of prophecy being fulfilled, you quickly see a design, a purpose, and a guiding hand behind the Bible. If just one prophecy failed, then we would know that God is not the true God, because the creator of all things, which includes time, would not be wrong about predicting the future. Deut. 18:22 says, "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously" (NIV). Isaiah 46:9-10 says, "Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please." One approach to use with an unbeliever is to turn to Psalm 22 and read verses 12-18. This is a detailed description of the crucifixion--1000 years before Jesus was born. After you read the section ask him what it was about. He'll say, "The crucifixion of Jesus." Then respond with something like, "You're right. This is about the crucifixion. But it was written 1000 years before Jesus was born. And on top of that, crucifixion hadn't even been invented yet. How do you think something like this could happen?" After a brief discussion, you could show him (or her) a few other prophecies like where Jesus' birthplace was prophesied (Micah 5:2), that He would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), that His side would be pierced (Zech. 10:10), etc. Born of the Seed of the Woman Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Matt. 1:20, "But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."

Born of a Virgin Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Matt. 1:18,25, "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary...was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit... But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." Son of God Psalm 2:7, "I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son today I have become your Father." Matt. 3:15, "And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'"

92

Seed of Abraham Gen. 22:18, "and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." Matt. 1:1, "record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:"

Son of Isaac Gen. 21:12, "But God said to him, 'Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.'" Luke 3:23-34, "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli...the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,"

House of David Jer. 23:1, "The days are c oming, declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land." Luke 3:23-31, "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli...the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,"

Born at Bethlehem Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." Matt. 2:1, "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem."

He shall be a Prophet Deut. 18:18, "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him." Matt. 21:11,"The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."

He shall be a Priest Psalm 110:4, "The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'" Heb. 5:5-6, "So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.' And he says in another place, 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'"

93

He shall be a King Psalm 2:6, "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill." Matt. 27:37, "Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS." He shall judge Isaiah 33:22, "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us." John 5:30, "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me."

He would be preceded by a Messenger Isaiah 40:3, "A voice of one calling: 'In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.'" Matt. 3:1-2, "In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.'"

Rejected by His own people Isaiah 53:3, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not." John 7:5, "For even his own brothers did not believe in him." John 7:48, "Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him?"

His side pierced Zech. 12:10, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one mourns for an only son." John 19:34, "Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water."

94

Crucifixion Psalm 22:1, Psalm 22:11-18, "For the director of music. To the tune of "The Doe of the Morning." A psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?...Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help. Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan. Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." Luke 23:33, "When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals -- one on his right, the other on his left." John 19:33, "But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs." John 19:23-24, "When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. Let's not tear it, they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it." This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, "They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." So this is what the soldiers did."

The Mathematical Odds of Jesus Fulfilling Prophecy The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, 'we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. "Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he m ust pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man." Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10157, or 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 1079 . It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident." __________________ This information was taken from the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

95

What is Redaction Criticism?

Redaction Criticism of the Bible is the theory that different copyists and commentators of the early biblical writings embellished and altered the biblical texts throughout early Jewish and Christian history to make them appear more miraculous, inspirational, and legitimate. An example of redaction theory would be the claim that Old Testament prophecies were modified by redactors after the fact to make them appear as miraculous prophecies. Redaction criticism reduces the quality of the biblical record, casts strong doubt on its inspiration, and implies that the Bible is not trustworthy as a historical document. Originally, redaction criticism was restricted to the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), but it has been applied to other areas of scripture. Norman Perrin in his book "What is Redaction Criticism?" states, "The prime requisite for redaction criticism is the ability to trace the form and content of material used by the author concerned or in some way to determine the nature and extent of his activity in collecting and creating, as well as in arranging, editing, and composing."7 Redaction Criticism began in Germany in the early 1700's with Hermann Re imarus who was a professor of Oriental languages in Hamburg. He was a deist who wrote extensively opposing Christianity. He proposed that Jesus was a failure and that the disciples altered their stories in an attempt to make Jesus appear messianic and miraculous. Redaction criticism was then taken up by David Friedrich Strauss (1808-74) who attempted to show that the gospels were altered, were the expression of myth, and cannot be construed as historical. His main contribution to redaction criticism was the idea that Mark was used as a source document by Matthew and Luke. 8 Wilhelm Wrede (18591906) was the next major proponent of redaction criticism who attempted to show that the historical narratives of Mark were not reliable. Some Evidence and Answers for Redaction Some evidence offered to support biblical redaction is the ending of Deuteronomy (Chapter 34) that records Moses' death; the arrangement of the Psalms into five sections is the work of a compiler; and that the Book of Chronicles state they are based on prior writings (1 Chron. 9:1; 27:24; 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29; 13:22; 6:11; 20:34; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 33:19; 35:27; 36:8). 9 There are other alleged evidences but these will suffice. Though there are accounts of biblical writers arranging or commenting on events, this does not discount the authenticity or reliability of the biblical documents. It is commonly accepted in conservative scholarly circles that Joshua probably wrote the ending of Deuteronomy. This does not invalidate the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Likewise, simply arranging material, such as the Psalms, into categories does not affect its inspiration, authenticity, or reliability at all. And, citing other sources for factual reference likewise, in no way reduces the inspiration of the book of Chronicles, or the Bible as a whole. The inspired writer simply used other books, which were not inspired though accurate, in his compilation of the biblical record. Another twist in redaction criticism is the proposition that there were inspired redactors. But, this contradicts the doctrine that the original writings were inspired. After all, if the original writings were inspired, there would be no need for altering the text. It further implies that what is said in scripture is not trustworthy. The gospels, for example, would not then really contain Jesus' words but only the words of redactors who wanted to embellish and/or modify "myth stories" into what was apparently more spiritual and inspirational. With this, deception is implied since the biblical documents claim authenticity and accuracy. Though it is not within the scope of this paper, redaction criticism is refuted by the evidence of the reliability of the historic documents (dealt with in Textual Criticism), the fact that the prophecies were indeed made and fulfilled, and that the Bible is archeologically accurate. Due to the science of Textual Criticism, the original texts of the Bible can be reconstructed with a great deal of accuracy, their prophetic nature verified, and their inspiration maintained.

Perrin, Norman, What is Redaction Criticism?, Philadelphia, Fortre ss Press, 1969. p. 2. Perrin, Norman, What is Redaction Criticism?, pp. 4-5. 9 Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Books, 1999. p. 636.
8

96

Baptism
Introduction

Baptism is a Christian ordinance that is taught in the word of God. John the Baptist taught it. Jesus was baptized. Christians to this day are baptized. But, is baptism a requirement for salvation? What is baptism? Why is it important? What does it do? These questions and others are important for the Christian to know.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Is baptism necessary in order to be saved? Why or why not? p. 98-101 The gospel is what saves us. What is the gospel? p. 99 What are some textual issues with Mark 16:16? p. 102 What verses demonstrate justification by faith? p. 102 Baptism by immersion is a perfect symbol for what? p. 105-106 What saved Noah in the context of 1 Pet. 3:21? p. 108 What does the water symbolize in 1 Pet. 3:21? p. 109 How does Acts 10:44-46 affect the discussion of baptism and salvation? p. 109 What are some of the different interpretations of John 3:5? p. 110 Is Acts 2:38 teaching that we must be baptized to be saved? Why or why not? p. 112-114 What is "The Promise" of Acts 2:39? p. 114

97

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

One of the most nagging questions in Christianity is whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. The answer is a simp le, "No." But you might ask, "If the answer is no, then why are there verses that say things like . . .baptism that now saves you . . . (1 Pet. 3:21, NIV) and . . . Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins . . ." (Acts 2:38, NIV)? This is an honest question and it needs a competent answer. But, before I tackle this I need to lay a foundation of proper theology, then I'll address some of those verses that are commonly used to support the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation. God Works Covenantally First, you need to understand that God works covenantally. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. The New Testament and Old Testaments are New and Old Covenants. The word "testament" comes from the Latin testamentum which means covenant. So, the Bible is a covenant document. If you don't understand covenant you cannot understand, in totality, the issue of baptism because baptism is a covenant sign. If you don't think that God works covenantally then look at Heb 13:20 which says, "May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep" (NIV). The Eternal Covenant is the covenant between the Father and the Son before the creation of the world, whereby the Father would give to the Son those whom the Father had chosen. That is why Jesus says things like, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away" (John 6:37, NIV). And, "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day" (John 6:39, NIV). And, "I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours," (John 17:9, NIV). If you fail to understand that God works covenantally and that He uses signs as manifestations of his covenants (rainbow, circumcision, communion, etc.) then you will not be able to understand where baptism fits in God's covenant system. Second, you need to know what baptism is. It is an outward representation of an inward reality. For example, it represents the reality of the inward washing of Christ's blood upon the soul. That is why it is used in different ways. It is said to represent the death of the person (Rom. 6:3-5), the union of that person with Christ (Gal. 3:27), the cleansing of that person's sins (Acts 22:16), the identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2), and being united in one church (1 Cor. 12:13). Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus. It is in this sense a sacrament. A sacrament is a visible manifestation of something spoken. It is also said to be a visible sign of an inward grace. For example, the communion elements of bread and wine are called the sacrament of communion. When we take communion we are partaking of the sacrament. The Covenant of Grace is the covenant between God and Man where God promises to Man eternal life. It is based upon the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and the condition is faith in Jesus Christ. As the Communion Supper replaced Passover, baptism, in like manner, replaces circumcision. "They represent the same spiritual blessings that were symbolized by circumcision and Passover in the old dispensation," (Berkhoff, Lewis, Systematic Theology, 1988, p. 620.). Circumcision was the initiatory rite into the Abrahamic covenant; it did not save. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties and that is exactly what the Abrahamic covenant was. God said to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you" (Genesis 17:7, NIV). God later instructed Abraham to circumcise not only every adult male, but also 8 day old male infants as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-13). If the children were not circumcised, they were not considered to be under the promissory Abrahamic covenant. This is why Moses' wife circumcised her son and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet. (Ex. 4:24-25). She knew the importance of the covenant between God and her children. But at the same time we must understand that circumcision did not guarantee salvation to all who received it. It was a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born into the family of God (who were then the Jews).

98

An important question here is how is it possible for an infant to be entered into a covenant with God. There could be a lot of answers given but the point remains: it was done; infants were entered into a covenant relationship with God -- through their parents. In the New Testament, circumcision is mentioned many times. But with respect to this topic it is specifically mentioned in Col. 2:11-12: "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead," (NIV). In these verses, baptism and circumcision are related. Baptism replaces the Old Testament circumcision because 1) there was a New Covenant in the communion supper (Luke 22:20), and 2) in circumcision there was the shedding of blood but in baptism no blood is shed. This is because the blood of Christ has been shed. If you understand that baptism is a covenant sign, then you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration. It comes after faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 13:3) and the work of God (John 6:28). Third, the Bible says that it is the gospel that saves. "By this gospel you are saved..." (1 Cor. 15:2). Also, Rom. 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." What is the Gospel? It is clearly the gospel that saves us. But what exactly is the gospel? That too is revealed to us in the Bible. It is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4: "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." The gospel is defined as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins. Baptism is not mentioned here. Paul said that he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-17). If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Additionally, in Acts, Peter was preaching the gospel, people got saved, and then they were baptized. Acts 10:44-46 says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days," (NIV). These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This simply isn't an exception. It is a reality. Let's Suppose... Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration. Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. Is that person saved? Of course he is. Let's further suppose that this person confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior and then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven then

99

baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)? Saying that baptism is necessary for salvation is dangerous because it is saying that there is something we must do to complete salvation. That is wrong! See Gal. 2:21; 5:4. All right, so this sounds reasonable. But still, what about those verses that seem to say that baptism is part of salvation? I'll address those now. But, because this subject can become quite lengthy, in fact, sufficient for a book in itself, I'll only address a few verses and then only briefly. Baptism Verses John 3:5, "Jesus answered, I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'" Some say that water here means baptism. But that is unlikely since Christian baptism hadn't yet been instituted. If this verse did mean baptism, then the only kind that it could have been at that point was the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4). If that is so, then baptism isn't necessary for salvation because the baptism of repentance is no longer practiced. It is my opinion that the water spoken of here means the water of the womb referring to the natural birth process. Jesus said in verse three that Nicodemus needed to be born "again." This meant that he had been born once--through his mother. Nicodemus responds with a statement about how he can't enter again into his mother's womb to be born. Then Jesus says that he must be born of water and the Spirit. Then in verse 6 He says that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.." The context seems to be discussing the contrast between the natural and the spiritual birth. Water, therefore, could easily be interpreted there to mean the natural birth process. I would like to add that there are scholars who agree with the position and some who do not. Some believe that the water refers to the Word of God, the Bible, and others claim it means the Holy Spirit. You decide for yourself. Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This verse is a tough one. It seems to say that baptism is part of salvation. But we know, from other scriptures that it isn't, lest there be a contradiction. What is going on here is simply that repentance and forgiveness of sins are connected. In the Greek, "repent" is in the plural and so is "your" of "your sins." They are meant to be understood as being related to each other. It is like saying, "All of you repent, each of you get baptized, and all of you will receive forgiveness." Repentance is a mark of salvation because it is granted by God (2 Tim. 2:25) and is given to believers only. In this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized. Baptism is the manifestation of the repentance, that gift from God that is the sign of the circumcised heart. That is why it says, repent and get baptized. 1 Pet. 3:21, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This is the only verse that says that baptism saves. But, the NIV translation of the verse is unfortunate. A better translation is found in the NASB which says, "and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means "copy," "type," corresponding to," "a thing resembling another," "its counterpart," etc. Baptism is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is "Of what is it a type?", or "Baptism corresponds to what? The answer is found in the previous verse, verse 20: "who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you" (NASB). What does baptism correspond to? Is it the flood? Or, is it the ark? What was it that saved Noah and his family? Was it the water or the ark? Obviously, it was the Ark. Noah built and entered the ark by faith and was saved (Heb. 11:7). The flood waters destroyed the ungodly. Peter, when referring to the flood waters, refers to them as the means of destruction of the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:5; 3:6). It was the Ark that saved. Noah entered the ark by faith. Baptism here, in my opinion, refers to the Ark, not

100

the waters. That is why the rest of the verse says, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God" which is consistent with what Paul said in Col. 2:11-12 where He equates baptism with being circumcised of heart. Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." Is the washing away of sins done by baptism, the representation of the circumcised heart (Col. 2:11-12) which means you are already saved, or is it by the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:14; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7)? Obviously it is the blood of Jesus and the washing here refers to the calling on Jesus' name. Rom. 6:4, "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." Because the believer is so closely united to Christ it is said that the symbol of baptism is our death, burial, and resurrection. Obviously we did not die--unless, of course, it is a figurative usage. Titus 3:5, "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." The washing of rebirth can only be that washing of the blood of Christ that cleanses us. It is not the symbol that saves, but the reality. The reality is the blood of Christ. Gal. 3:27, "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." This is speaking of the believer's union with Christ. It is an identification with, a joining to, a proclamation of loyalty to, etc. In 1 Cor. 10:2 the Israelites were baptized into Moses. That means they were closely identified with him and his purpose. The same thing is meant here.

Conclusion Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25,26; Ez. 44:7,9) baptism refers to the washing away of sin (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5) and to spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12). The circumcision of the heart is signified by the circumcision of the flesh, that is, baptism (Col. 2:11-12). One last thought: If someone maintains that baptism is necessary for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of Christ? If the answer is yes, then that person would be in terrible risk of not being saved. If the answer is no, then why is baptism maintained as being necessary the same way as the Jews maintained that works were necessary?

101

Baptism and Mark 16:16

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned," (Mark 16:16). This verse is frequently used by baptismal regenerationists to show that baptism is necessary for salvation. It says he who believes and is baptized will be saved. Therefore, they conclude that baptism is a necessary part of becoming saved. But, does this verse prove that baptism is necessary for salvation? Not at all. Mark 16:16 does not say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Let me show you why. I could easily say that he who believes and goes to church will be saved. That is true. But it is belief that saves, not belief and going to church. Likewise, if you believe and read your Bible, you'll be saved. But it isn't reading your Bible that saves you. Rather, belief in Christ, in His sacrifice, is what saves. As I've stated in other papers on this subject, there are numerous verses that clearly demonstrate that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 3:9; etc.). Belief in what God has done, not what man can do, is what results in salvation. Baptism is simply a public demonstration of the inner work of regeneration. This is why the rest of the verse says, "...but he who does not to believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16 focuses on the issue of belief, not baptism. A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20 What I will share here may not be very popular with some readers. Therefore, I need to say upfront that I believe in the absolute inspiration and authority of the Bible. It is the word of God and what it says is authoritative. However, the simple fact is that there are textual variations within the biblical manuscripts. The originals are what are inspired, not the copies. We have copies of inspired documents. These copies are not perfect, but they are very close to it. Again, I am not saying the Bible is untrustworthy. It is 98.5% textually pure. The remaining 1.5% of textual variation are almost entirely of insignificant spelling errors and minor word omissions or additions that do not change the meaning of the text. However, Mark 16:9-20 is a significant textual variant. Many scholars, Christian schola rs, consider the ending of Mark to lack authenticity. Please consider the following evidence. 1. Mark 16:9-20 doesn't appear in many of the oldest ancient manuscripts. A. The last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are lacking in the two earliest parchment codices, B and Aleph, in the Old Latin manuscript k,, the Sinaitic Syriac, many manuscripts of the Old Armenian version, the Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Old Georgian version, and a number of manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ammonius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; other Church Fathers state that the section is absent from Greek copies of Mark known to them (e.g. Jerome, Epist. cxx. 3, ad hedibiam,)...The original form of the Eusebian sections makes no provision for numbering sections after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack it (so, for example, MSS. 1, 20,22, &c.), and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional sigla used by scribes to indicate a spurious addition to a literary document."1 0

10

"The Text of the New Testament," by Bruce Metzger (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary), 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York, 1968, p. 226.

102

2.

3.

4.

There are other endings to Mark. A. Another ending is found in L, Psi, 099, 0112, and minuscules 274mg 579, k, Syrh and more is as follows: i. "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." Apparent, theological error. A. Mark 16:12 says, "And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country." This verse may be problematic. Jesus rose in the same body that he died in (John 2:19), though it was a glorified body. This is problematic because it suggests "a different form." Jesus did not appear in a different form. He appeared in the same body he rose in. Evidence against the Mark authorship. A. There are 17 non- marcan words used in a non- marcan sense in these verses.

This information about the ending of Mark is not intended to cast doubt upon God's word. But the fact is that the ending is under a large cloud of doubt as to its authenticity. I would not use it as a defense for baptismal regeneration.

103

Baptism and Roman 6:3-5

Romans 6:3-5 is often used as a proof text for the claim that baptism is essential for salvation. It is a strong comparison between our baptism and Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. On the surface, one could conclude that from these verses, that baptism is part of salvation. "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection," Is this section of scripture teaching us that baptism is necessary for salvation? No, it is not. First, we know from the rest of scripture that salvation is by faith, not by faith and something we do Rom. 3:28-30. Second, we can see from other scriptures that baptism follows faith. Take a look at Acts 16:30-33 where the Jailer specifically asks what he must do to be saved and where baptism fits in. "and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household." 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household," (Acts 16:30-33, NASB). If baptism were part of salvation, then Paul should have said, "Believe and be baptized and you will be saved." But, he did not. Also, consider Acts 10:44-46. "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spir it came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days," (NIV). These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-46 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This isn't an exception. It is a reality. This proves that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

104

What is Romans 6:3-5 saying? "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection," The phrase "baptized into" occurs five times in the NT in four verses as found in the KJV and the NASB.. 1. Rom. 6:3, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?" 2. 1 Cor. 10:2, "and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 3. 1 Cor. 12:13, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." 4. Gal. 3:27, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." To be baptized "into Christ," "into His death," "into Moses," and "into one body" is to be publicly identified with the thing you are being baptized into. The focus is not the baptism itself, but on the thing the baptism represents. In the case of Rom. 6:3-5, being baptized into Christ is a public identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection which is said to be the gospel that saves in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Baptism then is a public statement proclaiming that the person is trusting in the sacrifice of Christ. Baptism by immersion is a perfect symbol for this work of Christ with which the Christian is identifying himself. As Christ died and was raised to a new life, so to the Christian, in Christ, is said to have died (Rom. 6:11; Col. 3:3) and has a new life. This new life of regeneration is by faith, the internal work. Baptism is the external work of identification with Christ. This is why the reference to baptism in the Bible is dealing more with "our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism."1 1 Baptism Baptism Baptism Baptism Baptism is being identified as a disciple (Matt. 28:18-9). may be compared to a new birth (John 3:5). is compared to Jesus' death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5). is compared to Israel's Exodus and passing through the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:2). is compared to Noah's escaping the flood waters by entering the ark (1 Pet. 3:21).

In each of the references above, baptism is an identification with something. When people were baptized into John the Baptist's baptism of repentance, it wasn't the baptism that granted them repentance or made repentance real. Repentance is something that happens internally and is the work of God (2 Tim. 2:25). To participate in John's baptism was to publicly proclaim that the person being baptized was accepting John's message or repentance. Hence, it was called a baptism of repentance. It wasn't the baptism that brought repentance; rather, baptism was the result of repentance. The person had to first decide to repent, and then become baptized as a proclamation of his decision. Likewise, the Christian must first decide to repent, to receive Christ (John 1:12), to rely on the sacrifice of Christ, by faith, and then participate in the public proclamation of identifying with Christ's work.

11

Enhanced Strongs Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

105

It is an identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that baptism represents. Jesus' shed blood is what cleanses us from our sins (Heb. 9:22), not being washed with water. It is Christ's death that is the payment for sin. Jesus' burial is the proof that He, in fact, died. Jesus' resurrection is the proof of God the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ and that death is conquered. Again, for a Christian to be baptized is to make a public proclamation that he is trusting in Christ's work, that he is naming himself with Christ and trusting what Christ has done. This is why it says in Rom. 6:11, "Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus," (NASB). Why? Because "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me," (Gal. 2:20). It is on the cross that Jesus paid for our sins, not in His baptism and not in our baptism. It is our identification with Him, being counted "in Christ" that allows us to say we have been crucified with Christ so that we can say we are dead to sin. We are not dead to sin by our baptism. Rather, we are dead to sin, by faith, in what Jesus did in His sacrifice. Conclusion Romans 6:3-5 speaks to us of Christ's work and our public identification with it. In that ancient world of religious plurality in Roman gods, in the strict Laws of the Jewish system, and in the gods of different cultures, to be baptized was to make a bold statement of commitment to Christ as the risen Lord. It was not the water that saved, but faith in Christ and His work.

106

Baptism and Gal. 3:27

Gal. 3:27 is often used by the baptismal regenerationists to support the idea that you must be baptized to be saved. They maintain that baptism is the place where a person "puts on Christ," where he is "clothed with Christ" and that it means that baptism saves. They teach that being immersed in the baptisma l water is the place and time of deliverance from sins. This is simply not true. Gal. 3:27 cannot be understood alone. It must be examined in context. "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahams offspring, heirs according to promise," (Gal. 3:24-29). In Roman society, children were often committed to the care of trusted slaves. This would often happen when the child was between six or seven, and it would last until puberty. "These slaves were severe disciplinarians and were charged with guarding the children from the evils of society and giving them moral training. This was like the Laws function until Christ came and people could be justified by faith in Him."1 2 The Law was a harsh master to the Jews. It was very difficult to keep. This is why the Law points to Christ by showing us our inability to keep the Law and by showing us that we must rely on faith instead. That is why justification is by faith (vv. 24-26), because we cannot attain justification by Law (Rom. 3:28-30; Phil. 3:9). "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ," (Gal. 3:27). In Roman society when a child who had been under the care of a tutor and reached a m atured enough age, he was given a special robe, or toga. It was symbolic of his full rights in the family. 1 3 Therefore, being "clothed with Christ" is a phrase meaning that the Christian moved out from the Law and into the gospel of grace and can enjoy full acceptance before God the Father. It is not saying that baptism is what saves us from our sins.

12

Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985, on Gal. 3:24. 13 ibid, on Gal. 3:27.

107

Baptism and 1 Pet. 3:21

1 Pet. 3:21 says, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This is the only verse that says that baptism saves. Is it teaching that we must be baptized to be saved? No. But, but to rightly understand it, we need to look at its context. "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves younot the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him," (1 Pet. 3:18-22, NASB). The above translation in verse 21 from the NASB is a good translation. "And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means "copy," "type," "corresponding to," "a thing resembling another," "its counterpart," etc. It is what the NIV translates as "symbolizes," the NASB as "corresponding to that," and the KJV as "like figure." Baptism, then, is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is "Of what is it a type?", or "baptism corresponds to what?" If we look at the context, an interesting possibility arises, though I will admit, not the favored interpretation among scholars. What does baptism correspond to? Is it the flood? Or, is it the ark? What was it that saved Noah and his family, the flood or the ark? Obviously, it was the Ark. Noah built and entered the ark by faith and he was saved (Heb. 11:7). The flood waters destroyed the ungodly. Also, Peter consistently refers to the flood waters as the means of destruction of the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:5; 3:6), not the salvation of Noah and his family. Rather, it was the Ark that saved, the ark that Noah entered faith. It may very well be that baptism refers to the Ark, not the waters. That is why the rest of the verse says, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God" which is consistent with what Paul said in Col. 2:11-12 where He equates baptism with being circumcised of heart. The problem with this interpretation is that it doesn't seem to fit the "water for water typology." It would seem more natural to equate the water of baptism with the water of the flood. Furthermore, if we were to look at the flood waters as the thing that removed evil from the land, we could say that "correspondingly," the waters of baptism remove removes the sin from our hearts. Though this reading seems a bit more natural, it too has problems. The water of baptism is not what saves us; the sacrifice of Christ does which we receive by faith. We read numerous verses about justification by faith (Rom. 5:1), salvation by faith (Eph. 2:8), etc., not justification "by faith and baptism," or salvation "by faith and baptism."1 4 The fact is that salvation is received by faith. Peter, not wanting to declare that baptism itself is what saves us, quickly adds, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience." Water baptism, then, must accompany the work of the Holy Spirit in the person. Peter's explanatory comment shows us that the act of physical baptism is not what saves, but the "baptism of appeal to God." This appeal to God is by faith the same as Noah's faith in God led him to build the Ark, enter it, and remain in it. It was the Ark that saved Noah, not the flood waters. The flood was for Noah a type of baptism even as the passage through the Red Sea was a type of baptism for the Israelites. "I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3and all ate the same supernatural food 4and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ," (1 Cor. 10:1-4).
14

Mark 16:16 says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Please see the article on Baptism and Mark 16:16 for an examination of this verse.

108

The "baptisms" of both Noah and the Israelites served as types of a transition; that is, they moved people from the old world to the new, from the old covenant to the new covenant. It is not the water that saves, but the spiritual thing associated with that water that saves. For Noah it was faith in God. For Moses it too was faith in God. But some may say that the work of the Holy Spirit and the act of baptism are simultaneous, that the Holy Spirit works in and through baptism to bring regeneration. But this cannot be the case since the Bible tells us that salvation is by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8). Besides, we have a clear instance in scripture where people are saved before their baptism. Acts 10:44-48 "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days," (Acts 10:44-48). In these verses we see that Peter had been preaching the gospel and the Holy Spirit fell upon the listeners. In verse 45 we read that "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also." This gift manifested itself in speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a signgift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, verse 46 says they were "exalting God." Unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved because they are moving in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and glorifying God. It is the Holy Spirit who gives charismatic spiritual gifts to the church (1 Cor. 12:2728), not to unbelievers. Now, please notice that it was after this movement of the Holy Spirit that the believers are baptized. If baptism is necessary for salvation, then how is it that the people were speaking in tongues and exalting God before they were baptized? If you were to say that the Holy Spirit was simply working upon and through those not yet saved, then remember that tongues and praise to God are for the church, not the unbelievers. The church consists of people who are saved, not unsaved. If they were not saved until they were baptized, then they were not in the body of Christ and would not have moved in the charismatic gifts. Therefore, they were regenerate before they were baptized. This simply isn't an exception. It is a reality. Conclusion 1 Pet. 3:21 is not teaching us that baptism is what saves us. Rather, it is showing us that the water symbolizes a spiritual cleansing through the power of the Holy Spirit gained through Christs victory over death. It is the person's appeal to God that saves the soul, not the washing of water upon the body.

109

Baptism and John 3:5

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit," (John 3:3-8). There are five basic interpretations to this section of scripture in reference to water. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The The The The The water water water water water refers refers refers refers refers to to to to to the natural birth. the Word of God. the Holy Spirit. the ministry of John the Baptist. the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

The first option looks to the context of Jesus' words dealing with being born "again, (3:3). Nicodemus responds by mentioning the experience of being born from the womb (v. 4). Jesus then speaks of water and the Spirit and then says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, (3:6). However, this view is not the most commonly held view. The second option holds that the water is referring to the Word of God. Eph. 5:26 says, "that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word." Some believe that the washing of water is done by means of the Word of God. The third view says that the water refers to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps Nicodemus was reminded of Ezek. 36:25-27, "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27"And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." Certainly, Jesus' own words are applicable here when He says in John 7:37-39, "Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. 38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.'" 39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." The fourth view holds that the water is in reference to the water baptism of repentance taught by John the Baptist. Matt. 3:1-6 describes John's ministry in the desert, his teaching about repentance, and baptizing people into that repentance. Contextually, the first chapter of John mentions John the Baptist in verses 6-8 and 19-36. Certainly, contextually, John and his ministry is in view here. If this is the case, then Jesus would have been speaking of the "baptism" (the initiatory ordinance) of repentance preached by John the Baptist. The fifth view is the one held by the International Church of Christ; name ly, that the water is referring to baptism and that it is essential to salvation. Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is essential to salvation? As you can see, there are different interpretations to John 3:5. But, to simply say that John 3:5 does not teach the necessity of baptism isn't enough. Some sort of proof must be offered. The proof is found in God's word that has no contradictions. Clearly, salvation is by faith. For example, Rom. 5:1 states that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith. It does not say faith and baptism. If baptism were part of salvation, then it would say we were justified by faith and baptism. But it does not. If justification is by faith, then it is by faith. Baptism is not faith. It is a ceremony. Furthermore, please consider the following verses when declare how we are saved.

110

1. Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction." 2. Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." 3. Rom. 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." 4. Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness." 5. Rom. 5:1, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," 6. Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham." 7. Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith." 8. Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." Additionally, Paul tells us that the gospel is what saves us and that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Baptism is not included in the description of the gospel. This explains why said he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-174). If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Therefore, John 3:5 must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the rest of scripture. Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration. Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. Is that person saved? Of course he is. Let's further suppose that this person who confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior, then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)? Yes it does. Baptism is not necessary for salvation and John 3:5 cannot teach that it is.

111

Baptism and Acts 2:38

Acts 2:38 is one of the more controversy verses in the Bible regarding baptism and whether or not it is the requirement for salvation. On the surface it seems to support it. But upon closer examination, we will see that it does not teach baptismal regeneration: that baptism saves. First of all, rarely is doctrine ever made from a single verse. We need to look at all of what God's word says about a subject in order to accurately understand what it teaches. I will briefly tackle of this verse in the following manner. Examination of the verse's syntax, grammar and structure. Examine other verses dealing with the forgiveness of sins. Examine the verse in its covenant context. Grammar and Structure of Acts 2:38 In Acts 2:38 the main verb is metanoesate (change mind), the aorist direct imperative (a command) of metanoeo which means to repent (change mind). This refers to that initial repentance of the sinner unto salvation. The verb translated "be baptized" is in the indirect passive imperative (a command to receive; hence, passive voice in Greek1 5 ) of baptizo, which does not give it the same direct command implied in "repent." The preposition "for" in the phrase "for the remission of sins" in Greek is "eis," unto or into, and it is in the accusative case (direct object). It can mean "for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins." It is the same preposition we find in 1 Cor. 10:2 in the phrase "and were baptized unto Moses." Note that both contexts are dealing with baptism and identification. These people were baptized or spiritually identifying themselves with the purposes and vision of Moses. Repentance, therefore, is presented as identifying an individual with the remission of his sins, even as baptism following repentance provides an external identification visible by others. Repentance is something that concerns an individual and God while baptism involves others. That is why baptistheto (let be immersed) is in the passive voice indicating that one does not baptize himself, but is baptized by another usually in the presence of others. Repentance, however, is an act taking place within a person's heart as the Holy Spirit moves in the sinner. But, all this Greek stuff may be confusing. Let me break it down. All people are commanded to repent for their sins. This is what believers have already done by becoming Christians. Baptism, then, is the outward identification with being a Christian for those who have already repented. Also, as the Israelites were "baptized into Moses," (1 Cor. 10:2), so too, Christians are baptized into Jesus. That is, they are identifying themselves, publicly, with Christ. Likewise, in Rom. 6:1-5 where baptism is related to death, burial, and resurrection, it is again and identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. That is why it is said of Christians that we have died to sin (Rom. 6:2, 11; Gal. 2:20; Col. 2:20; Col. 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:24). This verse is not demonstrating that baptism is essential for salvation, but that baptism is the thing which we receive, in order to publicly identify ourselves completely and totally with Christ as a manifestation of the inward work God has done within us.

15

Active voice is "I hit the ball." Passive voice is "The ball hit me." Middle voice is "I was hit by the ball." In active voice, "I" performed the action. In passive voice, "I" received the action. In middle voice, "I" did something to myself.

112

Other verses dealing with salvation Justification is the work of God where the righteousness of Jesus is reckoned to the sinner so the sinner is declared, by God, as being righteous under the Law (Rom. 4:3; 5:1,9; Gal. 2:16; 3:11). This righteousness is not earned or retained by any effort of the saved. Justification is an instantaneous occurrence with the result being eternal life. It is based completely and solely upon Jesus' sacrifice on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and is received by faith alone (Rom. 4:5; 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9). No works are necessary whatsoever to obtain justification. Otherwise, it is not a gift (Rom. 6:23). Therefore, we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1). Nowhere in the Bible does it state that we are justified by grace and baptism or faith and baptism or faith and anything else. On the contrary, baptism is excluded from the gospel message. Paul said that he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-17). Likewise, Paul told us exactly what the gospel that saves is. He said in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." Note that Paul state and that the gospel is what saints and he did not include baptism in the definition of the gospel. So, we must ask if baptism is necessary for salvation, then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Further proof that baptism is not a requirement of salvation can be found in Acts 10:44-46. Peter was preaching the gospel, people became saved, and then they were baptized. Acts 10:44-46 says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and prais ing God. Then Peter said, Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days," (NIV). These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-46 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This isn't an exception. It is a reality. This proves that baptism is not necessary for salvation and that Acts 2:38 is not teaching its necessity either. But, if it isn't saying that, then why is baptism mentioned here? Biblical Covenant Context A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. Very often, covenants have visible signs to represent them. The elements of bread and wine in the communion support are good examples of this. Circumcision was both a covenant sign and and the initiatory rite into the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 17:10). But this covenant sign did not save anyone. God said to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you," (Gen. 17:7, NIV). God later instructed Abraham to circumcise not only every adult male, but also eight day old male infants as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-13). If the children were not circumcised, they were not considered to be under the promissory Abrahamic

113

covenant. This is why Moses' wife circumcised her son and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet after Moses failed to circumcise him, (Exo. 4:24-25). She knew the importance of the covenant between God and her children. But at the same time we must understand that circumcision did not guarantee salvation to those who received it. It was a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born into the family of God (who were then the Jews). It was an outward sign of the covenant promise. To reject it was to reject the covenant. But, accepting it did not guarantee salvation. Another theological debate at risk here There is debate within Christianity on the nature of baptism and to whom it may be administered. I am not here trying to convince anyone of the proper objects of baptism whether it be infant baptism or adult only baptism. I only present the following information as a proof that baptism is a covenant sign, and not essential to salvation. In the New Testament, circumcision is mentioned many times. But with respect to baptism it is specifically mentioned in Col. 2:11-12: "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead," (NIV). In these verses, baptism and circumcision are related. The extent of that relationship is still being debated. Nevertheless, Paul also says in Rom. 2:29, "But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." As you can see, for the Christian, circumcision is of the heart. And because it is, we Christians are now included the Abrahamic covenant where before, we, the Gentiles, were not. "Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world," (Eph. 2:12, NASB). In Gal. 3:8, Paul calls the promise of the Abrahamic covenant, the gospel. He says, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'All the nations shall be blessed in you, 9So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.'" (Gal. 3:8-9). So, Paul calls the Abrahamic covenant, the gospel. The sign of this Abrahamic covenant was circumcision. Here is the catch. Since the Abrahamic covenant is still valid (we are justified by faith -- Gal. 3:8), then is there a covenant sign for us today? I think the answer is a resounding, yes. I believe that baptism replaces the Old Testament covenant sign of circumcision because 1) there was a New Covenant in the communion supper (Luke 22:20), and 2) in circumcision there was the shedding of blood, but in baptism no blood is shed. The covenant sign has changed now that the Law has been fulfilled in Christ. If you understand that baptis m is a covenant sign, then you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration, of "heart-circumcision." It comes after faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 13:3) and the work of God (John 6:28). Again, baptism is the covenant sign of our covenant with God. Acts 2:39 and "The Promise" This would explain why Peter in verse 39 of Acts 2 says, "For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." What promise is Peter speaking of when he says "the promise"? Notice that he does not say "this promise" but "the promise." If Peter was referring to baptism as the promise he would have said "this promise." Instead, he used a phrase "the promise." This is significant. The phrase "the promise" occurs in 26 Bible verses in the New Testament. It is used in reference to several different topics. 1. The Holy Spirit, (Luke 24:49; Acts 2:33; Gal. 3:14). 2. God's promise to Abraham to multiply his descendents in Egypt, physical as well as spiritual, (Acts 7:17; Heb. 6:13, 15, 17). 3. The promise of the Messiah, (Acts 13:32; Acts 26:6-7; Rom. 4:13,14,16; Gal. 3:17,19,22; Eph. 3:6; 2 Tim. 1:1). 4. The promise of eternal redemption (Heb. 9:15; 1 John 2:25). 5. The promise that Sarah would have a child (Rom. 4:20; Gal. 4:23).

114

6. The promise that through Isaac, the world would be blessed, (Rom. 9:8). 7. The promise of Jesus' return (2 Pet. 3:4). 8. The promise to kill Paul by Paul's adversaries (Acts 22:21). But, we are most interested in its context in Acts 2 which begins with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-13). Peter then preaches a sermon and quotes many OT scriptures (Acts 2:14-35). In verse 2:22, Peter specifically says, "Men of Israel, listen to these words..." Peter is speaking to the Jews. It was to the Jews that "the promise" of the outpouring of the Spirit was given. Peter is speaking covenant language of God as He quotes the OT. Since Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-18, we can easily see what Peter is talking about when speaking of "the promise" in Acts 2:39. "And it shall be in the last days, God says, that I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams, Even upon My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit," (Acts 2:17-18). See also, "For I will pour out water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring, and My blessing on your descendants," (Isa. 44:3). Peter states in Acts 2:38, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Peter is clearly speaking of the promise of God to grant the Holy Spirit in a new and better way. But is he saying that people become saved by baptism in water or that baptism is part of salvation? Not at all. Peter is simply speaking covenantally about the covenant sign. Baptism! Consider this proof, from Peter, that people are saved before baptism. "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days," (Acts 10:44-48). Notice that Peter had been preaching the gospel and the Holy Spirit fell upon the people. In verse 45 we see that "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also." These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-48 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This simply isn't an exception. It is a reality. Conclusion Acts 2:38 so closely ties repentance and baptism because it is contextually covenant language and covenant concept. It is not stating that you must be baptized in order to be saved. It is saying that baptism is the complete and total covenantal identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. It is not the covenant representation (baptism) of what Christ did that saves us, but the reality of His sacrifice which we receive by faith (Rom. 5:1; Gal. 3:8). That is why we can see in Acts 10:44-48 a group of people who are saved before they are baptized. Baptism is not what saves. It is not part of salvation. It is something someone does who is already saved.

115

116

Various Articles
Introduction
Here we have various articles taken from the CARM website.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

What does being made in God's image mean? p. 118 What is dichotomy and trichotomy? p. 118 What are some of the attributes of God? p. 121 What are some of the different kinds of angles? p. 122 What are some of the qualifications of an elder? p. 127 What are some of the physical points of suffering in crucifixion? p. 128 Was God ever seen in the Old Testament? p. 130 What is amillenialism? p. 132

117

Man
Man is the direct creation of God. In the Garden of Eden, God made man good. He made Man as both male and female. "Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:26-27; see also, 2:7,21-23). Because Adam was made in the image of God, and we are his descendents, we are different than the animals. Adam had the breath of life breathed into him, where the animals did not (Gen. 2:7). Also, Adam was given dominion over the animals. Additionally, being made in the image of God means that we have value. All people have value because of this. Being made in God's image means that we have a soul, that we can reason, know God, worship Him, and love Him. Animals cannot. We have moral values and abstract conceptual capability. The human is a wonderful creation of God. God is concerned with man. Man is the object of God's creative and redemptive work. God loves us (John 3:16), provides for us (Matt. 5:43-47), and has provided redemption for us through His Son (John 3:16). However, originally Adam and Eve were pure and sinless. But, because they rebelled against God, they became sinners. As a result their offspring inherited their sinful nature. Many Christians today do not accept the teaching that we have sinful natures. But it is true. We are by nature sinners worthy of damnation (Eph. 2:3). Of course, we are not as sinful as we can be, but we are all touched by sin. Consider the following scriptures concerning human nature. Our hearts are deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9). We are full of evil (Mark 7:21-23). We love darkness rather than light (John 3:19). We are unrighteous, do not understand, do not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). We are helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6). We are dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). We cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). redemption in Christ, we are new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17). Because of are able to understand spiritual things, seek for God, and are no longer God's redemptive work in us. So, though we were dead in our sins, we did not want God, now we do. Dichotomy or Trichotomy Are we made of two parts (body and soul) or three parts (body, soul, and spirit)? Theologians have debated the issue for centuries and there has never been a decisive orthodox declaration of which is true. Dichotomy is a term which signifies a division into two parts: Body and Soul. The words "spirit" and "soul" are often used interchangeably and therefore, the dichotomous position holds that man is comprised of two parts. Note the following verses used to support this position. "Mary said: My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,'" (Luke 1:4647). "My soul yearns for you in the night; in the morning my spirit longs for you...," (Isaiah 26:9). For the term "Body and Soul" see Matt. 6:25; 10:28. For the term "Body and Spirit" see 1 Cor. 5:3,5.

But, thanks to God and His the indwelling Spirit of God we ungodly. This is the benefit of are alive in Christ. Though we

118

Trichotomy is a term which signifies a division into 3 parts: Body, Soul, and Spirit. With the following verses, "spirit" and "soul" seem to be different. "May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Thess. 5:23). "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart," (Heb. 4:12).

Does it matter if you believe in dichotomy or trichotomy? No. However, a word of caution. There are churches that teach it is possible for Christians to be demon possessed. These groups hold the trichotomous position. They maintain that it is possible for one part of a person to be possessed but not the other. For example, they might claim that the spirit of a person can be possessed but the soul cannot. Others reverse it and state that the soul of a person can be possessed but not the spirit. This is problematic because there are no accounts in Scripture of Christians having demons cast out of them. Besides, how can a person indwelt by the Holy Spirit also be indwelt by a demon? Nevertheless, this does not mean that the trichotomous position is wrong. There are many great scholars on both sides of the issue in spite of the error of Christian demon possession. In conclusion, it is a wondrous thing that God would create a universe, populate it with people, and then love us so much that He would die to save us and bring us to Himself. But that is the great God we serve and love.

119

Let Us make man in our image

There are several verses in the Old Testament where God speaks as a plurality. Many Trinitarians quote these verses to help support the Trinity doctrine because they strongly suggest that there is more than one person in the godhead. "Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, (Gen. 1:26, NASB). "Then the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," (Gen. 3:22, NASB). Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one anothers speech, (Gen. 11:7, NASB). "Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us? Then I said, Here am I. Send me! (Isaiah 6:8, NASB)

Those opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity say that God is speaking of Himself in any "royal" sense, in a "plural of majesty." They can say this, but biblically there is never any account of a king or a ruler speaking of himself in a plural sense or in the third person. So, there is no biblical support for God using it of Himself in this way. In regards to Gen. 1:26, those who deny the Trinity say that God when God says, "Let Us make..." He is speaking with the angels in mind. The problem with this is that angels do not create. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that angels created anything at all. We see in Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone." God made all things alone. Therefore, the "us" in "Let Us make man in our image" cannot be the angels. Furthermore, people are not created in the image of angles, but of God. The three verses in Genesis do not prove that the Trinity is true. However, they cannot be dismissed by the assumption that God is speaking of himself in a type of third person way. Furthermore, notice in the force verse above, Isaiah 6:8, that's God is speaking in the singular and then switches to the plural. He says, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" This is on the unusual construction. The singular speaker refers to himself in the plural.

120

God
God, according to the Bible, is the only divine and supreme being that exists in the universe. The Bible says He is Holy (Rev. 4:8), eternal (Isaiah 57:15, omnipotent (Jer. 32:17,27), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-12), and omniscient (1 John 3:20). He is described as love (1 John 4:8,16); light (1 John 1:5); spirit (John 4:24); truth (Psalm 117:2); and as creator (Isaiah 40:12,22,26). He is worshiped (Gen. 24:26; Ex. 4:31; 2 Chron. 29:28; 1 Cor. 14:25; Rev. 7:11) and served (Matt. 4:10;1 Cor. 6:19; Phil. 3:7; 1 Thess. 1:9; Heb. 9:14). Though there are many other concepts of God in the world, the Bible alone presents God as the only God in existence, the Supreme Being who is a Trinity. The Trinity is the doctrine of one God in three persons, not three gods, not three modes. Pantheism presents God as an impersonal presence existing in all things, containing all things, and part of all things. Atheism says there is no God. Deism says God exists but is unknowable and untouchable. The Bible speaks of God as knowable, personal, real, alive, self-aware, and very much concerned with the affairs of this world. It does not defend God's existence nor try to prove it. Instead, the Bible simply assumes it and says that it is the fool who says there is no God (Psalm 14:1). Some of the biblical names of God are "Jehovah or Yahweh, (Exodus 3:14, lit. "I AM"), "Elohim" (the Hebrew word for 'god', i.e. Gen. 1), and "Adonai" which means "master" or "lord." "Jehovah" is often joined in usage to the word "elohim" as in Gen. 15:2. It is also joined to other words. For example, Jehovah-jireh which means "the Lord will provide, (Gen. 22:13-14); Jehovah-rapha which means "The Lord who heals, (Exodus 15:26); Jehovah-shalom which means "the Lord our peace, (Judges 6:24); and Jehovah-tsidkenu, which is "the Lord our righteousness, (Jer. 23:6). In the NT, God is known as the "Father" (John 17) and the "Word" (John 1:1,14), etc.1 6 God is Sovereign. He is in control of all things and supreme over all things. No one is more powerful than Him and He answers to no one. He had no beginning and has no end (Psalm 90:2). God decrees what will occur; that is, all things occur according to His plan (Acts 2:23. But this is not to say that God is the author of evil. Instead, in His sovereign plan, He allowed for it to occur. God is the creator of the Universe (Gen. 1; Isaiah 44:24; John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17), not a part of it. God is the redeemer who became a man in Christ Jesus (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Titus 2:13). God is our Savior. God is forgiving (Eph. 1:7; Psalm 86:5), merciful (Exodus 34:6; Psalm 67:1; James 5:11), holy (Isaiah 6:3; Rev. 4:8), eternal (Psalm 90:2; 1 Tim. 1:17), and perfect (1 Kings 8:27; Psalm 139). The Incarnation In the incarnation, God became man. It says in Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form" (NASB). Jesus is God in flesh, our redeemer. It was necessary that God become a man to atone for our sins because a sinful man could not fulfill all the Law of God and offer a sacrifice to God the Father of sufficient quality to remove our sin. God had to become a man so that He could die for the sins of men. In this, we have the sacrifice of a loving God who humbled Himself to become one of us and die at our hands for our sins so that He might give eternal life to those who accept His sacrifice (John 1:12; John 3:16).

16

Chafer, Lewis Sperry, Major Bible Themes, rev. Walvoord, John F., Grand Rapids,

121

Angels
Angels are very active in the Bible and are used by God as messengers, warriors, and servants. The word "angel" comes from the Greek word "angelos" which means messenger. Angels are spiritual beings without bodies of flesh and bones, though they apparently have the ability to appear in human form (Gen. 19:1-22). Angels had many functions. They praised God (Psalm 103:20), served as messengers to the world (Luke 1:11-20, 26-38; Luke 2:9-14), watched over Gods people (Psalm 91:11-12), and were sometimes instruments of Gods judgment (Matt. 13:49-50). The Bible tells us that God created the angels and that at some time in the distant past there was a rebellion in heaven and many of the angels fell. Apparently, it was the elect angels that did not fall (1 Tim. 5:21). The Bible says that angels were created by Christ (Col. 1:16), that they carry out the will of God (Psalm 103:20; Matt. 6:10), they worship God and Christ (Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 1:6), are wise (2 Sam. 14:20), mighty (Psalm 103:20), holy (Matt. 25:31), and innumerable, (Heb. 12:22). However, angels are not to be worshipped (Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10; 22:9) since they are creatures. Are there different kinds of angels? Apparently, there are different kinds of angels with different characteristics and roles: cherubim, seraphim, and archangels. It may also be that there are "powers" and "principalities" that further describe ranks in the angelic realm, but it is debated. Nevertheless, I'll focus on the three main groups. 1. "Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew, (Isaiah 6:2). A. They praise God (Isaiah 6:3). B. The word "seraphim" (singular is saraph) probably a translation of fiery ones and probably stems from the fiery imagery often associated with the Presence of God (cf. Ezek. 1:27). 1 7 "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life, (Gen. 3:24). See also Exodus 25:18-22; Heb. 9:5. A. Cherubim are typically represented with wings, feet, and hands, but are described in different forms as having two faces (Ezek. 41:18) and even four faces (Ezek. 10:21). B. Cherubim were considered to be angels that guarded sacred things. In Gen. 3:24 they guarded the tree of life. They were over the Ark of the Covenant on the Mercy Seat (1 Sam. 4:4). See also Psalm 80:1; 99:1 C. Figures of Cherubs were embroidered on the temple veil (Exodus 26:31; 2 Chron. 3:7) and lavished Solomon's temple (1 Kings 6:26ff). "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first, (1 Thess. 4:16). A. The word "archangel" is not found in the Old Testament. References to Michael archangel appear only in 1 Thess. 4:16 and Jude 9. However, Gabriel, who is considered an archangel appears in both the OT and NT. In the OT he is found in Dan. 8:15-26 and 9:21-27. In the NT he is mentioned in Luke 1:11-20, 26-38. He seems to be a messenger angel. B. On the other hand, Michael the archangel seems to be a warrior angel (Rev. 12:7) who does battle (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1). C. An interesting note is that in Rom. 8:38, Eph. 1:21, and Col. 1:16, the word principalities is used. In Greek the word has the prefix of "arche" suggesting archangel. Some think this means there is a hierarchy of angels as is suggested in 1 Pet. 3:22: "who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him" (NASB).

2.

3.

17

Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.

122

What does the Bible say about fallen angels? Of course, there are fallen angels as well. Lucifer, another archangel, rebelled against God and became the devil. Following are verses often quoted in reference to the evil one. "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, you who have weakened the nations! 13 "But you said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, and I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High," (Isaiah 14:12-14). Most scholars agree that one third of the angels fell into sin and became demons. "And another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.4 And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven, and threw them to the earth . . . " (Rev. 12:3-4). In the future, there will be a judgment upon the fallen angels: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels," (Matt. 25:41). "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment," (2 Pet. 2:4). "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day," (Jude 6). "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him," (Rev. 12:9).

Whichever view you have of angels, it cannot be escaped that the Bible mentions them a lot and that they are greatly used by God to accomplish His will.

123

High Priest
The following pictures were scanned in from a book printed in 1722. The book is about German-Jewish history and contains many drawings. The following three drawings were made prior to 1722 and used in the book. I have reproduced them here for your benefit. Once a year, the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle (later the Temple) where he would offer sacrifices for the nation of Israel (Exodus 30:10; Lev. 16; Num. 18:2,5,7; Heb. 8:3; 9:7). He would sprinkle blood on the Mercy Seat which was actually a lid on top of the Ark of the Covenant. His garments were specially made (Exodus 28). Notice the Breast Plate of stones on his chest (Exodus 28:1529). Each stone was named after a tribe of Israel.

124

Pharisee

The Pharisees were influential religious leaders in Palestine around the time of Christ. They became prominent around 200 BC and were still around through the first century. They were very pious, held to the Law, and were ritually pure. The NT accounts of the Pharisees represent the worst of the group. Generally, they were good people, God-fearing, and sought to honor the Lord. But as with so many things, purity is sacrificed to power. The Pharisees became powerful in Israel and were challenged by Jesus claims and miracles. "According to Josephus: Josephus, a Jewish historian of the first century who wrote for nonJews in Greek, calls the Pharisees a choice [of life] and a philosophy. . . . .According to Josephus, the Pharisees were the group most influential with the people, were noted for their accurate and therefore authoritative interpretations of Jewish law, and had their own traditions and way of life to which they were faithful. They had a simple standard of living and cultivated harmonious relations with others. . . .Some Pharisees incited opposition to the government, though others worked with the chief priests to keep order. In the first century Josephus says they numbered six thousand." -------------References: Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.

125

Moloch

Moloch was one of the false gods that Israel would worship during its periods of apostasy. This false deity is associated with Ammon in 1 Kings 11:7, "Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon." One of the practices of the cult that worshipped Moloch was to sacrifice their children. Of course, this was forbidden by God's word: Lev. 18:21 says, "Neither shall you give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord." (See also Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; 2 Kings. 23:10; Jer. 32:35). In some passages the reference is clearly to a deity to whom human sacrifice was made, particularly in the Valley of Hinnom on the SW of the Jerusalem hill (2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35) at a site known as Topheth (fire pit in Syriac). The ancients would heat this idol up with fire until it was glowing, then they would take their newborn babies, place them on the arms of the idol, and watch them burn to death. I can't help but compare today's abortion massacre to the sacrifice of children by these ancient pagans. In both, innocent life is destroyed for the gain of the parent. References: The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962.

126

The Elder in the Church

1. The Term "Elder" A. PRESBUTEROS - elder, an old man, a leader in the church. The term is used i. of the elder of two persons (Luke 15:25, or more, John 8:9). ii. of a person advanced in age (Acts 2:17; in Heb. 11:2). iii. of the forefathers in Israel (Matt. 15:2; Mark 7:3, 5). iv. of members of the Sanhedrin (Matt. 16:21; 26:47). v. of those who managed public affairs in the various cities (Luke 7:3). vi. of those who were the heads or leaders of the tribes and families, as of the seventy who helped Moses (Num. 11:16; Deut. 27:1). This included: a. acting as judges in apprehending murderers (Dt. 19:12). b. conducting inquests (Dt. 21:2). c. settling matrimonial disputes (Dt. 22:15; 25:7). d. If theirs was a city of refuge they also heard pleas for asylum (Jos. 20:4). vii. of those qualified by the Holy Spirit who exercised spiritual care and oversight of the local congregation. B. EPISKOPOI - overseers, bishops i. Titus equates bishop and elder in verses 1:5-9. Regarding the Office: A. The office of Elder is a divinely appointed office as defined in the Pastoral Epistles. B. Elders are apparently appointed by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). C. Should receive double honor in the church (1 Tim. 5:17). D. The pastor is an elder who preaches and/or teaches (1 Tim. 5:17). i. The pastor (elder) is to equip the body of Christ (Eph. 4:11-13). E. Must be a man (1 Tim. 2:9-13). i. All uses of "elder" are in the masculine except for 1 Tim. 5:2 where it means older women. The Responsibilities of Elders in the NT Church: A. Must shepherd the flock (1 Pet. 5:2). B. Must voluntarily exercise oversight upon the flock (1 Pet. 5:2). C. Must live as examples to the flock (1 Pet. 5:3). D. Anoint and pray for the sick (James 5:14). E. They have the tasks of teaching (1 Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:5, 9). F. They have the tasks of acting as judges (Acts 15:2, 6, 22-29; 16:4). Qualifications for an elder A. Must be above reproach (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:2) B. Husband of one wife (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:2). C. Household must be in order with children who believe (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:4). D. Not a new convert (1 Tim. 3:6). E. Self controlled and temperate (Titus 1:7; 1 Tim. 3:2). F. Honorable, hospitable, seeking good (Titus 1:8). G. Have a good reputation (1 Tim. 3:7). H. Not addicted to wine (1 Tim. 3:3). I. Not greedy (1 Tim. 3:3). J. Able to exhort (teach) sound doctrine (Titus 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:2). K. Able to refute false teaching (Titus 1:9). L. They must be ready to earn their own living if necessary (Acts 20:17, 33-35).

2.

3.

4.

127

The Crucifixion of Jesus

The crucifixion of Christ is recorded in all four gospels: Matthew 27:33-44; Mark 15:22-32; Luke 23:33-43; John 19:17-30. Crucifixion is the process where a person is nailed or bound to a cross or a stake. It was first used by the Persians and later by the Egyptians, Carthaginians, and Romans as a form of capital punishment. Alexander the Great introduced it to the Mediterranean area and the Romans perfected it as a means of capital punishment. Normally, there was a permanent stake in the ground. The victim carried the crossbar on his back to the stake which usually weighed between 50 and 75 lbs. Sometimes the person was nailed to the crossbar, other times he was tied to it. The crossbar and victim were then hoisted into place. One method was to hoist the crossbar into a notch on top of the stake so the whole thing looked like a T. Another method was to place the crossbeam a few feet below the top making a cross. Yet another method was to nail or tie the person to a single stake in the ground. Usually a small sign on a pole with the crime written on it was carried ahead of the victim in front of the procession to the cross. It was then nailed to the cross above the head of the victim. When nails were used, they were driven through the wrists between the radial and ulna bones and not through the palms since the nail would have ripped through the palm because the palm could not withstand all the weight of the body. The Physical aspect of suffering in the crucifixion Jesus agony began in Gethsemane with the sweating of blood. Hematidrosis is the name given to the rare occurrence of tiny blood capillaries in the sweat glands that rupture causing an oozing of blood to occur through the skin. "And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground," (Luke 22:44). Next, Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane at night. He was brought before the Sanhedrin and there struck by a soldier when Jesus questioned the High Priest. "And when He had said this, one of the officers standing by gave Jesus a blow, saying, "Is that the way You answer the high priest?" 23Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?" (John 18:22-23). Jesus was then blindfolded and struck in the face repeatedly. Being blindfolded meant he couldn't "roll with the punches" and the blows would have been that much more destructive. The Bible says that He was beaten so badly He could hardly be recognized. "And some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say to Him, "Prophesy!" And the officers received Him with slaps in the face," (Mark 14:65). ". . . So His appearance was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men," (Isaiah 53:14). "I gave My back to those who strike Me, and My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard; I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting," (Isaiah 50:6). Next, Jesus was stripped of His clothing and then scourged. In scourging, a soldier used a whip called a flagrum consisting of leather straps embedded with metal and glass fragments with small metal balls sewn into the end of each thong. This whip was brought down with full force and when struck against the back of Jesus, was pulled thus tearing the skin off, exposing muscle, and maybe even exposing His very bones. Undoubtedly, His back was reduced to an oozing mass of mutilated flesh. Scourging stops when it is determined that the victim is near death or 39 lashes was reached. 39 was the number of mercy according to Jewish law. By this time, Jesus was in great pain, suffering severe blood loss, and was becoming very weak and thirsty. Only after this was He taken to be crucified.

128

"Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he delivered Him to be crucified," (Matt. 27:26). They then stripped Him, put a scarlet robe on Him and placed a crown of thorns on His head. The robe would stick to the congealing blood on His back and when they ripped it from Him later, it would have been very painful and would have helped to continue the bleeding even more. They put a crown of thorns on His head. These thorns were shoved between His scalp and skull as well as ripping and tearing at the skin. Severe bleeding would ensue along with great pain. "And they spat on Him, and took the reed and began to beat Him on the head. 31And after they had mocked Him, they took His robe off and put His garments on Him, and led Him away to crucify Him," (Matt. 27:30). "And after weaving a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they kneeled down before Him and mocked Him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" (Matt. 27:29). Then Jesus was mocked and beaten another time after the scourging. He would be very weak by this time and probably could not bear the weight of the cross. So, another person was drafted to carry the cross for Him. "And as they were coming out, they found a man of Cyrene named Simon, whom they pressed into service to bear His cross," (Matt. 27:32). Jesus was lead away to the cross and finally, He was nailed to a cross-beam. Normally a person was laid down upon the cross beam and a nail driven into one wrist. Then the other hand was pulled very tightly and another nail driven into the other wrist. The nails were usually about 6-8 inches long. Placing the nail in the wrist severs the median nerve resulting in a burning pain as well as paralysis in the hand. Once Jesus was lifted to the cross, His feet were nailed to it. But, in order to do this, His knees were bent and the feet brought up a bit to allow them to lie flat against the stake so they could be nailed to it. Once suspended, the force of gravity brings the weight of the body down and the shoulders and elbows dislocate by popping out of joint, ripping ligaments. Because of the outstretched position of the arms, the chest cavity is in a perpetually expanded state and it is very difficult to breathe. With the severe loss of blood from the scourging and crucifixion, Jesus would have become dehydrated and His body would have less blood to carry oxygen. Therefore, His heart would beat faster as it attempted to compensate and His need for oxygen would increase greatly. In order to breath, Jesus had to push up on the nails in His feet to allow His chest enough flexibility to inhale. Pushing up on the nails is not only excruciating, but this meant that He had to scrap His raw, beaten back against the rough wooden stake. This whole process of breathing and exhaling by pushing up on the nails only increases in intensity as time passes. Soon, the body gets to the point of no return and the heart either ruptures or the person dies from asphyxiation. But, before that happened, the blood loss results in extreme thirst as the body craves water to restore the lost blood. Jesus said, "I thirst, (John 19:28), whereupon a soldier offered Him some sour wine (Luke 23:36), but Jesus refused it -- because He would not seek to escape any of the ordeal. In order to prolong the suffering, sometimes, the Romans would place a very small seat nailed to the stake so that the victim could partially sit on it. This would allow a small amount of rest and would greatly increase the time it took to die, sometimes several days. But in Jesus case, since He was so badly beaten before He got to the cross, He died in a short amount of time. It was, therefore, not necessary to break His legs to prevent Him from pushing up on the nails in His feet so He could breath. Jesus died a horrible death. As I read this account, I am stricken by the greatness of His sacrifice and very thankful that He loves us enough to die for us. He deserves all the glory.

129

The Plurality Study

The following study is an interesting examination of theophanies. A theophany is an appearance of God. God appears in the Old Testament in different ways: as an angel of the Lord (Acts 7:30-32; Ex. 3:2; Judges 2:1), apparently in physical form (Gen. 3:8; Ex. 24:9-11), in visions and dreams (Num. 12:6-8), and in flame (Judges 13:20-21). However, there are verses that say that you can't see God: Exodus 33:20; John 1:18). If this is so, then is there a contradiction in the Bible? No, there isn't. Study the following verses, read them in context in the Bible, and see if you can figure out what is going on. If you can't, continue reading and you'll be pleasantly surprised. These verses are taken from the New American Standard Bible. (Note: "LORD" is equivalent to YHWH, or Yahweh, or Jehovah, which is the name of God.) Plurality of God: 1. Gen. 1:26, "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . . ." 2. Gen. 19:24, "Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." 3. Amos 4:10-11, "I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt; I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, and I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils; yet you have not returned to Me,' declares the LORD. I overthrew you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah . . . '" 4. Is. 44:6, "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides me . . . " See also, Isaiah 48:16. Appearances of God 1. Gen. 17:1, "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be blameless." 2. Gen. 18:1, "Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day." 3. Exodus 6:2-3, "God spoke further to Moses and said to him, I am the LORD; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name LORD I did not make myself known to them.'" 4. Exodus 24:9-11, "Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they beheld God, and they ate and drank." 5. Exodus 33:11, "Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend..." 6. Num. 12:6-8, "He [God] said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; with him I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form of the LORD . . . " 7. Acts 7:2, "And he [Stephen] said, "Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran. . . "

130

Can't see God: 1. Ex. 33:20, "But He [God] said, You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!'" 2. John 1:18, "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father; He has explained Him." 3. 1 Tim. 6:16 "[God] who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see." 4. John 6:46, "Not that any man has seen the Father except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father." The Solution 1. 2. 3. John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Exodus 3:14, "And God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.'" Zech. 12:10, "And I [God] will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, . . . "

It is evident above that God was seen. But, considering the "Can't-see-God" verses, some would understandably argue that people have not seen God; otherwise, there would be a contradiction in the Bible. A possible explanation for this is that people were seeing visions, or dreams, or the Angel of the LORD (Num. 22:22-26; Judges 13:1-21). But the problem is that the verses cited above do not say vision, dream, or Angel of the LORD. They say that people saw God (Exodus 24:9-11), that God was seen, and that He appeared as God Almighty (Exodus 6:2-3). At first, this is difficult to understand. God Almighty was seen (Exodus 6:2-3) which means it was not the Angel of the Lord, for an angel is not God Almighty, and at least Moses saw God, not in a vision or dream, as the LORD Himself attests in Num. 12:6-8. If these verses mean what they say, then we naturally assume we have a contradiction. Actually, the contradiction exists in our understanding, not in the Bible--which is always the case with alleged biblical contradictions. The solution is simple. All you need to do is accept what the Bible says. If the people of the OT were seeing God, the Almighty God, and Jesus said that no one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46), then they were seeing God Almighty, but not the Father. It was someone else in the Godhead. I suggest that they were seeing the Word before He became incarnate. In other words, they were seeing Jesus; compare John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14 above. If God is a Trinity, then John 1:18 is not a problem either because in John chapter one, John writes about the Word (Jesus) and God (the Father). In verse 14 it says the Word became flesh. In verse 18 it says no one has seen God. Since Jesus is the Word, God then, refers to the Father, and the apparent contradiction is easily resolved, especially when this is examined in the light of Jesus' words in John 6:46 where He said that no one has ever seen the Father. Therefore, Almighty God was seen, but not the Father. It was Jesus before His incarnation. There is more than one person in the Godhead and the doctrine of the Trinity must be true. This is an interesting study to present to Jehovah's Witnesses. Since they deny the Trinity, they have to do a lot of fancy talking to explain away the theophanies. I've never yet met a J.W. who could adequately explain these verses.

131

Amillennialism and Premillennialism

The millennium is the period of time that Jesus reigns as King. There is debate as to the nature of the millennium. Is it a literal 1000 years or is it a figurative length of time? Below is a chart that simply lays out the two dominant positions: premillennialism and amillennialism. Premillennialism is the teaching concerning the end times (eschatology). It says that there is a future millennium (1000 years as mentioned in Revelation 20) where Christ will rule and reign over the earth. At the beginning of the millennium Satan and his angels will be bound and peace will exist on the entire earth. At the end of the 1000 years Satan will be released in order to raise an army against Jesus. Jesus will destroy them and then the final judgment will take place with the new heavens and the new earth being made. Amillennialism is the teaching that there is no literal 1000 year reign of Christ as referenced in Revelation 20. It sees the 1000 year period spoken of in Revelation 20 as figurative. Instead, it teaches that we are in the millennium now, and that at the return of Christ (1 Thess. 4:16 - 5:2) there will be the final judgment and the heavens and the earth will then be destroyed and remade (2 Pet. 3:10).

132

Col. 2:9 and Eph. 3:19

"For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form," (Col. 2:9, NASB). "and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fulness of God," (Eph. 3:19, NASB).

Colossains 2:9 is often used by Trinitarians to support the doctrine that Jesus is God in flesh. It clearly states that in Jesus, deity dwells. What is interesting about this verse is that it contains a word used only once in the entire Bible: "deity." Deity means, "The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity." This verse states that in Jesus dwells all the fullness of God, or all the fullness of the condition of being divine. However, critics of the doctrine of Jesus' deity will go to Eph. 3:19 which says something similar but not identical to Col. 2:9. It says ". . . that you [the Christians] may be filled up to all the fullness of God." These verses are similar and opponents of the Trinity will attempt to use Ephesians to deny that Colossians 2:9 states that Jesus is God. They rightly observe that Eph. 3:19 says that Christians are filled with the fullness of God. They then reason that if we are filled with the fullness of God and we are not divine, then when Col. 2:9 says that in Jesus dwells all the fullness of deity, then neither is He divine. One of the mistakes in the assumption that Eph. 3:19 interprets or clarifies Col. 2:9 is the failure to read the verses in context. After all, the verses in different books. Without looking at the context of both, it isn't proper to simply quote the two in juxtaposition and make a pronouncement that Col. 2:9 does not mean Jesus is God because of a slightly similar usage of words in Eph. 3:19. Therefore, let's look at the context of each. Colossians 2 v. 2 true knowledge of Gods mystery, that is, Christ Himself v. 4, that no one deceive you with persuasive arguments v. 6, walk in Christ v. 7, rooted and built up in Jesus v. 8, see to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy. v. 9, for in Jesus dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form. Ephesians 3 v. 1, Paul a prisoner of Christ. v. 3, By revelation, Paul received knowledge of 'the mystery.' v. 6, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body v. 10, in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known v. 14, Paul prays for the Ephesians v. 16, that God would strengthen them with power through the Holy Spirit. v. 17, that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith, being grounded in love v. 18, that they may comprehend with all the saints v. 19, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

As you can see, the context of Col. 2 is a warning against deception and a proclamation that in Jesus dwells all the fullness of deity. It is in Christ, in whom dwells deity, that we have protection from deception. He is our safety. In Eph. 3, the context is that the Gentiles are included in the saving plan of God, that Paul wishes that the Ephesians would be strengthened with power, that Christ would dwell in their hearts, and that they would be filled up to all the fullness of God. Obviously, the contexts are different and because they are, the phrases must be interpreted in light of them. In Col. 2:9, Jesus is the guard against deception. In Eph. 3:19, being filled with the fullness of God is contextually speaking of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (v. 16) and the indwelling of Christ (v. 17). It is in this context of indwelling that the statement is made about Christians being filled with the fullness of God. It is not saying that they are divine. Rather, it is saying that they are indwelt by God as is consistent with other scriptures.

133

John 14:23, "Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him." Rom. 8:9, "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you."

Col. 2 is a different context and is dealing with a different issue than Eph 3. Though Col. 2:9 and Eph. 3:19 use similar phrases, they are not identical. Furthermore, Col. 2:9 contains the word "deity," "theotas," which only occurs in the entire Bible once, in reference to Jesus. In Col. 2:9 it states that in Jesus dwells the fullness of deity in bodily form. In Eph. 3:19 it says that Christians may be filled up to all the fullness of God. Likewise, the phrase "fullness of God" only occurs once in the entire Bible, right here in Eph. 3:19 and it is dealing with believers being indwelt by God through the Holy Spirit (v.16). So, Eph. 3:19 cannot be used to state that Col. 2:9 does not teach Jesus is God in flesh. Furthermore, I cannot help but remember the words found in John 1:1 and verse 14 when thinking of Col. 2:9 John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:14, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

A final note: In John 14:23 and Rom. 8:9, we see the indwelling of God as a Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all said to dwell in the believer. This is the mystery and the wonder of God as a Trinity. Col. 2:9 shows us that in Jesus dwells God, bodily. Eph. 3:19 shows us that Christians are indwelt by God through the Holy Spirit. They are different. Jesus said to them "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," (John 8:58). ,

134

Parables
Parables
The parables of Jesus are treasure houses of wisdom masterfully woven in story form. They are deep, theological, practical, sometimes confusing, but always worth the effort needed to unlock their mysteries. Basically, a parable is a short story with a moral lesson. Jesus parables teach a series of moral concepts using the culture of the times. Though the parables have much to offer to us in the present day via a casual reading, they have even more to offer when we understand the culture of the time and examine them in that light. For instance, in the story of the Prodigal son, when the son asked for his fathers inheritance, that was equivalent to saying he didnt care if his father lived or died. He just wanted his money. Why? Because a son never ever asked for an inheritance until after the death of his parent. To do so prematurely was to imply he wished his parents death! There are many such cultural gems waiting for us to discover. When laid in the rich framework of the parables, we can see the majestic beauty and power of Jesus living words reflected in the light of His truth...and we are not left unaffected. In the presentation of these parables, I have gleaned heavily from the book Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes, by Kenneth E. Bailey. This book forced open my eyes when reading the parables caused me to see things in them I had never thought of before. It is important to know that the nobleman of ancient Israel did not run, but walked at a dignified pace. Then what does this mean when the Prodigals father runs to his son? Isolation from impure food and people was especially crucial for the Pharisees when they sat down to eat. How do we consider this when the Pharisee asked Jesus to eat with him and provided no means for Jesus to wash? A persons ethnic background could be seen through his speech and his clothes. How does this bear upon the Good Samaritan parable where the man is left unconscious and naked? A woman could be divorced for letting her hair down in public. What does this mean when the woman wet Jesus feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair? The parables used familiar symbols so the listener could relate and, if need be, be shocked. Whatever the outcome in the hearer, the parables required a response. Either the hearer was to change a behavior, or a thought, or a belief, or something else. But change is the reason for the parables. They were not simply stories. They were living words from the mouth of God.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

What is a parable? p. 135 Why is culture so important in understanding parables? p. 135 What did you learn from the Great Banquet Parable? pp. 136-138 What does the parable of the fig tree teach you about your own life? pp. 139-141 The Prodigal Son is about two types of sinner. Who are they? pp. 142-144 Why was the parable of the Good Samaritan so important in Jesus' time? pp. 145-147 Why was the unjust steward praised for his deceit? pp. 148-151

135

The Great Banquet Luke 14:15-24

The Old Testament background for this parable is found in Isaiah 25:6-9:
6

And the Lord of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; a banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined, aged wine. 7 And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, even the veil which is stretched over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death for all time, and the Lord God will wipe tears away from all faces, and He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; for the Lord has spoken. 9 And it will be said in that day, "Behold, this is our God for whom we have waited that He might save us. This is the Lord for whom we have waited; let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation."

15. And when one of those who were reclining at the table with Him heard this, he said to Him, "Blessed is everyone who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!" 16. But He said to him, "A certain man was giving a big dinner, and he invited many;

"To eat bread" is another way of saying, "To eat a meal."

It was the custom when giving a dinner, to invite a certain number of people. Those who accepted the invitation were then counted. The meal was prepared according to the number who accepted the invitation. The more people coming, the more food had to be prepared. For example, a chicken would be for 2-4 guests, a duck for 5-8, a lamb for 10-15, a sheep for 15-35, and a calf for 35-75. In other words, the amount and type of meat depends on the number of people who accept the invitation. Once an animal has been killed it must be eaten soon or else it will spoil. Therefore, to back out at the last minute would be rude. The invited guest is duty bound to attend the banquet. Also, it was considered very rude to attend a banquet if you were not invited; after all, the meal had not been prepared with you in mind. The second invitation is a notification to the guests that the meal is ready. The Greek word "Come" means literally, continue coming. This is consistent with the custom of a double invitation. The meal has been prepared, the table set, and people notified. To back out now is an insult. In the middle East, no one buys a field without first examining it thoroughly. The springs, wells, stone walls, trees, paths, and anticipated rainfall are all well-known long before a discussion of the purchase is even begun. The excuse is a lie, an obvious one, and the guest is stating in no uncertain terms that the field is more important than his relationship with the host. In a community where interpersonal relationships are very important, this strikes even harder as an offence.

17. and at the dinner hour he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, 'Come' for everything is ready now.' 18. but they all alike began to make excuses. the first one said to him, 'I have bought a piece of land and I need to go out and look at it; please consider me excused.'

136

19. And another one said, 'I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please consider me excused.'

Teams of oxen are sold in the Middle East in two ways. They are taken to the market place and a nearby field and there they plow the field. Anyone wishing to buy may then drive the oxen himself and examine the animals thoroughly to see if they work well as a team. That is like calling your wife at home and saying you'll be late for the big dinner that's been planned for weeks because you need to go out an look at five cars you just bought without looking at them. The other way is to announce that the team is for sale and say what day the team will be working in the field. Prospective buyers can then come to the field, watch, examine, and test them for themselves. Only after the team is examined thoroughly is a price discussed. This excuse, like the other one, is also an insult. In the tightly knit community of the Middle East a wedding calls for a celebration. At a celebration is food, lots of it. The community would have been aware of it and many people would have been invited. Meals would have been prepared before hand. Therefore, the banquet would not have been scheduled for the same day as a wedding. Also, if the man simply wants to be with his wife then why did he accept the invitation in the first place? This one doesn't even say, "Please." Anger would be a natural expectation of the head of the household. He has been insulted three times. The invited guests refuse to respond to the good news that the feast is ready. What then is the host to do? He cannot have a feast without guests. He then invites the unworthy, the poor, crippled, blind, and lame. He brings in the undesirables. So, he gives the command to bring in the poor, who aren't normally invited to banquets; the crippled, who cannot test oxen in the field; and the blind and lame who don't normally marry. They have no way of repaying the host and he knows it. Therefore, he is being gracious, very gracious in light of the insults received. Some have already been saved. But there is room for more.

20. And another one said, 'I have married a wife, and for that reason I cannot come.'

21. And the slave came back and reported this to his master. Then the head of the household became angry and said to his slave, 'Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the city and bring in here the poor and crippled and blind and lame.'

22. And the slave said, 'Master, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.' 23. And the master said to the slave, 'Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house my be filled.'

The previous guests were all part of the immediate community. But here, the highways and hedges are sought out for more to join the banquet. Isaiah 25:6-9 is important for a proper understanding of this parable. In Isaiah the Gentiles are included in the banquet with the Lord. Notice also, that the command is not carried out in this parable. It is given but no account of its fulfillment is mentioned. This is because those being compelled to enter in have not yet been all invited. Redemption is still going on.

24. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner.

137

With what would the original audience have identified in the parable? The The The The Banquet = the messianic banquet that ushers in the new age. Original Guests = the leaders of Israel who are rightfully the first to be invited. Lame and Poor of the City = the outcasts within the house of Israel. Guests from the Highways and the Hedges = the gentiles.

This parable teaches that no one may enter the kingdom of God without an invitation from God. An invitation by grace. It also is a warning to heed the invitation when it is heard. Because the invitation does not last forever. In between two great banquet parables, each declaring pure grace (the Great Banquet and the Prodigal Son), is set a collection of sayings that speaks of the high cost of discipleship in clear and demanding terms (Luke 14:25-35). The Banquet is free, the invitation by grace, but acceptance carries with it responsibility. Discipleship is our responsibility. Luke 14:25-35: Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and he turned and said to them, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.; Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and take counsel whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand/ Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks terms of peace. So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned?"

138

The Fig Tree Luke 13:1-9

1. Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled [shed along with] with their sacrifices.

Josephus, the Jewish historian of the time of Christ and after, records a number of massacres during this period, but does not mention this one. Perhaps the people reporting to Jesus were seeking to get Him to comment politically on Pilate and thereby use Jesus as a means of rallying support for their cause. Remember, the Jews were under the rule of the Roman government and resented it. Ungodly gentiles were ruling over the house of Israel. Obviously, the people doing the reporting are interested in deliverance as well as justice. They want what is right; at least, right the way they see it. Another way to look at the situation would be to imagine a church gathered one Sunday having communion. Then gunmen enter and shoot everyone present thereby mingling their blood with the wine of the supper. The natural reaction would be one of horror and hatred. This is the type of thing that is presented to Jesus. When Jesus was told about the slaughter in the temple, He responded not with indignant denunciation of Roman brutality, but with a warning to His own people to "repent". This raises an important question: Why were they told to repent after Jesus heard about the indignity? The word "fate" is not in the original and is not here intended to support the belief of fatalism. His statement that they repent or perish is a bold confrontation of sin; something the Jews did not appreciate Jesus pointing out, particularly when they are expecting Jesus to side with them about the slaughter of the Galileans. What an unexpected switch! Jesus doesn't comment on the atrocity of people killed in the act of sacrifice to the God of Israel, instead He tells the multitudes they need to repent! Jesus will not be used by the people to foster their political beliefs. Instead, He tells them to repent or perish. We know that the judging hand of God fell upon the Jewish nation in the form of its destruction in 70 A.D. when Israel was scattered and the temple destroyed. The Jewish nation had not repented of its sins of legalism, self-righteousness, and ethnic pride, all of which, combined to bring about the murder of Jesus at their hands. The Jews reaped what they sowed. The sowed death, they reaped death. However, there is not intended here a one to one correspondence on the relationship between sin and its consequences. Elsewhere Jesus denies such a correspondence. Please consider this: "And as He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?' Jesus answered, 'It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him" (John 9:1-3).

2. And He answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate? 3. I tell you, no, but, unless you repent you will all likewise perish.

139

4. Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, were worse culprits [debtors] than all the men who live in Jerusalem?

Jesus broadens the scope of the discussion by mentioning an incident where a tower fell and killed eighteen people. He uses the word in Greek for "debtor." This word stands in contrast to the word "sinners" in verse two. We are in debt to God because we have broken His laws; we have sinned. A debt is what is owed. Matthew renders the Lord's prayer as "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. The Lucan account of the same prayer uses the words "forgive us our sins..." Debts are unfulfilled duties; sins are purposefully commit acts of rebellion. The people speak of the slaughter and Jesus speaks of 18 who died long ago. The 18 were no worse than the Galileans. Why then were they all killed? Perhaps the better question might be, "Why were any left alive?" Nevertheless, there is no such thing as chance in a universe governed by God. The deaths under the tower and at the altar of sacrifice were all permitted by God. But what is Jesus saying? He me ntions the eighteen and says they are no worse than those then living in Jerusalem. Jesus' declaration of the need for Israel to repent of their sins, in the light of the slaughter of the Galileans would almost seem to bring extreme anger, even revolt against Him by those listening. After all, the Jews felt oppressed and the incident of the Galileans would only cement their attitudes of persecution and self righteousness. Leviticus 19:23-25 says, "And when you enter the land and plant all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as forbidden. Three years it shall be forbidden to you; it shall not be eaten. But in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord. And in the fifth year you are to eat of its fruit, that its yield may increase for you..." The vineyard owner was ready to eat of the fruit. But there wasn't any. It was the 7th year of looking: the 5th year fruit would have been the first year he could have partaken. The 6th year would have been the second year he could have partaken, and the 7th year would have been the year spoken of here. Therefore, he says in verse 7... The owner has the right to expect fruit from his vineyard. Symbolically, this parable seems to be teaching that the Jewish leadership has had enough time to repent of their sins. John the Baptist said to the multitudes going out to see him, "Therefore bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance..." (Luke 3:8). Years ago I came across a tract of which title alone struck me hard. It said, "No Fruit? Cut it down." As Christians we are to bear the fruit of the Spirit mentioned in Gal. 5:22: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. If these fruit are not manifested in your lives, should you be cut down? Apparently, the Jewish leadership were not manifesting the fruit of the Spirit nor the fruit of repentance. This section contains simple teachings: 1) The spiritual leaders of the household of faith are planted in "God's vineyard" and are expected to produce fruit. 2) God will not tolerate fruitlessness indefinitely. 3) Mercy and Grace are extended to those who do not bear fruit.

5. I tell you, no but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

6. And He began telling this parable: "A certain man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it, and did not find any.

7. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, 'Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?'

8. And he answered and said to him, 'Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; 9. and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.'"

140

What is the expected response of the one who hears? You should examine your own lives and look for fruit. Preferably the fruit of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Galatians 5:22, for this is how you store up fruit for eternal life (John 4:36). You must also realize that it is not possible to bear fruit apart from the Branch, Jesus (John 15), for apart from Him you can do nothing. There are many types of fruit that could be examined: giving, praying, righteousness, forgiveness, tithing, discipling others, leading others to Christ, missionary support, etc. Each is different, but from the same Lord. Each of us is different with different gifts and fruit, but we are all of the same body.

141

The Prodigal Son Luke 15:1-2, 11-32

Theme: Great joy in the salvation of the lost. 1 A son is lost - "Give me my share" | 2 Goods wasted in extravagant living | | 3 Everything lost - "He spent everything-he began to want | | | 4 The great sin - "feeding pigs for gentiles | | | | 5 Total rejection - "no one gave him anything | | | | | 6 A change of mind - "he came to himself-I perish here " | | | | | 6 An initial repentance - "make me a servant" | | | | 5 Total acceptance - "his father ran and kissed him." | | | 4 The great repentance - "I am no more worthy to be called your son. | | 3 Everything gained - a robe, ring, and shoes | 2 Goods used in joyful celebration 1 A son is found - "My son was dead and is alive, was lost and is found." In the beginning of this chapter Jesus is with the self righteous. Yet, He eats with sinners. When the righteous men of Israel complained about his "obvious" error of eating with sinners, they voice there disapproval. Jesus' reply was not one of rebuke, but of teaching; hence, several parables. The first two have three common threads running through each. 1) Something or someone is lost. 2) The lost is sought for. 3) Great joy is shared at the recovery of the thing (person) found. The third parable mentioned is slightly different in the second thread only. In it, the one who is lost returns to where he came from. 1. Now all the tax gatherers and the sinners were coming near him to listen to Him. 2. And both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them. Those in need. Eating was important in this culture because it implied fellowship, a sharing of something in common. To eat with sinners could be interpreted many ways. Here, Jesus is identifying, reaching out to the sinners. Jesus is accused of eating with sinners. He does not rebuke; He does not revile; He teaches. So should our witness be. We should be loving of all who sin, accepting of all who repent, willing to humble ourselves before men and God. Trust Him to do what is right.

11. And He said, "A certain man had two sons;

The prodigal is shown as wishing for his father's death in his request because the estate was never divided among the children until after the fathers death. The father should 12. and the younger of them said severely rebuke his son. Instead, the father shows incredible to his father, 'Father, give me the love by granting the request to his son. share of the estate that falls to me.' And he divided his wealth between them. 13. And not many days later, the He could not sell the land in the community during his younger son gathered everything father's lifetime. No one would buy it. So, he travels to a together and went on a journey distant land and sells his property, thus losing the right of into a distant country, and there redemption of the land. he squandered his estate with loose living.

142

14. Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be in need. 15. And he went and attached himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. 16. And he was longing to fill his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him. 17. But when he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger! 18. I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight; 19. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men.'"

Everything is lost.

Swine is an unclean animal. It would seem this act was one of disdain by the pig owner, "Here Jew, feed pigs."

He was totally rejected by the people around him. (The Pharisees rejected the tax-gatherers and sinners.)

His motivation was poverty. Servants were an honorable class of people. He could live in the village. He wouldn't need to live under the same roof as the eldest son. He'd have to face the scorn of the community though. It is possible that he may have wanted to pay something back to his father, but, of course, it could not possibly be enough. Is the son truly repentant at this time? It seems his goal is to become a servant, to earn money, and maybe to begin to repay what he lost.

20. And he got up and came to The Father totally accepts his son. his father. But while he was still a In that culture, older men did not run; it was a sign of long way off, his father saw him, humiliation. (Phil. 2:5-8) The son should run to the father. and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him, and kissed him. 21. And the son said to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son. 22. But the father said to his slaves, Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; 23. and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and be merry. 24. for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found. And they began to be merry. No bargaining is offered. He admits his guilt only. There is no mention of servanthood or earning anything.

Robe: sign of dignity and honor. Ring: sign of authority. Shoes: sign of not being a servant. Servants did not wear shoes. A whole calf is a lot to eat. The whole village would be invited. (Note: blood is shed) The lost son is found.

143

25. Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. 26. And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things might be. 27. And he said to him, "Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound. 28. But he became angry, and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and began entreating him.

Another son is lost. The duties of the eldest son included reconciliation between father and son. A host at feasts. The older son is in the field and not in the house where he should be. This is a public disgrace to the father.

The father went out to his son to entreat him. He did not rebuke as was customary. Again, the father goes to the son.

29. But he answered and said to When addressing the father, it should be as 'Father,' not his father, "Look! for many years simply 'Look!' This is very disrespectful (unhumble). I have been serving you, and I have never neglected a command The eldest son gives two complaints: one about the father, of yours; and yet you have never and... given me a kid, that I might be merry with my friends; 30. but when this son of yours ...the other about his brother, the sinner. (fornication, came, who has devoured your devoured your life, "ton bion" in the Greek means "the life". wealth with harlots, you killed the You killed the calf for him and not me.) fattened calf for him." 31. And he said to him, "My child, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32. But we had to be merry and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found. Teknon, child, a Greek word/term of endearment. All that is mine is yours, come join the celebration. And you were dead in our trespasses and sins, Eph. 2:1.

There are mentioned here two types of sinners: the honest manifest one, the younger son, and the hypocritical sinner, the elder. There are mentioned two types of repentance: sincere and pharisaical. The younger son's initial repentance is not sincere, v. 17, because it was motivated from hunger; but, in v. 21, he openly admits his sin. The older brother is anchored in self righteousness. His repentance is not sincere. God's great love extends to all sinners, the honest as well as the hypocritical. It endures humiliation. It exults joyously when there is true repentance. God desires sons, not servants. The lessons in this parable are many; however, the two main ones are: The unconditional love of God to everyone. The gentleness of Jesus and His not striking back in word or deed. May we learn to do as Jesus teaches. See Matthew 5:38-48.

144

The Good Samaritan Luke 10:25-37

THEME: What must I do to inherit eternal life? 25. And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26. And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" Lawyer: One who is an expert in the Law of Moses. Often this individual was called upon to settle legal issues. "He stood up." This is a social courtesy and a greeting of respect. Yet, in his heart he sought to test Jesus. This is a contradiction between his actions and his words. Jesus asks the lawyer about what he knows best: the law. He knows that keeping the law is the appropriate answer. He brings the issue out into the open. This is probably best since the Jewish leadership were probably concerned about Jesus' teachings on the Law. It is interesting that this man of the law would quote something regarding love and not some ritual or set of rules. The standard set here is one which no one could keep. Perhaps he was testing Jesus by quoting what Jesus had taught before: love.

27. And he answered and said, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." 28. And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; Do this and you will live."

Jesus, the man, instructs the man of the law, "You have answered correctly."

The expected reply would be something like, "Your relative and 29. But wishing to justify your friend." Then the lawyer would be able to say that he has done himself, he said to Jesus, this and thereby enjoy honor among the people there listening; "And who is my neighbor?" However, Jesus said... 30. Jesus replied and said, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went off leaving him half dead. There is a road that goes down from Jerusalem to Jericho. It is 17 miles long. It has long been a hazardous trip due to thieves and robbers. Jesus intentionally leaves the man undescribed. The audience, being Jewish, would naturally assume that he was a Jew. Being in this half dead state he would be unconscious. Since he is stripped, he then is unidentifiable. Historically, a person can be identified in one of two ways: his dress and his speech, i.e. dialect. The man is any person: void of ethnic background, void of stature, void of position The priest was most certainly riding because he was in the upper classes of society. The poor walk. Since, he moves to the other side, probably the priest did not actually see it happen. How can he be sure the wounded man is a neighbor since he cannot be identified? If the person lying there is a non Jew the priest could be risking defilement, especially if the person were actually dead. If he defiles himself he can not collect, distribute, and eat tithes. His family and servants will suffer the consequences

31. "And by chance a certain priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

145

with him. Priests were supposed to be ritually clean, exemplars of the law. There would be immediate shame and embarrassment suffered by them at the expense of the people and their peers for such defilement. Having just completed his mandatory two weeks of service, he would then need to return and stand at the Eastern Gate along with the rest of the unclean. Furthermore, in addition to the humiliation involved, the process of restoring ritual purity was time consuming and costly. It required finding, buying, and reducing a red heifer to ashes, and the ritual took a full week. The priest is in a predicament. Moreover, he cannot approach closer than four cubits to a dead man without being defiled, and he will have to overstep that boundary just to ascertain the condition of the wounded man. 32. "And likewise a Levite The road spoken of here is a long one. It is very likely, according also, when he came to the to those who have walked it, that a person traveling it, could see place and saw him, passed ahead of him a long way. The Levite, who is of a lower social class, by on the other side. may have been walking. He most probably saw the priest ahead of him and could have thought to himself, "If the priest may pass then so should I." 33. "But a certain Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, The Samaritans were a mixed race between the Jews of captivity and the Samaritan people of the land they were captive in. The relationship between the Jews and Samaritans was one of hostility because of some bad things that happened in the past. According to the Mishna, "He that eats the bread of the Samaritans is like to one that eats the flesh of swine, (Mishna Shebiith 8:10). The Mishna is the oral traditions that developed about the law, containing interpretations and applications to specific questions which the law deals with only in principle. Specifically, it is the collection of these traditions. The Samaritan is not a gentile. He is bound by the same law as the Jews. The Samaritan would not be naturally from that area, so the half dead man would certainly not qualify as his neighbor. The Samaritan risks defilement. He approaches this unidentifiable man and helps him. Oil and wine were poured out on the high altar before God. Note how the usage is mentioned after the Priest and Levite have failed to do their duty. Blood revenge: "Mosaic legislation established cities of refuge for people under the threat of death from blood vengeance retaliation. This legislation provided an escape valve for a custom it could not eradicate." Often when the guilty cannot be reached, vengeance may be administered to a member of his family. Often the vengeance would reach even to the most distant relations of the offending party. "Irrational minds seeking a focus for their retaliation do not make rational judgments, especially when the person involved is from a hated minority community."

34. "and came to him, and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

146

35. "And on the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return, I will repay you.'

The Samaritan forfeits anonymity when he stays overnight and then says he would return. This is an acceptance of the potential threat of blood vengeance. The wounded man has no money. When it is time for him to leave, if he cannot pay the debt he can be arrested, Matthew 18:23-35. The Samaritan knows this and volunteers money and whatever else is needed to see to the needs of this unidentified man. Additionally, the Samaritan had no way of insuring the return of his money. Therefore, it is safe to assume he did not expect it to be returned.

The Robbers Rob him Leave him dying Abandon him

The Samaritan Pays for him Leaves him cared for Promises to return

The robbers hurt the man by violence, the Priest and Levite, by neglect. All three are guilty. "To the one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin," (James 4:17). 63. "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?" Jesus refuses to define who a neighbor is. Instead He asks a question proving something greater than the exact answer anticipated. Being a neighbor to someone is not limited to family relations or proximity. It is showing the love of God to all who are in need, who ever they may be, where ever they may be.

73. And he said, "the one The discussion began with a question: what must I do inherit who showed mercy toward eternal life. The conclusion is answered with what must be done. him." And Jesus said to If we are to do this, we will quickly find that we are incapable of him, "Go and do the completing so perfect a love. Since the law requires perfect same." obedience, the doing of this lesson would be something most difficult for the lawyer. This parable teaches the impossibility of earning one's salvation. The standard, which is perfect love, is too high. It holds up an ethical level for us to strive for, see Matthew 5:48. It attacks racial prejudices. It teaches that love is something you feel and do.

147

The Unjust Steward Luke 16:1-8

A. Now He was also saying to the disciples, 'There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and this steward was reported to him as squandering his possessions. B. And he called him and said to him, "What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward."

Rich Man and Steward

Problem

B. and the steward said to himself, "What shall I do, since my Problem master is taking the stewardship away from me? I am not strong enough to dig; I am ashamed to beg. C. I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from the Idea stewardship, they will receive me into their homes." B. And he summoned each one of his master's debtors, and he began saying to the first, "How much more do you owe my master?" And he said, "A hundred measures of oil." And he said to him, "Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty." Solution

B. Then he said to another, "And how much do you owe?" And Solution he said, "A hundred measures of wheat." He said to him, "Take your bill, and write eighty." A. And his master praised the unrighteous steward because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light. Rich Man and Steward

Many commentators agree that this parable is the most difficult of all the parables to interpret. In fact, it is interesting to note that there are other "unsavory" characters in Jesus parables: The unjust judge, the neighbor who does not want to be bothered in the night, and the man who pockets someone elses treasure by buying his field. The seeming incongruity of a story that praises a scoundrel has been an embarrassment to the Church at least since Julian the Apostate used the parable to assert the inferiority of the Christian faith and its founder. We need a more precise understanding of the culture that affects this text. The disciples are the primary audience, but the Pharisees are also included (v. 14). Questions to ask: 1. Is the master assumed to be an honorable man, or is he a partner-in-crime with his steward? 2. Has the steward obliged the renters to sign bills for amounts greater than the actual debts? 3. Is his reduction of the debts merely a surrender of his dishonest cut? 4. Is the steward an estate manager dealing with land rentals or is he an authorized agent for a moneylender? The most probable cultural setting for the parable is that of a large estate consisting of land divided into portions, where the steward is entrusted with carrying the business of that estate. The debtors are most likely renters who had agreed to pay a fixed amount of produce for the yearly rent. The steward was no doubt making extras "under the table," but these amounts were not

148

reflected in the signed bills. He was a salaried official who, in addition, was paid a specific fee by the renter for each contract. The master was a man of noble character respected in the community who cared enough about his own wealth to fire a wasteful manager, and this is the key to understanding this parable. Mishnah, a Hebrew term meaning "repetition" or "study," is the name given to the oldest postbiblical codification of Jewish Oral Law. Together with the Gemara (later commentaries on the Mishnah itself), it forms the TALMUD. Between 400 BC and the beginning of the Christian Era, the biblical laws (see TORAH) were intensively studied, applied to new situations, and supplemented by traditions of popular observance and by precedents established by prominent leaders. This material, long transmitted by word of mouth and known as the Oral Torah, defined the meaning of biblical laws. After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, the Jewish scholars and teachers called tannaim continued to elaborate and systematize the Oral Torah. About AD 200, Rabbi JUDAH HA-NASI promulgated a collection of the most reliable traditions. This work, the Mishnah, became the official text out of which further Jewish legal development occurred. 1. Now He was also saying to the disciples, 'There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and this steward was reported to him as squandering his possessions. 2. And he called him and said to him, "What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward." Someone apparently cared enough about the master to tell him something was wrong. Often tenants disliked the landowners and would not voluntarily help him. The servant does not know how much the master knows and may be frightened into divulging information the master does not have. So, he remains silent.

3. and the steward said to himself, The steward remained silent. He does not defend "What shall I do, since my master is himself. In the culture of the time, this is almost an taking the stewardship away from me? I admission of guilt. He thinks of a way to cover himself am not strong enough to dig; I am after he has been let go. ashamed to beg. It is not known if the steward is fired now or later? Is he asked to get the books now or get them ready to be examined? 4. I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from the stewardship, they will receive me into their homes." 5. And he summoned each one of his master's debtors, and he began saying to the first, "How much more do you owe my master?" The steward acts as though he is not yet fired: he says, when I am removed...; yet, earlier, the landowner had said, you can no longer be steward, present tense. So, it is most likely that he was fired on the spot. But, the word apparently isn't out yet. The steward does not say "Hello" or "Friend." He is in a hurry.

6. And he said, "A hundred measures of If the renters know that the steward has been fired oil." And he said to him, "Take your bill, and they agree to the deal they would risk being thrown and sit down quickly and write fifty." off the land by the landowner, not to mention sinning in their dishonesty. The relationship between the owner of the land and his renters is a significant personal and economic relationship. "Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty" is an attempt by the steward to finish before the master finds out what is going on. 7. Then he said to another, "And how If the renters did not think that the steward was much do you owe?" And he said, "A acting with the approval of the landowner they would not hundred measures of wheat." He said to have agreed; the risk would be too great. him, "Take your bill, and write eighty." In this account, the steward receives credit for having arranged such a good deal between the landowner and

149

the renters. The renters, would be very appreciative and indebted to the steward. Generally, reductions of rent were expected if the conditions warranted it: a dried spring, fruit trees drying, drought, etc. But the renters would have to ask for the reduction and then proceed to haggle. Here, though, the reduction is unsolicited. 8. And his master praised the Why does the landowner praise the unjust steward? unrighteous steward because he had It would be quite safe to assume that there is some acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age sort of celebrating occurring in the homes of the renters are more shrewd in relation to their own as they rejoice in, what they think is, the generosity of kind than the sons of light. the landowner. Soon the whole community would be aware of the kind heartedness of the landowner and would be happy with the renters as well as thinking honorably of the generous landowner. He has two alternatives: First, he could gather the renters and tell them that the reductions were unauthorized and thereby showing his stinginess and risking ridicule from them and the community. Second, he can keep silent, accept the praise that is even now being showered on him, and allow the clever steward to get away with the scheme. Obviously, the steward knew the master was a generous person, otherwise he would not have taken such a risk; after all, he wasn't jailed to begin with. In verse 9 Jesus is not praising the dishonesty, but the ability of the steward to recognize the generosity of his master, see what was coming, and use what he had at the time to obtain something far greater: self preservation. This is significant. The fear of the Lord is te beginning of Wisdom. God can condemn you to eternal damnation. It is wise to seek a way out of that. In fact, the judgment of damnation is so terrible, that praise is offered to the one who, in desperation, seeks a way out of it. If the unrighteous steward was praised for trusting the master, how much mo re will you be rewarded if you trust the true and holy Master, the Lord Himself. Jesus uses the rabbinic principle of showing "how much more." That is, if the widow got what she wanted from the judge (18:1-9), how much more you and God? If the man got bread in the night from his neighbor (11:5-7), how much more you from God? What, then, does the parable typify? 1. 2. 3. 4. God (the master) is a God of judgment and mercy. Because of his evil, man (the steward) is caught in the crisis of the coming of the kingdom. Excuses will avail the steward nothing. Man's only option is to entrust everything to the unfailing mercy of his generous master who, he can be confident, will accept to pay the price for man's salvation.

The steward was vindicated because he completely trusted the master to be generous, to be good. He was right in doing so!!! This parable is an appeal to people to understand the nature of God. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The nature of God: He is merciful The predicament of man: he is sinful The ground for salvation: complete trust in God. How much more dishonest to God are we? How much more deceitful are we? How much more do we owe to God? How much more merciful is God than the rich man?

150

God (the master) is a God of judgment and mercy. Because of the stewards evil behavior, he is found out. This is representative of the coming kingdom of God and its associated judgment. Excuses will avail the steward nothing. Mans only option is to entrust everything to the unfailing mercy of his generous master who, he can be c onfident, will accept to pay the price for mans salvation. This clever scoundrel was wise enough to place his total trust in the quality of mercy experienced at the beginning of the story. That trust was vindicated. Christians need the same kind of wisdom.

Who is God to you? What do you think of Him? How do you perceive Him? Is He mean? Loving? Kind? Impatient? Judgmental? How you perceive God will determine how you respond to Him how you address Him how often you call upon Him How you view troubles .....and how much you trust Him.

How much more merciful is God than the rich man?

151

152

Dictionary of Theology
Introduction

Words are the tools of theology. Do you know what they mean? Following are a list of words that you should know if you want to understand your theology a little better and also if you want to be able to defend the faith more clearly. Active Obedience Agnosticism Antinomianism Apolo getics Armageddon Atheism Atonement Baptism Catholic Christ Communion Covenant Depravity Divinity Doctrine Eschatology Eternal life Evolution Faith Fellowship Firstborn Gnosticism Gospel Grace Heaven Hell Holy Spirit, The Hypostatic Union Immutability Incarnation Inspiration Justification Martyr Mediator Messiah Monotheism Original Sin Pantheism Polytheism Postmodernism Predestination Purgatory Regeneration Resurrection Salvation Septuagint, The Spiritual Gifts Tetragrammaton Tribulation, The Trinity

153

A.D. From the Latin, "Anno Domini," which means in the year of our Lord. The Western Calendar is dated from the birth of Christ. Therefore, 2000 A.D. means 2000 years after the birth of Jesus. A priori Knowledge, judgments, and principles which are true without verification or testing. It is universally true. Abaddon The Hebrew word for "destroyer" whose Greek equivalent was "Apollyon." Abaddon is the satanic angel of the Abyss (Rev. 9:11 ). Absolution In Catholicism, the act of releasing someone from their sin by God, through the means of a priest. Abyss The abode of the dead and the place where evil spirits are imprisoned (Rev. 9:1-11). Active Obedience As distinguished from passive obedience in Reformed Theology. Active obedience is Jesus' actively fulfilling all the law of God. This active obedience is imputed to the believer when he believes; that is, God reckons to the believer the righteousness of Christ when the believer trusts in Christ and His work. Adiaphora Teachings and practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden in scripture. An example might be whether or not to use a sound-board in a church, to meet in a tent or a building, to have two or more services or simply one on the day of worship. Adoptionism Adoptionism is an error concerning Jesus that first appeared in the second century. Those who held it denied the preexistence of Christ and, therefore, His deity. Adoptionists taught that Jesus was tested by God and after passing this test and upon His baptism, He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son. As a reward for His great accomplishments and perfect character Jesus was raised from the dead and adopted into the Godhead. Please see Heresies for more information. Advent From the latin, coming. The coming of or the arrival of something very important as in the advent of Christs return. Advent is also an Christian time of preparation preceding Christmas. Agnosticism The belief that it is not possible to know if there is or is not a God. (Compare Atheism, Deism, and Theism.) Albigenses A heresy during the middle ages that developed in the town Albi in Southern France. This error taught that there were two gods: the good god of light usually referred to as Jesus in the New Testament and the god of darkness and evil usually associated with Satan and the "God of the Old Testament." Anything material was considered evil including the body that was created by Satan. The soul, created by the good god, was imprisoned in the evil flesh and salvation was possible only through holy living and doing good works. Please see Heresies for more information.

154

Amillennialism The teaching that there is no literal 1000 year reign of Christ as referenced in Revelation 20. It sees the 1000 year period spoken of in Revelation 20 as figurative. Instead, it teaches that we are in the millennium now, and that at the return of Christ (1 Thess. 4:16 - 5:2) there will be the final judgment and the heavens and the earth will then be destroyed and remade (2 Pet. 3:10). The Amillennial view is as old as the Premillennial view. (Also compare to Postmillennialism). Anabaptists Any of a group of sects of the early Reformation period of the 16th century that believed in rebaptism of people as adults. Infant baptism was not recognized as valid and the Catholic Mass was rejected. Anabaptist means one who baptizes again. They believed in non-violence and opposed state run churches. Angel Angel means messenger. Angels are created (Psalm 148:2,5; Col. 1:16), non-human, spirit beings (Heb. 1:14). They are immortal (Luke 20:36), innumerable (Heb. 12:22), invisible (Num. 22:22-31), sexless (Matt. 22:30), and do the will of God (Psalm 103:20). These angels have a ministry to believers. They guide (Gen. 24:7, 40), protect (Psalm 34:7), and comfort (Acts 27:2, 24). There are good angels (Gen. 28:12; Psalm 91:11) and bad angels (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). The only angels mentioned by name are Gabriel (Dan. 8:16; 9:21 ), Michael (Dan. 10:13,21; 112:1), and Lucifer (Luke 10:18). Michael is always mentioned in the context of battle (Dan. 10:13) and Ga briel as a messenger (Luke 1:26). Of course, Lucifer, who became Satan, is the one who opposes God. Angels were originally created for the purpose of serving and carrying out the will of God. The fallen angels rebelled and became evil angels. Satan is such an angel (Isaiah 14:12-16; Ezekiel 28:1215). Animism The belief that everything in the universe contains a living soul. The belief that a spirit indwells every object. Annihilationism The teaching that when a person dies, he is annihilated, most often this doctrine is applied to the wicked, thereby negating eternal hell fire. This is contradicted by the Bible in Matt. 25:46 which says And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. Also, degrees of punishment will be given on the Day of Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). If all, or only the wicked are annihilated, then degrees of punishment would be pointless. Anthropic Principle The idea that the universe exhibits elements of design specifically for the purpose of containing intelligent beings; namely, humans. Much debate surrounds this issue. Is the universe necessarily arranged by God so as to make life possible or is it simply that the universe is godless and that life came into existence due to the chance state that we now find it in? Anthropomorphic Manifesting in human form. It is from the Greek "anthropos" meaning "man" and "morphe" meaning "form." In biblical theology, God is described in anthropomorphic terms; that is, in human terms with human attributes. For example, God has hands and feet in Exodus 24:9-11 and is loving (1 John 4:8). Antichrist A figure who opposes God. The word is used to describe a spirit of rebellion against God, "...the spirit of the Antichrist..." (1 John 4:3) and of a specific future person identified as the man of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:3). He actively opposes Christ (2 Thess. 2:4) and when he arrives, he will be able to perform miracles (2 Thess. 2:9). Some believe he will be an incarnation of Satan and as such will be able to deceive many. His number is 666 (Rev. 13:18). A further possible description of him might be found in Zech. 11:15-17).

155

Antinomianism The word comes from the Greek anti, against, and nomos, law. It is the unbiblical practice of living without regard to the righteousness of God, using God's grace as a license to sin, and trusting grace to cleanse of sin. In other words, since grace is infinite and we are saved by grace, then we can sin all we want and still be saved. It is wrong because even though as Christians we are not under the Law (Rom. 6:14), we still fulfill the Law in the Law of love (Rom. 13:8,10; Gal. 5:14; 6:2). We are to love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves (Luke 10:27) and, thereby, avoid the offense of sin which cost God His only begotten Son. Paul speaks against the concept of antinomianism in Rom. 6:1-2: "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" We are not to use the grace of God as a means of sin. Instead, we are to be controlled by the love of God and in that way bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25). Apollyon Greek for "destroyer." He is the angel of the Abyss, "They have as king over them, the angel of the abyss; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in the Greek he has the name Apollyon," (Rev. 9:11 ). Apparition An unexpected, supernatural appearance of a ghost or a person. Folklore of apparitions are particularly strong among Catholics who claim appearances of the saints, Mary, and Jesus with messages of repentance and turning to the Catholic sacraments and confession. Apocalypse From the Greek word for "revelation," or "unveiling." It is synonymous with Armageddon and refers to those future things dealing with the return of Christ and the great battle of Armageddon. Apocrypha The word apocrypha means hidden. It is used in a general sense to describe a list of books written by Jews between 300 and 100 B.C. More specifically, it is used of the seven additional books accepted by the Catholic church as being inspired. The entire list of books of the apocrypha are: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch The Jews never recognized these books as being canonical (inspired). There is no record that Jesus or the apostles ever quoted from the apocryphal books. The Septuagint (LXX) includes the books, not as scripture, but as part of the translation of the Hebrew manuscripts as a whole. Apollinarianism Apollinarianism was the heresy taught by Apollinaris the Younger, bishop of Laodicea in Syria about 361. He taught that the Logos of God, which became the divine nature of Christ, took the place of the rational human soul of Jesus and that the body of Christ was a glorified form of human nature. In other words, though Jesus was a man, He did not have a human mind but that the mind of Christ was solely divine. Please see Heresies for more information. Apologetics The word "apologetics" is derived from the Greek word "apologia," which means to make a defense. It has come to mean defense of the faith. Apologetics covers many areas: who Jesus is, the reliability of the Bible, refuting cults, biblical evidences in the history and archeology, answering objections, etc. In short, it deals with giving reasons for Christianity being the true religion. We are called by God to give an apologia, a defense: "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence," (1 Pet. 3:15).

156

Apostasy The falling away from the faith. It is a revolt against the truth of Gods word by a believer. It can also describe a group or church organization that has "fallen away" from the truths of Christianity as revealed in the Bible. Apostle Someone sent with a special message or commission. Jesus is called the apostle and high Priest of our confession in Hebrews 3:1. The twelve apostles of Jesus were Simon Peter, Andrew, James the son of Zebedee, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot. Paul became an apostle after Jesus' resurrection (2 Cor. 1:1), along with Barnabas (Acts 14:14), and others. Apostles established churches (Rom. 15:17-20), exposed error (Gal. 1:6-9), and defended the truth of the gospel (Phil. 1:7,17). Some were empowered by the Holy Spirit to perform Miracles (Matt. 10:1,8) and they were to preach the gospel (Matt. 28:19,20). Archangel In the Bible, a Greek word found only in the New Testament in two places: 1 Thess. 4:16, "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first"; and Jude 9, "But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you.'" Archangels seem to of a class of angels of great rank and power. Apparently, there are three archangels named: Michael, Gabriel, and Lucifer. Argumentum ad hominem An irrelevant attack upon a person to deflect the argument from the facts and reasons. Argumentum ad judicium An argument where appeal is made to common sense and the judgment of people as validating a point. Argumentum ad populum An argument where appeal is made to emotions: loyalties, patriotism, prejudices, etc. Argumentum ad verecundiam An argument using respect for great men, customs, institutions, and authority in an attempt to strengthen one's argument and provide an illusion of proof. Arianism An ancient theological error that appeared around the year 320. It taught that God could not appear on the earth, that Jesus was not eternal and could not be God. Additionally, it taught that there was only one person in the Godhead: the Father. Jesus, then, was a creation. It was condemned by the Council of Nicea in 325. The Jehovah's Witness cult is an equivalent, though not exactly, of this ancient error. Ark of the Covenant Also called the "Ark of the Testimony," (Ex. 30:6), "Ark of God," (1 Sam. 3:3), and the "Ark of the covenant of the Lord," (Deut. 10:8). The Ark of the Covenant was very sacred to the Ancient Jews. It was a rectangular box made of Acacia wood about 4 x 1.5 x 1.5 feet. It was covered with gold and was carried by poles that were inserted into rings located on the four corners. On top was a lid called "The Mercy Seat" which had two Cherubs with outstretched wings pointing towards each other. Inside of the Ark were the tablets of the Ten Commandments, a jar of manna, and Aaron's Rod that budded (Heb. 9:4). It served as the symbol of the very presence of God. The Ark of the Covenant was place in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple. Once a year, the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies and sprinkle blood on the Mercy Seat. This was symbolic of the forgiveness of the sins of the Jewish nation.

157

Armageddon The word "armageddon" only occurs in Rev. 16:16. It is the location of the final great battle between good and evil called the Great Day of God Almighty. Arminianism There are five main tenets of Arminianism: 1) God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief, 2) Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved, 3) Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed, 4) This grace may be resisted, 5) Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation. 1 8 (Compare with Calvinism) Ascension The bodily taking up of Jesus into the heavens to be at the right hand of God the Father. The account of Jesus' ascension is record by Luke in Acts 1:4-11. Ascended Master A New Age term designating a person of great learning and wisdom who lives on the astral plane. They are not physical beings. An astral plane is another dimension of reality beyond our world and is outside of time and space. Supposedly, Jesus, Buddha, Confuscious, etc. were Ascended Masters. Assumption In Catholicism the taking of the body and soul of Mary, by God, into glory. Catholic doctrine, , apparently, does not state whether or not Mary died, but tradition holds that she died and was immediately afterward assumed into heaven both body and soul. Assurance Theologically, assurance is the state of being confident in a condition or outcome. Usually it is applied to ones assurance of salvation. Texts often used to support assurance of salvation are John 10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand, and 1 John 5:13, These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life. This assurance is given by the Holy Spirit. Astral Projection In Eastern metaphysical and new age philosophies, astral projection is the practice of the soul leaving the human body and traveling around this world or other planes of existence. Astrology A system of divination using the positions of starts, planets, and the moon, in the twelve Zodiac signs, as a means to predict the future. One's birth date falls into a Zodia sign and this is used in determining predictive events in relation to the astral body positions. Astrology is very prominent in the New Age. Atheism This word comes from two Greek words, a the negator, and theos, God. Atheism teaches that there is no God of any kind, anywhere, anytime. Some atheists claim to "Excercise no belief in a god" the same way they would exercise no belief in pink unicorns. Logically, an atheist would be an evolutionist. The Bible teaches that all men know there is a God (Rom. 2:14-15). Therefore, they will be without excuse (Rom. 1:20 ) on the Day of Judgment. Instead, atheists willingly suppress the knowledge of God by their unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-19).

18

This information was taken from Baker's Dictionary of Theology, ed. E. Harrison, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan), 1960. p. 64.

158

Atonement To atone means to make amends, to repair a wrong done. Biblically, it means to remove sin. The Old Testament atonements offered by the high priest were temporary and a foreshadow of the real and final atonement made by Jesus. Jesus atoned for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). This atonement is received by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9). Man is a sinner (Rom. 5:8) and cannot atone for himself. Therefore, it was the love of the Father that sent Jesus (1 John 4:10) to die in our place (1 Pet. 3:18) for our sins (1 Pet. 2:24). Because of the atonement, our fellowship with God is restored (Rom. 5:10). (See Reconciliation.) Aura A term used frequently used by New Agers to describe a field of energy emitted by every living thing, particularly people. This aura takes on different colors depending on the person's mood, state of wellness, etc., and some New Age practitioners claim the ability to interpret the colors and diagnosis various conditions and states of mind of the person with the aura. See also, Chakra. Autograph An original writing of a biblical document. The original manuscript written. The autographs would be the actual, original written document from which copies are made. Autonomy Freedom from all external constraints. Independence consisting of self-determination. Baal A Canaanite god. The word means "lord" or "husband." He was a god of weather, associated with thunder, who appointed the times of the rains, and was considered to be the son of the pagan god Dagon. The ancient Jews were often tempted to follow Baal because so much of their lives depended upon the rain that fed the crops. Babel The Hebrew name for Babylon, one of the cities founded by Nimrod. In Gen. 11:1-9, it is the location where the entire world spoke a single language and worked together to build a tower into the heavens. It was representative of the great pride of man. God confused their languages. The building of the tower ceased and they dispersed. Babel, Tower of The tower built the builders at Babel constructed which became a symbol of their defiance against God (Gen. 11:1-6). It was probably modeled after a ziggurat that is a mound of sun-dried bricks and was probably constructed before 4,000 BC. Baptism An immersion or sprinkling of water that signifies one's identification with a belief or cause. In Christianity it is the believer's identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:4-54). It is done in the name and authority (Acts 4:7) of Christ with the baptismal formula of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). It does not save us (1 Pet. 3:21). However, it is our obligation, as believers, to receive it. Some maintain that baptism is necessary for salvation. It is not. If you want to read more on this see Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? Baptismal Regeneration The belief that baptism is essential to salvation, that it is the means where forgiveness of sins is made real to the believer. This is incorrect. Paul said that he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize (1 Cor. 1:14-17). If baptism were essential to salvation, then Paul would have included it in his standard practice and preaching of the salvation message of Jesus, but he did not. (See also Col. 2:1011.) For more information on this see Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

159

Bible A book or collection of sacred writings. The term "bible" is best known in reference to the Christian Scriptures consisting of the both the Old and New Testaments. The word comes from the Greek, biblios, meaning "book." Blasphemy Speaking evil of God or denying Him some good which we should attribute to Him. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is stating that Jesus did his miracles by the power of the devil (Matt. 12:22-32) and is an unforgivable sin (Mark 3:28-30). Blasphemy arises out of pride (Psalm 73:9,11), hatred (Psalm 74:18), injustice (Isaiah 52:5), etc. Christ was mistakenly accused of blasphemy (John 10:30-33). Book of Life A book kept by God with the list of names of people who will escape God's wrath (Psalm 69:28; Rev. 21:27). Those who names are not in the book of Life are cast into hell (Rev. 20:15). Born Again The new birth enjoyed by a Christian upon his conversion and regeneration. It is a work of the Holy Spirit within a believer. It is related to faith in Christ and Him crucified (John 3:3-5). It means that the person is no longer dead in sins (Eph. 2:1), no longer spiritually blind (1 Cor. 2:14), and is now a new creation in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17). Calvinism A system of Christian interpretation initiated by John Calvin. It emphasizes predestination and salvation. The five points of Calvinism were developed in response to the Arminian position (See Arminianism). Calvinism teaches: 1) Total depravity: that man is touched by sin in all parts of his being: body, soul, mind, and emotions, 2) Unconditional Election: that Gods favor to Man is completely by Gods free choice and has nothing to do with Man. It is completely undeserved by Man and is not based on anything God sees in man (Eph. 1:1-11), 3) Limited atonement: that Christ did not bear the sins of every individual who ever lived, but instead only bore the sins of those who were elected into salvation (John 10:11,15), 4) Irresistible grace: that God's call to someone for salvation cannot be resisted, 5) Perseverance of the saints: that it is not possible to lose one's salvation (John 10:27-28). Canon This is another word for scripture. The Canon consists of the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New. The Canon is closed which means there is no more revelation to become Scripture. Capital sins In Catholicism, the seven causes of all sin: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, sloth Catholic Universal, the entire Christian Church. Often applied to the Roman Catholic Church. Actually, the word simply means universal. Causality The relationship between cause and effect. The principle that all events have sufficient causes. Chakra In Yoga, an alleged focal point of energy in the human body with its own frequency. It is a Hindi term. Supposedly, there are seven chakras located in the head, throat, chest, abdomen, groin, etc. Chakras are often utilized in New Age practices. See also, Aura.

160

Channeling A new age practice where a person goes into an altered state of consciousness and allows another spirit or entity to enter him/her in order to communicate to us. According to New Age teaching, this spirit or entity can be from another dimension, the spirit realm, or from another part of the galaxy or universe. Charismatic Gifts The special spiritual gifts given to the church. They are for edifying and building up the church. They are mentioned in Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12, and 1 Cor. 14: Word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, distinguishing of spirits, tongues, interpretation of tongues. Chiliasm Also known as millennialism The belief that there is a future 1000 year reign of Christ where . perfect peace will reign and the Lord Jesus will be King on earth. Christ Christ is a title. It is the N.T. equivalent of the O.T. term "messiah" and means "anointed one." It is applied to Jesus as the anointed one who delivers from sin. Jesus alone is the Christ. As the Christ He has three offices: Prophet, Priest, and King. As a Prophet He is the mouthpiece of God (Matt. 5:27-28) and represents God to man. As Priest He represents man to God and restores fellowship between them by offering Himself as the sacrifice that removed the sin of those saved. As King He rules over His kingdom. By virtue of Christ creating all things (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17), He has the right to rule. Christ has come to do the will of the Father (John 6:38), to save sinners (Luke 19:10), to fulfill the O.T. (Matt. 5:17), to destroy the works of Satan (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8), and to give life (John 10:10,28). Christ is holy (Luke 1:35), righteous (Isaiah 53:11), sinless (2 Cor. 5:21), humble (Phil. 2:5-8), and forgiving (Luke 5:20; 7:48; 23:34). Christian The word "Christian" comes from the Greek word christianos which is derived from the word christos, or Christ, which means "anointed one." A Christian, then, is someone who is a follower of Christ. The first use of the word "Christian" in the Bible is found in Acts 11:26, "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." It is found only twice more in Acts 26:28 and 1 Pet. 4:16. However, it is important to note that it is the true Christ that makes someone a Christian, not the Mormon one (brother of the devil), or the JW one (Michael the Archangel), the New Age Jesus (a man in tune with the divine Christ Consciousness), etc. The true Christ is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8): Jesus. Christology The study of Christ (Jesus) as revealed in the Bible. Some of the issues studied are: 1) His deity, 2) His incarnation, 3) His offices (See Christ), 4) His sacrifice, 5) His resurrection, 6) His teaching, 7) His relation to God and man, and 8) His return to earth. Church The word is used in two senses: the visible and the invisible church. The visible church consists of all the people that claim to be Christians and go to church. The invisible church is the actual body of Christians; those who are truly saved. The true church of God is not an organization on earth consisting of people and buildings, but is really a supernatural entity comprised of those who are saved by Jesus. It spans the entire time of man's existence on earth as well as all people who are called into it. We become members of the church (body of Christ) by faith (Acts 2:41). We are edified by the Word (Eph. 4:15-16), disciplined by God (Matt. 18:15-17), unified in Christ (Gal. 3:28), and sanctified by the Spirit (Eph. 5:26-27). Circumcision An operation (note the shedding of blood) that entered one into the covenant in O.T. times. It was instituted by God (Gen. 17:10-14) and performed on the eighth day after birth (Luke 1:59). It was a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham (Gen. 17:12; Rom. 4:11). In the N.T. the physical

161

operation is not practiced. Instead, a circumcision of the heart of the Christian is taught (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). This is the true circumcision (Rom. 2:29). Codex An early book form made from papyri leaves cut, folded, and sewn together in the middle to make a book. First used in the 2nd century. Common Grace The grace of God given to the creation as a whole. God still allows the sun to shine upon the unsaved. He feeds them, allows them to work, and have joy. It is common grace that "restrains" the wrath of God until a later time. It is in special grace that salvation is given to the Christians. Communion The Lord's Supper (Matt. 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-20; 1 Cor. 1:23-26). It is the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42,46) and a time to give thanks (Luke 22:17,19). It was originally instituted by Jesus (Matt. 26:26-29) on the night of the Passover meal which was an annual occurrence celebrating the "passing over" of the angel of death that claimed the firstborn of every house in Egypt (Exodus 12). The Lord's Supper, or communion, replaces the Passover meal with the "body and blood," (Mark 14:22-24) of Jesus. It is to be taken only by believers (1 Cor. 11:23-28). (For further study see John 6:26-58 and 1 Cor. 11:27-34). Condemnation Declaring an evildoer to be guilty; the punishment inflicted. Without Jesus we stand condemned before God not only because of the sin of Adam (Rom. 5:16-18) but also because of our own sin (Matt. 12:37). However, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death," (Rom. 8:1-2). Christians have passed out of condemnatio n because they are forgiven in Christ. Conditional immortality The view that immortality is given only to those Christians who believe in Christ. The rest are destroyed and do not exist. Some adherents to conditional immortality believe that the wicked will be punished in hell for a period proportional to their sins and then they are annihilated. Confession The act of disclosing one's sins. In Catholicism, it is telling sins to a priest and the Lord forgives the person through the priest. Biblically, confession of sins is done to the one offended without the mediatorship of a priest. Confessional In Catholicism, a small compartment where the priest hears the confessed sins of a sinner. Confirmation In Catholicism, a ceremony performed by a bishop that is supposed to strengthen a person and enable him to resist sin. It is usually done at the age of 12. The Bishop dips his right thumb in holy oil and anoints the person on the forehead by making the sign of the cross and says, "Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit." Consubstantiation It means an inclusion of one substance in another where the body and blood of Christ co-exist in the elements of the Supper. It suggests that a third substance is formed. The body and blood of Christ are "in, with, and under" the elements. There is no permanent relationship with the elements. Instead, the association is limited to the sacramental action. The transformation is effected by the Word of God and not by a priest.

162

Contrition In Catholicism, extreme sorrow for having sinned with a deep repentance concerning that sin. Conversion Turning from evil to God. God converts (Acts 21:19) the unsaved into the saved, from the unregenerate to the regenerate. It is produced through the preaching of the gospel (Rom. 10:14; 1 Cor. 15:1-4) and results in repentance (Acts 26:20) and a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). The fruits of conversion are listed in Gal. 5:22-23. Conviction The work of the Holy Spirit where a person is able to see himself as God sees him: guilty, defiled, and totally unable to save himself (John 16:8). Conviction of the Holy Spirit of an unbeliever reveals sinfulness and guilt and brings fear. Conviction of the Holy Spirit of the believer brings an awareness of sin and results in confession and cleansing. This conviction is produced by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), the Gospel (Acts 2:37), the conscience (Rom. 2:15), and the Law (James 2:9). Conviction of our sins brings us to the cross. It shows us our need for forgiveness. Coptic The Afro-Asiatic language of the Copts, which survives only as a liturgical language of the Coptic Church. Cosmological argument An attempt to prove that God exists by appealing to the principle that all things have causes. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes, therefore, there must be an uncaused cause: God. Cosmology The study of the origin and structure of the universe. Covenant An agreement between two parties. The agreement, according to Ancient Near East custom, consists of five parts: 1) Identification of parties, 2) Historical prologue where the deeds establishing the worthiness of the dominant party is established, 3) Conditions of the agreement, 4) Rewards and punishments in regard to keeping the conditions, and 5) Disposition of the documents where each party receives a copy of the agreement (e.g. the two tablets of stone of the 10 Commandments). Ultimately, the covenants God has ma de with man result in our benefit. We receive eternal blessings from the covenant of grace. (For further study see Gen. 2:16-17; 9:1-17; 15:18; Gen. 26:35; Gal. 3:16-18; Luke 1:68-79; Heb. 13:20). Covenant Theology A system of theology that views God's dealings with man in respect of covenants rather than dispensations (periods of time). It represents the whole of scripture as covenantal in structure and theme. Some believe there is one Covenant and others believe two and still others believe in more. The two main covenants are covenant of works in the O.T. made between God and Adam, and the Covenant of Grace between the Father and the Son where the Father promised to give the Son the elect and the Son must redeem them. Some consider these to be one and the same. The covenants have been made since before the world was made (Heb. 13:20). Creation Everything that exists except God himself. This includes material as well as immaterial things and time. God is the creator, (Heb. 11:3) we are the creatures. The creator/creature distinction must be maintained to properly remain in humble relationship with God. We are not God, cannot create, nor can we help ourselves do good in order to be saved. Only God is God. Only He can create. And, only He has the ability to save man.

163

Cult A religious group that follows a partic ular theological system. In the context of Christianity, and in particular, CARM, it is a group that uses the Bible but distorts the doctrines that affect salvation sufficiently to cause salvation to be unattainable. A few examples of cults are Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Christadelphians, Unity, Religious Science, The Way International, and the Moonies. (See also Cults) Damnation The righteous judgment of God upon a sinner where the sinner is cast out of the presence of God into Hell for ever. Death The word "death" is used in two main ways in the Bible. First, it is used to describe the cessation of life. Second, death is used in reference to the lost. This refers to their eternal separation from God as a result of sin (Isaiah 59:2), in a conscious state of damnation without hope (1 Thess. 4:13; Rev. 20:10,14,15). Death to humans is unnatural. When God created Adam and Eve, death was not part of the created order. It was not until they sinned that death entered the scene (Rom. 5:12; 6:23). Death will be destroyed when Christ returns and the believers receive their resurrected bodies. Decalogue The Ten Commandments found in Exodus 20. Deca means ten in Latin. Logue comes from "logos" which means "word." Decrees, of God The Decrees of God is His eternal purpose, according to His will, whereby He has foreordained whatever comes to pass. His Decrees do not negate the responsibility of people for their sins nor does it mean that God is responsible for sin. But, it necessarily is true that God knows all things actual as well as potential, and that that which exists, exists due to His creative effort. It also follows that God has eternally known all events that have occurred, are occurring, and will occur in this creation including the fall, redemption, glorification, etc. Yet, God is not the one responsible for the sin in the world but has decreed, by His permission, that it be allowed to exist. Isaiah 46:9-10 says, "Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, 10Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure." God's efficacious decrees are those decrees which God has purposed and determined to occur, i.e., Acts 2:23, "this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." God's permissive decrees are those decrees where He permits things to occur such as evil. Deduction A system of logic, inference and conclusion drawn from examination of facts. Conclusions drawn from the general down to the specific. Depravity Moral corruption, a state of corruption or sinfulness. Total depravity is the teaching that sin has touched all aspects of the human: body, soul, spirit, emotions, mind, etc. Deism The belief that God exists but is not involved in the world. It maintains that God created all things and set the universe in motion and is no longer involved in its operation. (Compare to Atheism, Agnosticism and Theism.) ,

164

Demon A fallen angel that assists Satan in the opposition of God. Demons are evil (Luke 10:17,18), powerful (Luke 8:29), and under the power of Satan (Matt. 12:24-30). They recognized Christ (Mark 1:23,24) and can possess non-Christians (Matt. 8:29). Deontology The study of moral obligation. Determinism The teaching that every event in the universe is caused and controlled by natural law; that there is no free will in humans and that all events are merely the result of natural and physical laws. Devil Greek is "diabolos," which means accuser. The greatest of all the fallen angels. He opposes God and is completely evil. He is often called Lucifer which is a Latin translation of "light bearer" found in Isaiah 14:12, and also the accuser of the brethren in (Rev. 12:10), dragon (Rev. 12:9), the devil (Matt. 4:1), the tempter (Matt. 4:3), the accuser (Rev. 12:10), the prince of demons (Luke 11:15), the ruler of this world (John 12:31), See Isaiah 14:12-15 for a description of the fall of the devil. Upon Jesus' return, the Devil will be vanquished -- depending on the eschatological position. His future is the eternal lake of fire. Dialectic The practice of examining ideas and beliefs using reason and logic. It is often accomplished by question and answer. Dichotomy The teaching that a human consists of two parts: body and soul. Sometimes the soul is also referred to as spirit. (See Trichotomy ) Didactics The branch of education dealing with teaching. Diocese In Catholicism, an area of many parishes presided over by a bishop. Disciple A pupil or follower of a religion, a person, or a movement. As Christians we are to be disciples of Jesus (Luke 14:26,27). We follow in the teaching and example of what He said and did. A disciple is a convert but not all converts are disciples. As disciples we are to bear our cross daily (Matt. 16:24). This means to live and die for Him if necessary (Matt. 16:25). Dispensation, dispensationalism In the Scofield Reference Bible a dispensation is "a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God" Dispensationalism says that God uses different means of administering His will and grace to His people. These different means coincide with different periods of time. Scofield says there are seven dispensations: of innocence, of conscience, of civil government, of promise, of law, of grace, and of the kingdom. Dispensationalists interpret the scriptures in light of these (or other perceived) dispensations. Compare to Covenant. Divination The practice of predicting the future and/or securing for a person the services of supernatural powers. It is also used as a means to gain knowledge. Divinity The nature or quality of being God. It belongs to God alone. Jesus was divine in nature (Col. 2:9) as well as being a man.

165

Docetism Docetism was an error with several variations concerning the nature of Christ. Generally, it taught that Jesus only appeared to have a body, that he was not really incarnate, (Greek, "dokeo" = "to seem"). This error developed out of the dualistic philosophy that viewed matter as inherently evil, that God could not be associated with matter, and that God, being perfect and infinite, could not suffer. Please see Heresies for more information. Doctrine A set of accepted beliefs held by a group. In religion, it is the set of true beliefs that define the parameters of that belief system. Hence, there is true doctrine and false doctrine relative to each belief set. In Christianity, for example, a true biblical doctrine is that there is only one God in all existence (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). A false doctrine is that there is more than one God in all existence. Dogma A generally held set of formulated beliefs. Donatism Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid. Please see Heresies for more information. Dowsing A form of divination using a forked rod or bent wire often used to find objects, people, or things. A person holds the dowsing instrument and is "lead" around by it until the object is, allegedly, found. Dualism In theology, the concept that the world is controlled by two opposing forces, i.e., good and bad, God and Satan. In Philosophy the idea that the world consists of two main components: thought and matter. Ecclesiology The study of the Christian church, its structure, order, practices, and hierarchy. Edify To build up. In the Christian context it means to strengthen someone, or be strengthened, in relationship to God, the Christian walk, and holiness. As Christians, we are to "let all things be done for edification," (1 Cor. 14:26). We are edified by the Word of God (Acts 20:32) and by love (1 Cor. 8:1). (See also Rom. 14:19; Eph. 4:29 and 1 Cor. 3:1-4; James 4:1-6). Efficacy Producing a result. Christ's atonement was efficacious; it produced the result of forgiveness of sins for the elect. The atonement is efficacious grace in action. Eisegesis Eisegesis is when a person interprets and reads information into the text that is not there. An example would be in viewing 1 Cor. 8:5 which says, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many," (kjv). With this verse, Mormons, for example, bring their preconceived idea of the existence of many gods to this text and assert that it says there are many gods. But that is not what it says. It says that there are many that are called gods. Being called a god doesn't make it a god. Therefore, the text does not teach what the Mormons say and they are guilty of eisegesis; that is, reading into the text what it does not say. See also exegesis.

166

Elect, Election The elect are those called by God to salvation. This election occurs before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4) and is according to God's will not man's (Rom. 8:29-30; 9:6-23) because God is sovereign (Rom. 9:11-16). The view of election is especially held by Calvinists who also hold to the doctrine of predestination. Empiricism The proposition that the only source of true knowledge is experience. It is the search for knowledge through experiment and observation. Denial that knowledge can be obtained a priori. Epistemology The branch of philosophy that deals with the area of knowledge, its source, criteria, kinds, and the relationship between what is known and the one who is knowing it. Eschatology The study of the teachings in the Bible concerning the end times, or of the period of time dealing with the return of Christ and the events that follow. Eschatological subjects include the Resurrection, Resurrection, the Rapture, the Tribulation, the Millennium, the Binding of Satan, the Three witnesses, the Final Judgment, Armageddon, and The New Heavens and the New Earth. In the New Testament, eschatological chapters include Matt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 17, and 2 Thess. 2. In one form or another most of the books of the Bible deal with end times subjects. But some that are more prominently eschatological are Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Joel, Zechariah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, 2 Thessalonians, and of course Revelation. (See Amillennialism and Premillennialism for more information on views on the millennium.) Eternal life Life everlasting in the presence of God. "This is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou has sent," (John 17:3). There are two senses in which this is used. First, as Christians we possess eternal life (1 John 5:13), yet we are not in heaven or in the immediate presence of God. Though we are still in mortal bodies and we still sin, by faith we are saved (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9) and possess eternal life as a free gift from God (Rom. 6:23). Second, eternal life will reach its final state at the resurrection of the believers when Christ returns to earth to claim His church. It is then that eternal life will begin in its complete manifestation. We will no longer sin. Eternal Security The doctrine that salvation cannot be lost. Since it is not gained by anything we do, it cannot be lost by anything we do. This does not mean that we can sin all we want (Rom. 6:1-2) because we have been freed from sin and are set apart for holy use (1 Thess. 4:7). (See Antinomianism.) Ethics The study of right and wrong and wrong, good and bad, moral judgment, etc. Eucharist The elements of the communion supper in Christian Churches where the bread and wine are consumed as a representation the sacrifice of Christ. They correspond, representatively, as the body and blood of Christ. Eutychianism This is similar to Monophycitism. It states that Christ's natures were so thoroughly combined -- in a sense scrambled together -- that the result was that Christ was not really truly able to relate to us as humans. The problem is this implies that Jesus was not truly God nor man. Therefore, He would be unable to act as mediator and unable to truly atone for our sins. (See Hypostatic Union, which is the correct view of Christ's two natures, and also Nestorianism and Monophycitism which are the incorrect views of Christ's two natures.)

167

Evil Moral rebellion against God. It is contrary to the will of God. There is natural evil (floods, storms, famines, etc.) and moral evil (adultery, murder, idolatry, etc.). Natural evil is a result of moral evil. Adam's sin resulted in sin entering the world allowing floods, storms, famines, etc. Evil originated with Satan (Isaiah 14:12-15) and is carried on by man (Matt. 15:18-19). (See Theodicy.) Evolution Though you might not expect to find the subject of evolution in a dictionary of theology, it is appropriate if you consider that the theory of evolution requires faith. The evidence for evolution is actually quite weak. There are numerous difficulties facing it and, the theory has undergone many changes since its inception in the 1800's. It is the theory that over an incredible duration of time, life developed from random combinations of non-organic materials. This life was improved upon through mutations and the process of natural selection. The Scriptures do not speak about evolution but instead negate the theory by stating that God created all things (Gen. 1). See Evolution for more information. Excommunication The act of discipline where the Church breaks fellowship with a member who has refused to repent of sins. Matt. 18 is generally used as the model of procedures leading up to excommunication. Those excommunicated are not to partake in the Lords supper. In the Bible, serious offenders of Gods law, who were supposed to be Christian, were "delivered over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh," (1 Cor. 15:5; 1 Tim. 1:20). However, upon repentance, the person is welcome d back into fellowship within the body of Christ.Exegesis Exegesis is when a person interprets a text based solely on what it says. That is, he extracts out of the text what is there as opposed to reading into it what is not there (eisegesis). There are rules to proper exegesis: read the immediate context, related themes, word definitions, etc., that all play a part in properly understand what something does say and not what it does not say. Existentialism A philosophical viewpoint that emphasis human freedom and abilities. Therefore, subjectivity and individual choice are elevated often above conceptual and moral absolutes. Expiation The cancellation of sin. Expiation and propitiation are similar but expiation does not carry the implication of dealing with wrath, of appeasing it through a sacrifice. Generally speaking, propitiation cancels sin and deals with God's wrath. Expiation is simply the cancellation of sin. Jesus was our propitiation (1 John 2:2; 4:10 -- "atoning sacrifice" in the NIV). Faith "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen," (Heb. 11:1). It is synonymous with trust. It is a divine gift (Rom. 12:3) and comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). It is the means by which the grace of God is accounted to the believer who trusts in the work of Jesus on the cross (Eph. 2:8). Without faith it is impossible to please God, (Heb. 11:6). It is by faith that we live our lives, "The righteous shall live by faith," (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17). Fall, The The fall is that event in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed the command of God and ate of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2 and 3). Since Adam represented all of mankind, when He sinned, all of mankind fell with Him (Rom. 5:12). False Prophet, (The) The second beast of Revelation (Rev. 13:11-18). He is a person who will manifest himself near the culmination of this epoch shortly before the physical return of Christ. He will be a miracle worker and during the Tribulation period will bring fire down from heaven and command that people worship the image of the Beast (Rev. 11:15). See also (13:16-17). Jesus warned about false prophets in Matt. 24:24 stating that in the last days many false prophets would arise and deceive, if possible, even the elect. False prophets teach false doctrine and lead

168

people away from the true gospel message and teaching of God found in the Bible. Examples of modern day false prophets are Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah's Witnesses), Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science), etc. Each of them distorts the truth sufficient to cause damnation. Falsifiability The ability of something to be proven false. A non-falsifiable statement would be, "There is a green lizard sitting in a rocking chair on the fourth largest moon of Jupiter." This statement is not falsifiable in that it cannot be proven false because it cannot be verified or denied. Jesus' resurrection was falsifiable in that all the critics had to do was produce the body, but they did not. Falsifiability, generally, is a test of the validity of a belief or occurrence. Something that is not falsifiable can be said to be untrue since it cannot be confirmed or denied. Fast, Fasting Depriving oneself of food for a period of time for a specific purpose, often spiritual. It is the "weakening" of the body in order to "strengthen" the spirit. It is interesting to note that sin entered the world through the disobedience of eating (Gen. 3:6). We are called to fast in the N.T. (Matt. 6:16). (See also 1 Kings 21:27; Psalm 35:13; Acts 13:3; 2 Cor. 6:5). Fatalism The idea that all things are predetermined to occur and that there is no ability of the person to alter the predetermined plan of God in any event. This is not the correct biblical view. The Bible teaches us that we can influence God with our prayers (James 5:16). How this influence is worked out by God who knows all things from eternity is something apparently unexplainable in Christianity. Fellowship There is no specific definition given in the N.T. But we are called into fellowship with one another (1 John 1:3, with Jesus (1 Cor. 1:9), with the Father (1 John 1:3), and with the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13:14). Fellowship implies sharing common interests, desires, and motivations. Fellowship requires that time be spent with another communicating, caring, etc. It carries with it a hint of intimacy. As Christians we fellowship with one another because of our position in Christ, because we are all redeemed and share an intimate personal knowledge of Jesus. We share a common belief (Acts 2:42), hope (Heb. 11:39-40), and need (2 Cor. 8:1-15). The Greek word for fellowship is koinonia. This word is also translated communion in 1 Cor. 10:16 in the KJV. This is where we get the term the communion supper. Fideism The position that religious doctrines rest not on reason, but only on faith. Filioque The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from both the Father and the Son. Firstborn The first of the mother's offspring. It stands figuratively for that which is most excellent. The firstborn male of the family carried certain familial rites and privileges (Gen. 27:1-29; 48:13-14) and was given a double portion of the inheritance (Deut. 21:17). The term is also applied to Christ as the pre-eminent one and the first one raised from the dead (Col. 1:15,18). It does not mean first created as Jehovah's Witnesses believe. In fact, the firstborn rites were transferable. Compare Jer. 31:9 with Gen. 41:50-52. Forgiveness There are seven words in Scripture that denote the idea of forgiveness: three in Hebrew and four in Greek. No book of religion except Christianity teaches that God completely forgives sins. God remembers our sins no more (Heb. 10:17). God is the initiator of forgiveness (Col. 2:13). There is only one sin for which the Father does not promise forgiveness: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28; Matt. 12:32). The contexts suggest this to be the sin of attributing to unclean

169

spirits the work of the Holy Spirit. For man to receive forgiveness, repentance is necessary (Luke 17:3-4). For the holy God to extend forgiveness, the shedding of blood is necessary (Heb. 9:22; Lev. 17:11). Forgiveness is based upon the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Fool Hater of God. One who is morally weak, who misuses what God has given him for selfish purposes. He is lustful (Prov. 7:22), lazy (Ecc. 10:15), does not fear God (Prov. 14:1), hates knowledge (Prov. 1:22), and is self-righteous (Prov. 12:15). As Christians, we are to avoid foolishness (Eph. 5:4). (See Ecc. 7:25; Prov. 3:35, 10:8.) Foreknow, Foreknowledge It is God's knowledge about things that will happen. Past, present, and future are all "present" in the mind of God. He inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15). God has infinite knowledge (Isaiah 41:22,23) and knows all things in advance. In the N.T. it does not always mean "to know beforehand" but also to cause to be. See 1 Pet. 1:2,20. Free Knowledge The free act of Gods will where, after His free act of creation, He knows all things that are going to happen and that this knowledge is contingent upon His free creative will. Therefore, the free knowledge of God would be different if He had chosen a different creative fiat. In other words, because God created one possible existence instead of another, the range of His knowledge regarding actual existence would have been different had He created something different in the first place. (See also Natural knowledge and Middle Knowledge.) Free will Freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes. Freethinker A person who forms his opinions about religion and God without regard to revelation, scripture, tradition, or experience. Gehenna Originally, a location southwest of Jerusalem where children were burned as sacrifices to the god Molech. It later became a garbage dump with an continuous burning of trash. Therefore, it was used biblically, to illustrate the abode of the damned in Christian and Jewish theology. Gehenna is mentioned in Mark 9:43ff and Matt. 10:28 as the place of punishment of unquenchable fire where both the body and soul of the wicked go after death. It is apparently the future abode of Satan and his angels (Matt. 25:41). Gentile Those who are not Jews. Gentiles were used by God to punish apostate Judea (Deut. 28:49; 1 Kings 8:33) and often included in blessings by God upon the Jewish people. "Gentiles" is often used biblically in reference to nations. Gifts, Spiritual Gifts Spiritual abilities given by God for the purpose of building up the church. Every Christian has at least one (1 Cor. 7:7). They are listed and discussed in different places in the N.T. (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-11, 28-30; Eph. 4:7-12). Following is a list of the gifts arranged in two groups. The first are gifts that require supernatural intervention and are possessed only by true Christians. The second are gifts that do not require supernatural intervention. Even non-Christians can have the second group of gifts. A further issue is whether or not the gifts are still in use today. Some believe they ceased with the apostles and the closing of the Canon (the completion of the writings of the Bible) and they are no longer needed for the building up of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). Others believe the gifts are still in use but not in the pure apostolic sense. In other words, they are still in use but not in the same way possessed by the apostles. Instead, they are available to the believer if and when God decides it is beneficial to use them.

170

Spiritual Gifts 1 Salvation 2 Word of Wisdom 3 Word of Knowledge 4 Faith 5 Healing 6 Miracles 7 Prophecy 8 Distinguishing of Spirits 9 Tongues 10 Interpretation of Tongues 1 Serving 2 Teaching 3 Exhortation 4 Giving 5 Leading 6 Showing mercy Rom. 12:7 Rom. 12:7 Rom. 12:8 Rom. 12:8 Rom. 12:8 Rom. 12:8 Rom. 12:6 Rom. 6:23 1 Cor. 12:8 1 Cor. 12:8 1 Cor. 12:9 1 Cor. 12:9 1 Cor. 12:10 1 Cor. 12:10 1 Cor. 12:10 1 Cor. 12:10 1 Cor. 12:10

Gnosticism A theological error prevalent around the time of Christ. Generally speaking, Gnosticism taught that salvation is achieved through special knowledge (gnosis). This knowledge usually dealt with the individual's relationship to the transcendent Being. It denies the incarnation of God as the Son. In so doing, it denies the true efficacy of the atonement since, if Jesus is not God, He could not atone for all of mankind and we would still be lost in our sins. God The supreme being of the universe. He is the creator of all things (Isaiah 44:24). He alone is God (Isaiah 45:21,22; 46:9; 47:8). There have never been any Gods before Him nor will there be any after Him (Isaiah 43:10). God is God from all eternity (Psalm 90:2). In Exodus 3:14, God revealed His name to His people. The name commonly known in English is Jehovah. This comes from the four Hebrew consonants that spell the name of God. (See Tetragrammaton.) God is a Trinity, knows all things (1 John 3:20), can do all things (Jer. 32:17,27 - except those things against His nature like lie, break His word, cheat, steal, etc.), and is everywhere all the time (Psalm 119:7-12). Gods, False Gods that are not real, but invented by men or inspired by demons the purpose of which is to deceive people so they do not believe in the true and living God. Some of the false gods listed in the Bible are Adrammelech and Anammelech (2 Kings 17:31), Asherah (1 Kings 15:13; 18:19), Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5,33), Baal (1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 23:7), Baalzebub (2 Kings 1:1-16); Luke 11:19-23), Dagon (Judges 16:23-30), Molech/Moloch (Lev. 18:21; 20:1-5), Rimmon (2 Kings 5:18, and Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14). Gospel The Gospel is the good news that we have forgiveness of sins though Jesus. Specifically, the gospel is defined by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:1-4: "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."

171

The gospel comes from God (Gal. 1:10-12), is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16), is a mystery (Eph. 6:19), and is a source of hope (Col. 1:23), faith (Acts 15:7), life (1 Cor. 4:15), and peace (Eph. 6:15). Grace Grace is unmerited favor. It is God's free action for the benefit of His people. It is different than Justice and Mercy. Justice is getting what we deserve. Mercy is not getting what we deserve. Grace is getting what we do not deserve. In grace we get eternal life, something that, quite obviously, we do not deserve. But because of God's love and kindness manifested in Jesus on the Cross, we receive the great blessing of redemption. Grace is God's Riches At Christ's Expense. Grace rules out all human merit. It is the product of God, that is given by God, because of who He is not because of who we are. It is the means of our salvation (Eph. 2:8-9). We are no longer under the Law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14). (See 1 Cor. 15:11; Rom. 5:2, 15-20; 2 Cor. 12:9; and 2 Cor. 9:8). Great White Brotherhood A New Age term designating the spiritual organization of Ascended Masters (great spiritual leaders of this world and other worlds) who have moved from the mortal realm to the Astral Plane (another dimension) and exist in a state of immortality. The members of the Great White Brotherhood often communicate to mortals here on earth through channeling. "White" refers to the light (aura) around the great spiritual teachers throughout history.

Guilt Being responsible for and accountable for an offense. Biblically, it is the state of being under a present or pending consequence due to a sin against Gods Law. It is also an emotional state as well as legal condition. Guilt feelings are used by the Holy Spirit to inform the sinner of broken fellowship with God (Isaiah 59:2; John 16:8). Because of our guilt before God, we need reconciliation (Rom. 5:6-9). Hades New Testament term for the Hebrew sheol, which is the abode of the conscious dead. It is apparently a place (Acts 2:31). In Revelation it is referred to as a creature on a horse (Rev. 6:8). In Rev. 1:18, it says that Christ holds the keys to death and Hades. Hamartiology The study of the doctrine of sin. Heaven Heaven is the dwelling place of God and for those who go there a place of everlasting bliss. Scripture implies three heavens, since "the third heaven" is revealed to exist (2 Cor. 12:2). It is logical that a third heaven cannot exist without a first and second. Scripture does not describe specifically the first and second heaven. The first, however, apparently refers to the atmospheric heavens of the fowl (Hosea 2:18) and clouds (Dan. 7:13). The second heaven may be the area of the stars and planets (Gen. 1:14-18). It is the abode of all supernatural angelic beings. The third heaven is the abode of the triune God. Its location is unrevealed. (See Matt. 23:34-37; Luke 10:20; and Rev. 22:2, 20-27). Hedonism The teaching that pleasure is the principle good and proper goal of all action. Self indulgence. Hell Hell is the future place of eternal punishment of the damned including the devil and his fallen angels. There are several words rendered as Hell: Hades - A Greek word. It is the place of the dead, the location of the person between death and resurrection. (See Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Acts 11:27; 1 Cor. 15:55; Rev. 1:18; 6:8). Gehenna - A Greek word. It was the place where dead bodies were dumped and burned (2 Kings 23:13-14). Jesus used the word to designate the place of eternal torment (Matt. 5:22,29,30; Mark 9:43; Luke 12:5). Sheol - A Hebrew word. It is the place of the dead,

172

not necessarily the grave, but the place the dead go to. It is used of both the righteous (Psalm 16:10; 30:3; Isaiah 38:10) and the wicked (Num. 16:33; Job. 24:19; Psalm 9:17). Hell is a place of eternal fire (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 19:20). It was prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41) and will be the abode of the wicked (Rev. 22:8) and the fallen angels (2 Pet. 2:4). Henotheism The teaching that there are many gods but that only one of them must be honored and worshipped. Heresy A doctrinal view that deviates from the truth, a false teaching. We are warned against it in Acts 20:29-32 and Phil. 3:2. Heresies include teachings that Jesus is not God and that the Holy Spirit is not a person (Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, The Way International), that men may become gods (Mormonism), that there is more than one God (Mormonism), that Jesus lost His divinity in hell and finished the atonement there, and that good works are necessary for salvation (all cults say this), to name a few. Heterodoxy A set of beliefs or opinions that are not in agreement with accepted doctrinal beliefs of a church. See orthodoxy. Higher Self A New Age term used to signify the divine part of each person that is capable of attaining the knowledge of perfection and "ultimate truth." Homiletics That branch of theology concerned with preaching and sermons and the proper way in which to deliver them. Holy, Holiness A quality of perfection, sinlessness, and inability to sin that is possessed by God alone. As Christians we are called to be holy (1 Pet. 1:16). But this does not refer to our nature. Instead, it is a command of our practice and thought. We are to be holy in obedience (1 Pet. 1:14). God has made us holy through His Son Jesus (Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet. 2:9). Holy Orders In Catholicism, one of the seven sacraments by which men, bishop, deacons, and priests, are given the power and authority by a bishop to offer sacrifice and forgive sins. Holy Spirit, The The third person of the Godhead. He is completely God. He is called God (Acts 5:3-4), has a will (1 Cor. 12:11), speaks (Acts 8:29; 13:2), and knows all things (John 14:17). He is not an "active force" as the Jehovah's Witnesses mistakenly teach. The Holy Spirit is alive and is fully and completely God. He is called the Spirit of God (Gen. 1:2), Holy Spirit (Psalm 51:1), the Helper (John 14:16,26), and Eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14). He knows all things (1 Cor. 2:10-11), is all powerful (Luke 1:35), and is everywhere (Psalm 139:7-13). (See Trinity and Holy Spirit.) Holy Water In Catholicism, special water that has been blessed by a priest, bishop, etc. or a liturgical ceremony. It is used to bring a blessing to a person when applied. Humanism A philosophical system of thought that focuses on human value, thought, and actions. Humans are considered basically good and rationale creatures who can improve themselves and others through natural human abilities of reason and action. Secular Humanism is a late development emphasizing objectivity, human reason, and human standards, that govern art, economics, ethics, and belief. As such, no deity is acknowledged.

173

Humility The attitude of the Christian that teaches us not to "...think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment..." (Rom. 12:3). It teaches us to prefer others over ourselves (Rom. 12:10). It is knowing our true position before God. It is not self-abasement or demeaning one's self. "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble," (James 4:6). Humility is necessary to be a disciple of Jesus (Matt. 18:3-4). The humility of Jesus is described in Philippians 2:5-8, "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross!" (NIV). Hypostatic Union This is the union of the two natures (Divine and human) in the person of Jesus. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8). He is fully God and fully man (Col. 2:9); thus, He has two natures: God and man. He is not half God and half man. He is 100% God and 100% man. He never lost his divinity. He continued to exist as God when He became a man and added human nature to Himself (Phil. 2:5-11). Therefore, there is a "union in one person of a full human nature and a full divine nature." Right now in heaven there is a man, Jesus, who is our Mediator between us and God the Father (1 Tim. 2:5). (For related information on Jesus and His two natures, see Incarnation, and the errors concerning His natures known as Eutychianism, Monophycitism, and Nestorianism.)

Jesus as God He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33). He is prayed to (Acts 7:59). He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15). He knows all things (John 21:17). He gives eternal life (John 10:28). All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9).

Jesus as Man He worshiped the Father (John 17). He prayed to the Father (John 17). He was tempted (Matt. 4:1). He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52). He died (Rom. 5:8). He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).

Idol, Idolatry An idol is a representation of something in the heavens or on the earth. It is used in worship and is often worshiped. It is an abomination to God (Exodus 20:4). Idolatry is bowing down before such an idol in adoration, prayer, or worship. In a loose sense, idolatry does not necessitate a material image nor a religious system. It can be anything that takes the place of God: a car, a job, money, a person, a desire, etc. Idolatry is denounced by God at the beginning of the Ten Commandments and is considered a form of spiritual fornication. Immaculate Conception The teaching that Mary was conceived without original sin. Typically believed as true in Roman Catholicism. Image of God Man was made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). The image of God is generally held to mean that people contain within their nature elements that reflect God's nature: compassion, reason, love, hate, patience, kindness, self-awareness, etc. Though we have a physical image, it does not mean that God has one. Rather, God is spirit (John 4:24), not flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Immutability The divine attribute of unchangeableness. God said in Exodus 3:14, "I AM that I AM," signifying His eternal sameness and His sovereignty. He cannot change His moral character, His love, His omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. God is "From everlasting to everlasting," (Psalm 90:2).

174

Immutability does not mean that God does not vary. The incarnation is just such an example of variation. Also, God's attitude toward a person is changed when the person becomes a Christian. For example, the enmity between God and man is removed (Rom. 5:10). Mormonism denies the immutability of God. It says that God was not always God, that He was a man on another planet who became a God (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 321.). Immortality Life without death anytime in the future. God is immortal. The souls of people are immortal though their bodies are not. All people can die in a physical sense but they continue on after death. Therefore, it is the soul that is immortal. However, after the return of Christ and the resurrection, the Christians' bodies will also become glorified and immortal (1 Cor. 15:50-58). The wicked will likewise be resurrected to immortality but they will be cast into hell for eternal. Impute, Imputation To reckon to someone the blessing, curse, debt, etc. of another. Adam's sin is imputed to all people (Rom. 5:12-21), therefore, we are all guilty before God. Our sins were put upon, imputed, to Jesus on the cross where He became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21) and died with them (Isaiah 53:46). Therefore, our sins are forgiven. Understanding imputation is very important. Imputation is the means of our salvation. Our sins were put upon, imputed, to Jesus on the cross. Our sins were "given" to Jesus. When He died on the cross, our sins, in a sense, died with Him. The righteousness that was His through His perfect obedience to the Father in His complete obedience to the Law is imputed, given, to us. In short, our sins were given to Jesus. His righteousness was given to us. Technically speaking our sins were imputed to Jesus. His righteousness was imputed to us. In facto Something that exists and is complete. In fieri Beginning to be, but not yet complete. Incarnation The addition of human nature to the nature of God the second person of the Trinity. It is where God became a man (John 1:1,14; Phil. 2:5-8). It was the voluntary act of Jesus to humble Himself so that He might die for our sins (1 Pet. 3:18). Thus, Jesus has two natures: Divine and human. This is known as the Hypostatic Union. The doctrine is of vital importance to the Christian. By it we understand the true nature of God, the atonement, forgiveness, grace, etc. It is only God who could pay for sins. Therefore, God became man (John 1:1,14) to die for our sins (1 Pet. 2:24) that is the atonement. Through Jesus we have forgiveness of sins. Since we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) it is essential that our object of faith be accurate. The doctrine of the incarnation ensures accuracy, the knowledge that God died on the cross to atone for sin and that the God-man (Jesus) is now in heaven as a mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) between God and us. Jesus came to reveal the Father (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22), to do His will (Heb. 10:5-9), to fulfill prophecy (Luke 4:17-21), to reconcile the world (2 Cor. 5:18-21), and to become our High Priest (Heb. 7:24-28). (Contrast with Kenosis.) Induction A system of logic where specific facts are used to draw a general conclusion. Indulgence In Catholicism, a means by which the Catholic church takes away some of the punishment due the Christian in this life and/or purgatory because of his sin. Inerrancy Without error, non-errant. In Christianity, inerrancy states that the Bible, in its original documents, is without error regarding facts, names, dates, and any other revealed information. Inerrancy does not extend to the copies of the biblical manuscripts.

175

Infant baptism The practice of baptizing infant children of believing parents. In the Catholic Church infant baptism washes away original sin and is regenerative. In Reformed circles infant baptism is not regenerative but covenantal and validated through the believing parent(s). There are no explic it accounts of infant baptism in the Bible. However, it cannot be completely excluded as a possibility given that entire households were baptized Acts 16:15,33; 18:8. Infidel A person who does not believe in any particular religious system. Infinity The state or quality of being infinite, unlimited by space or time, without end, without beginning or end. God is infinite in that He is not limited by space or time. He is without beginning and without end (Psalm 90:2). Infralapsarianism An issue within Reformed theology dealing with what may have happened in God's mind regarding the logical order of His considering whom to elect into salvation before the foundation of the world. The word means "after the fall." The position is that God first decided he would allow sin into the world and second that he would then save people from it. By contrast, the supralapsarian ("before the fall") position holds that God first decided that he would save some people and then second that he would allow sin into the world. Inspiration The doctrine that the Bible was written by the influence of God. It is, therefore, without error. It is accurate and authoritatively represents God's teachings (2 Tim. 3:16). As such it is a revelation from God which implies direct knowledge about God, creation, man, salvation, the future, etc. It is an illumination in that it shows us what we could not know apart from it. One of the ways to prove that the Bible is inspired is to examine the O.T. prophecies fulfilled in the N.T. concerning Jesus (Luke 24:27-45). Because the Bible is inspired, its words are unbreakable (John 10:34-36), eternal (Matt. 24:35), trustworthy (Psalm 119:160), and able to pierce the heart of man (Heb. 4:12). Additionally, the inspired Word of God will not go forth without accomplishing what God wishes it to (Isaiah 55:11). Intermediate state The period between death and resurrection. The condition of the person in the intermediate state is debated. One theory is that the person is without a body, yet is conscious, and that he will receive his body at the resurrection. Another theory states that the person has a different sort of spiritual body that will be lost at the resurrection when body and soul are reunited (2 Cor. 5:1-4). Jehovah An anglicized pronunciation of the Hebrew tetragrammaton, YHWH, which are the four consonant letters used to spell Gods name in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14). The Hebrews considered the name of God too holy to pronounce and susbstituted the word Lord (adonai) when the text was read. The vowels of the word adonai was combined with YHWH to get the word Jehovah which was first used in the 12th century. A more accurate pronunciation of YHWH would be Yahweh. However, the exact and proper pronunciation has been lost. Jesus The Bible is about Jesus (Luke 24:27,44; John 5:39; HHeb. 10:7). The prophets prophesied about Him (Acts 10:43). The Father bore witness of Him (John 5:37, 8:18). The Holy Spirit bore witness of Him (John 15:26). The works Jesus did bore witness of Him (John 5:36; 10:25). The multitudes bore witness of Him (John 12:17). And, Jesus bore witness of Himself (John 14:6, 18:6). Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14). He is fully God and fully man (Col. 2:9) thus, He has two natures: God and man. He is not half God and half man. He is 100% God and 100% man. He never

176

lost his divinity. He existed in the form of God and when He became a man, He added human nature 1 9 to Himself (Phil. 2:5-11). Therefore, there is a "union in one person of a full human nature and a full divine nature."2 0 Right now in heaven there is a man, Jesus, who is Mediator between us and God the Father (1 Tim. 2:5). Jesus is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). He is our Savior (Titus 2:13). He is our Lord (Rom. 10:9-10). He is not, as some cults teach, an angel who became a man (Jehovah's Witnesses) or the brother of the devil (Mormonism). He is wholly God and wholly man, the Creator, the Redeemer. He is Jesus. (See also Jesus.) Jesus Only Movement This is a movement in some Pentecostal circles. It is an error in the understanding of the nature of the Trinity. The biblical Trinity consists of three persons simultaneously and eternally existing in one God. The Jesus Only Movement maintains that there is only one person in the Godhead: Jesus. It teaches that the person of the Father became the person of the Son who then became the person of the Holy Spirit and that the persons are consecutive not simultaneous. This movement is incorrect in its Trinitarian interpretation. Additionally, they mistakenly believe that baptism is necessary for salvation and that tongues are evidence of true conversion. See the Plurality Study for a study that refutes their theology. Jews Originally, a Jew was a member of the state of Judah during the period of the division of Israel into two nations: Judah and Israel. It became a common reference from the 8th century B.C. Today it is used of adherents of the Jewish religion. Judgment Condemnation. There are several judgments: the judgment of the believer's sins (John 5:24), the judgment of the believer's self (1 Cor. 11:31-32), the judgment of the believer's works (2 Cor. 5:10), the judgment of the nations (Matt. 25:31-46), and the judgment of the wicked (Rev. 20:11-15). There is no judgment for the Christian in respect to salvation (Rom. 8:1). We were judged in Christ on the cross 2000 years ago. However, as Christians we will be judged according to our works (2 Cor. 5:10) with, most probably, varying degrees of rewards. But, remember, the judgment of our works does not affect our salvation. Just, Justice The due reward or punishment for an act. Justice is getting what is deserved. God is merciful but He is also just (Deut. 32:4 - righteous) and must punish sin. In the grace of God, justic e fell upon His Son so that mercy would fall upon us. (See also Prov. 8:15; Gen. 18:19; Heb. 10:38). Justify, Justification To be justified is to be made righteous. It is a divine act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his sins. It is not that the sinner is now sinless, but that he is "declared" sinless. This justification is based on the shed blood of Jesus, "...having now been justified by His blood..." (Rom. 5:9). When God sees the Christian, He sees him through the sacrifice of Jesus and "sees" him without sin. This declaration of innocence is not without cost for it required the satisfaction of God's Law, "...without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness," (Heb. 9:22). By the sacrifice of Jesus, in the "one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men," (Rom. 5:18, NASB). In justification, the justice of God fell upon Himself--Jesus. We receive mercy--we are not judged according to our sins. And grace is shed upon us--we receive eternal life. This justification is a gift of grace (Rom. 3:24), by faith (Rom. 3:28) because Jesus bore our guilt (Isaiah 53:12).
Jesus' adding to Himself the nature of man by becoming one of us is known as the Hypostatic Union. Errors dealing with the relationship of Jesus' two natures are: 1) Monophycitism which states that Jesus' two natures combined into one new one; the problem here is that neither God nor man was represented in Christ. 2) Nestorianism which states that the two natures of Christ were so separated from each other that they were "not in contact;" the problem here is that worship of the human Jesus would then not be allowed. 3) Eutychianism is similar to Monophycitism. It states that Christ's natures were so thoroughly combined -- in a sense scrambled together -- that a new third thing emerged; the problem is this implies that Jesus was not truly God nor man, therefore unable to act as mediator. 20 B. Milne, Know the Truth (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982), p. 145.
19

177

Karma In Hinduism, the total compilation of all a person's past lives and actions that result in the present condition of that person. Normally, it is associated with reincarnation. Kenosis This is a teaching concerning Jesus' incarnation. The Kenosis attempts to solve some paradoxes between the nature of God and of man as united in Jesus. For example, how could an all knowing God become a baby, or how could God be tempted? The Kenosis maintains that God, when becoming a man, divested Himself of some qualities of being a man. In a sense, the Kenosis is God minus something; God subtracting some qualities of deity to become a man. The Hypostatic Union is God plus something; God adding human nature to Himself. The Kenosis, then, jeopardizes the true incarnation because it puts in doubt the full indwelling of God among men in the person of Jesus. (Compare with Hypostatic Union.) Kingdom of God The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven seem to be variations of the same idea. A kingdom implies a king. Our king is Jesus. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). Jesus' authority did not come from man but from God (Luke 22:29). Entrance into the kingdom of God is by a new birth (John 3:5), repentance (Matt. 3:2), and the divine call (1 Thess. 2:12). We are told to seek the kingdom of Go d first (Matt. 6:33) and to pray for its arrival (Matt. 6:10). "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit," (Rom. 14:17). It is also a future kingdom where full rulership in the actual presence of the king Jesus will occur when He returns to earth. Laity The members of the church who are not in the clergy. Law The Law is God's instructions concerning the moral, social, and spiritual behavior of His people found in the first five books of the Bible. The Law is the very reflection of the nature of God because God speaks out of the abundance of what is in Him. Therefore, since God is pure, the Law is pure. Since God is holy, the Law is holy. The Law consists of the 10 commandments (Exodus 20), rules for social life (Exodus 21 - 23), and rules for the worship of God (Exodus 25 - 31). It was a covenant of works between God and man and was (and is) unable to deliver us into eternal fellowship with the Lord because of Man's inability to keep it. The Law is a difficult taskmaster because it requires that we maintain a perfect standard of moral behavior. And then when we fail, the Law condemns us to death. We deserve death even if we fail to keep just one point of the law: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all," (James 2:10). The law made nothing perfect (Heb. 7:19). That is why the Law has shown us our need for Jesus and the free gift we receive through Him (Gal. 3:24). Law of non-contradiction The Law of non-contradiction is the law that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. For example, the chair in my living room, right now, cannot be made of wood and not made of wood at the same time. In the law of non-contradiction, where we have a set of statements about a subject, we cannot have any of the statements in that set negate the truth of any other statement in that same set. For example, we have a set of two statements about Judas. 1) Judas hung himself. 2) Judas fell down and his bowels spilled out. Neither statement about Judas contradicts the other. That is, neither statement makes the other impossible because neither excludes the possibility of the other. The statements can be harmonized by stating: Judas hung himself and then his body fell down and his bowels spilled out. In order to make the set of statements contradictory, we would have something like: 1) Judas hung himself. 2) Judas did not hang himself. Since either statement excludes the possibility of the other, we would then have a contradiction.

178

Laying on of hands Physical contact by touching of the hands. In the OT and NT it was sometimes used in reference to doing physical harm (Gen. 22:12; Luke 20:19). In the NT it is also used to signify an attempt at healing (Acts 9:12) and commissioning of Holy Work (1 Tim. 4:14). Usually, during the ordination of an elder, hands are layed on him as symbolic of a transfer of authority and power. Liberalism In Christianity, the movement away from traditional orthodoxy often in an attempt to harmonize biblical teachings with science, humanism, or other secula r fields. The result is often a denial of essential biblical doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His resurrection, and salvation by grace. Limited atonement The teaching held in Reformed (Calvinist) circles of Christianity that Jesus bore only the sins of the elect, and not that of the entire world. It maintains that the sacrifice was sufficient for all, but intended for the elect. Logic From the Greek logos meaning word. Logic is study of the principles of reasoning. A set of premises that are examined and arranged so as to bring a conclusion. If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Deductive logic is the method of validating a claim by means of supportive information where both the claim and the information are necessarily true. For example, People exist. All people breath. Therefore, all people breath. Inductive logic is the method of drawing a conclusion from a set of supportive information, yet the conclusion has not yet been verified. For example, each night I get tired at 10 PM. Therefore, I conclude that tonight, I will be tired at 10 PM. Logos The Greek word for "word." Mentioned only in the writings of John. John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word [logos] and the Word [logos] was with God and the Word [logos] was God." The Logos is sometimes used to refer to the second person of the Trinity as the Son in preincarnate form. Jesus is the word [logos] made flesh (John 1:1,14). Lord's Supper See Communion Man Man is the creation of God. It is man alone who reflects God. The first man, Adam, was made in God's image (Gen. 1:2627), and placed in the Garden of Eden for the purpose of enjoying the fellowship of the Lord and fulfilling the purpose of God's creation. He was told to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth," (Gen. 1:28). When Adam and Eve sinned, all of humanity fell with them (Rom. 5:12-21). Adam represented all humanity: "In Adam all die..." (1 Cor. 15:22). As a result of Adam's disobedience, condemnation resulted to all men (Rom. 5:18). Therefore we are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). We do not seek God (Rom. 3:11) nor can we understand the spiritual things of God (1 Cor. 2:14). Since this is the condition of man in his natural state, salvation is then impossible for us to achieve (Matt. 19:26). That is why we need the free gift of salvation (Rom. 6:23) given by God to Christians through faith in Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Manuscript A document or a copy of an original writing. There are thousands of existing manuscripts of the biblical documents ranging from vellum (animal skins) to papyri (plant material) upon which the original and copies of the original writings were made. Martyr Someone who dies for a belief or cause. A Christian martyr would be a person who dies because of his or her faith in Christian principles.

179

Mass In Catholicism, a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ cross in a ceremony performed by a priest. This ceremony is symbolically carried out by the priest and involves Consecration where the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus. Materialism The position that only material things exist and that all other things can be explained in terms of matter and the physical properties of matter. Means of Grace This is associated with sacramental theology. A means of grace is a manner in which the Lord imparts grace to a believer as he partakes in the sacrament. A sacrament is a visible manifestation of the word. The bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are considered sacraments in that they are visible manifestations of the covenant promise of our Lord: "In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you,'" (Luke 22:20). Generally, the means of grace are considered to be the Gospel, baptism, and the Lords Supper. The Catholic Church has seven total: baptism, confirmation, communion, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, and matrimony. Mediation, Mediator A mediator is someone who intervenes, someone who conveys and conciliates. The word "mediator" is not found in the O.T., but its principle is. God gave the Law to the people through a mediator, Moses (Gal. 3:19), who was a type of the true mediator, Jesus. The word occurs only a few times in the N.T.: 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24. It is in the N.T. that the true nature of mediation is understood in the person of Jesus Christ. He is the mediator of a better covenant (Heb. 8:6). He was able to become our mediator by becoming man (John 1:1,14) and dying as our substitute (1 Pet. 1:18,19; 2:24). He reconciled us to God (Eph. 2:16). Mercy Merc y is the act of not administering justice when that justice is punitive. Because of our sinfulness we deserve death and eternal separation from God (Rom. 6:23; Isaiah 59:2), but God provided an atonement for sin and through it shows us mercy. That is, He does not deliver to the Christian the natural consequence of his sin which is damnation. That is why Jesus became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21) and bore the punishment due to us (Isaiah 5345). It was to deliver us from damnation. (Compare with justice and grace.) God saved us according to His mercy (Titus 3:5) and we can practice mercy as a gift (Rom. 12:8). "Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need," (Heb. 4:16). Messiah Messiah is a Hebrew word. It means "anointed one." It is the equivalent of the N.T. word "Christ" which also means "anointed." Jesus, as the messiah, was anointed by God (Matt. 3:16) to carry out His three-fold ministry of Prophet, Priest, and King. As the messiah He has delivered the Christian from the bonds of sin and given to him eternal life. In that sense, messiah means deliverer, for He has delivered us. The Messiah was promised in the O.T. in the seed of the woma n (Gen. 3:15). Metaphysics The branch of philosophy involved with examining and discussing the ultimate nature of reality. The term comes from "meta" which means "after" and "phusika" which means "physics." Around A.D. 70 Andronicus applied to the section of Aristotelian writings that came after the physics section; hence, metaphysics. In the New Age, metaphysics deals with spiritual concepts such as reincarnation, auras, chakras, Ascended Masters, etc. and other such ideas of a spiritual nature not generally associated with Christianity.

180

Middle Knowledge That knowledge of God dealing with what individuals will do in a given set of circumstances. God has an infinite set of potential circums tances that could exist and knows all actual choices that would be made by individuals in each set. (See also Free Knowledge and Natural knowledge.) Millennium Literally, this word means 1000 years. In the study of end times doctrines (eschatology) the millennium is the duration of Christ's rule over the earth. The debate has been over when the millennium will take place and what it actually is. The terms that have arisen out of this debate are premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. Premillennialism teaches that the millennium is yet future and that upon Christ's return He will set up His earthly kingdom. Amillennialism teaches that the millennium is a figurative period and that Christ's rule began when He first became man. Postmillennialism teaches that through the preaching of the Word of God, the world will be converted and will then usher in Christ and the kingdom of God. There are good arguments for each position. Minuscule The Greek characters of lower case: abgde, etc. Different copies of Greek manuscripts appear in minuscule form. By contrast, uncials are the Greek characters in upper case. Miracle A miracle is an out-of-the-ordinary direct and divine intervention in the world. Examples would be the parting of the Red Sea, Jesus walking on water, the resurrection of Lazarus, etc. Some hold that it is a violation of the natural order of physical laws. Others maintain that there is no such violation upon God's part but only a natural manifestation of His work. They are also known as powers and signs (Mark 9:39; Acts 2:22, 19:11) and mighty works (John 10:25-28). They are a manifestation of the power of God over nature (Joshua 10:121-14), animals (Num. 22:28), people (Gen. 19:26), and illness (2 Kings 5:1014). They are produced by God's power (Acts 15:12), Christ's power (Matt. 10:1), and the Holy Spirit's power (Matt. 12:28). Modalism The error that there is only one person in the Godhead who manifests himself in three forms or manners: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Monarchianism Monarchianism (mono - "one"; arche - "rule") was an error concerning the nature of God that developed in the second century A.D. It arose as an attempt to maintain Monotheism and refute tritheism. Unfortunately, it also contradicts the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Monarchianism teaches that there is one God as one person: the Father. Please see Heresies for more information. Monergism The teaching that God alone is the one who saves. It is opposed to synergism which teaches that God and man work together in salvation. Cults are synergistic. Christianity is monergistic. Monism The view that there is only one basic and fundamental reality, that all existence is this one reality even though we perceive different aspects of this reality. Monophycitism This is an error regarding the two natures of Jesus (See Hypostatic Union). It states that Jesus' two natures are combined into one new one; the problem here is that neither God nor man was represented in Christ but a new third thing. (Other errors regarding the two natures of Christ are Nestorianism and Eutychianism.) Monolatry The belief that there is more than one God, but only one is served and worshiped. Mormonism is an excellent example of monolatry. Mormonism teaches the existence of many Gods of many worlds, yet worships only the one of this planet. Therefore, monolatry is a division of polytheism, the belief in many gods. It is a false teaching contrary to Scripture. See Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5-6.

181

Monotheism The belief that there is only one God in all places at all times. There were none before God and there will be none after Him. Monotheism is the teaching of the Bible (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:89). Moral government theology A theological error that maintains that God is not immutable but changes His mind, that He does not exercise sovereign control over earthly matters, that He does not know all future events particularly the free-will choices of individuals, etc.. It denies that the atonement pays for our sins, denies Jesus substitutionary death, and denies the imputed righteousness of Christ to the believer. It asserts that people are capable of keeping the whole Law of God, that there is no depravity of human nature, and that salvation is up to a persons free will choice. Mormonism A non-Christian cult begun in 1830 by Joseph Smith. The Mormon church, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, denies the historic Trinity and efficacious atonement. Some of its unique doctrines are that God used to be a man on another world who became a God and came to this world with one of his wives. We all are literally born in heaven as spirit brothers and sisters and then inhabit human bodies on earth. For more information on this cult, please see Mormonism on CARM. Mortal Sin In Catholicism, a serious and willful transgression of God's Law. It involves full knowledge and intent of the will to commit the sin. If left unrepentant, according to Catholicism, can damn someone to eternal hell. Mortal sin is more serious than venial Sin. Natural knowledge A term used in describing a type of knowledge possessed by God. Often it is raised in discussions dealing with individuals free will and Gods infinite knowledge. Gods natural knowledge would be His knowledge of all things of potential existence influenced by individuals though not necessarily in actual existence. God knows this set of knowledge from all eternity, before the creation of the universe. It is called natural because it is a natural attribute of Gods existence. See also Free Knowledge and Middle Knowledge. Naturalism The belief that all of human experience can be described through natural law. It asserts that biological evolution is true and that there are no supernatural realities. Neo-orthodoxy A focus on existential and psychological aspects of religious experience and denounces the literalism of the Bible. Experience with the divine is what makes scripture real, not biblical revelation, not reason. Neo orthodoxy is subjective and selective in its "orthodox" positions. Nestorianism States that the two natures of Christ were so separated from each other that they were "not in contact"; the problem here is that worship of the human Jesus would then not be allowed. (See also Hypostatic Union, Eutychianism, and Monophycitism.) Nun Especially in the Roman Catholic Church, those women who consecrate their lives to spiritual service and various religious orders. They do not marry and are normally virgins. Objectivism A branch of philosophy that asserts that reality exists apart from the human mind and that the knowability of this reality based upon observation.

182

Occam's Razor The philosophical rule that the simplest explanation is preferred over the more complicated one and that explanations should be first proposed in relation to concepts that are already known. Another way of seeing it is to say that the fewer assumptions that need to be made to support an explanation of something, the better. The principle is attributed to William Occam of the fourteenth century. Occult Occult means "hidden". It covers practices that are not approved of by God e.g., astrology (Isaiah 47:13), casting spells (Deut. 18:11), consulting with spirits (Deut. 18:11), magic (Gen. 41:8), sorcery (Exodus. 22:8), witchcraft (Deut. 18:10), and spiritism (Deut. 18:11). Occult practices such as Ouija boards, tarot cards, astrology charts, contacting the dead, sances, etc. are to be avoided by the Christian and Jews alike. Omnipotence An attribute of God alone. It is the quality of having all power (Psalm 115:3). He can do all things that do not conflict with His holy nature. God has the power to do anything He wants to. Omnipresence An attribute of God alone. It is the quality of being present in all places at all times (Jer. 23:23.4). He is not bound by time and space. This does not mean that nature is a part of God and is, therefore, to be worshiped. Creation is separate from God, but not independent of Him. Omniscience An attribute of God alone. It is the quality of having all knowledge (Isaiah 40:14). Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience represent the nature of God concerning His relation to the creation. Ontological Argument An attempt to prove Gods existence first postulated by Anselm. In brief, it states that God is a being of which no greater thing exists or can be thought of. Therefore, since we can conceive of God as the greatest of all things that exist, then God must exist. Ontology The study of the nature of being, reality, and substance. Oracles Oracles are the divine revelations given to God's people. God's method of communicating these oracles varied from dreams and visions (Num. 12:6-8), to wisdom (Prov. 30:1), and even the Urim and Thummim (Num. 27:21; 1 Sam. 14:337). 2 1 Ordination In Christianity it is the c eremony of consecration to ministry. It is usually administered by a commissioning and a laying on of hands. Ordo salutis Latin for order of salvation. Theologically it is the order of decrees by God in bringing about the salvation of individuals. In the Reformed camp, the ordo solutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) calling, 4) regeneration, 5) faith, 6) repentance, 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. In the Arminian camp, the ordo soluits is 1) calling, 2) faith, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification.

21

The Urim and Thummim were placed in the breastplate of the high priest (Exodus 28:30) and were used as a means of communication with God. They mean "light" and "perfection". Unfortunately, they are not described anywhere in the Bible. Some theories maintain that they were twelve stones that made up part of the High Priest's garments. The process of the communication with God is not given either.

183

Original Sin This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-23). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Orthodoxy Belief in the standards of accepted and true doctrines taught in the Bible. see Heterodoxy.

Panentheism The belief that God is in the universe. It differs with pantheism which states that God is the universe and all that it comprises. Pantheism This is an identification of the universe with God. With this view there is a blurring of the distinction between the Creator and the creation as well as an attack upon the personality and nature of God. Pantheism tends to equate God with the process of the universe and states that the universe is God and God is the universe. This is not true because God is the creator of the universe (Isaiah 44:24) and therefore separate from it. Papyrus A plant growing along the Nile in Egypt during biblical times. It was used as writing material. Papyrus scrolls were made by cutting and pressing sections of the papyri plant together at right angles. They typical maximum length of a scroll was about 35 feet. The scribe, when using papyrus, would often use the natural horizontal fibers of the papyrus plant as guidelines. He would take a blunt instrument and score horizontal lines and then score two or more vertical lines as margins for the edge of the sheet or to define columns on it. We get the word "paper" from this word. Many of the biblical manuscripts were on papyrus. Parable An illustrative discourse or story that uses common events and culture and is meant to convey a meaning or lesson. Jesus used parables extensively. Some of the OT parables are Trees Making a King (2 Sam. 12:1-4); The Thistle and the Cedar (2 Kings 14:9); Israel, a Vine Planted by Water (Ezek. 24:1014), etc. Some NT parables are The Sower (Luke 8:5-8); the Ten Virgins (Matt. 25:113); The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37); The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32), etc. See Parables. Paradise Biblically, paradise is the place of uninterrupted bliss. The Garden of Eden was considered a paradise. Jesus mentioned paradise while on the cross (Luke 23:43) and Paul also mentioned Paradise (2 Cor. 12:1-4). Some consider paradise to be the abode of people in the intermediate state while others believe it is the permanent location of the saved. Parapsychology The study of things not generally explainable by the scientific method. Examples of subjects studied by parapsychologists would be telepathy, clairvoyance, ghosts, etc. Parousia (par-ooo-see-a) A Greek term that means arrival or coming. The term is often referred to as the time of Christs return; hence, the Parousia, i.e., 2 Thess. 2:1. Pedobaptism The practice of infant baptism. Pelagianism The teaching of a monk named Pelagius in the fifth Century. He taught that man's will was and still is free to choose good or evil and there is no inherited sin (through Adam). Every infant born into the world is in the same condition as Adam before the fall and becomes a sinner because he sins. This is opposed to the Biblical teaching that we are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) and that we sin because we are sinners. Pelagius said we are able to keep the commandments of God because God

184

has given us the ability. Therefore, there is no need of redemptio n and the crucifixion of Jesus is merely a supreme example of love, humility, obedience, and sacrifice. This heresy has its relatives in the form of the cults that deny the total dependence upon God and maintain that salvation is obtainable through our own efforts. (Compare to Arminianism and Calvinism.) Penance In Catholicism, a means by which all sins committed after baptism are removed. The means are assigned by a priest and usually consist of special prayers or deeds performed by the sinner. Pentateuch This word is from the Greek penta, "five" and teuchos, "a tool". It refers to the first five books of the Bible known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. All five were authored by Moses and are also known as "the Law". Pentecost The word comes from the Greek which means fifty. So, Pentecost was a celebration on the fiftieth day after Passover. It was a culmination of the feast of weeks (Exodus 34:22,23). Pentecost in the NT is the arrival of the Holy Spirit for the church (Acts 2). At Pentecost the disciples of Jesus were gathered and upon the filling of the Holy Spirit, they heard a great wind and spoke in tongues as tongues of fire that settled upon them. The significance of the fire can be found in recognizing it as a symbol of the dwelling of the Spirit of God (Exodus 19:18; 1 Pet. 4:14). Permissive decree In Christian theology, those decrees (ordained events) of God that are different from His direct decrees. An example of a permissive decree would be the fall of Adam into sin. God does not desire sin, yet He permitted its occurrence. He decreed that it would occur by permission, not by direct action of His will. A direct decree of God would be the incarnation of the Son. Perseverance To endure to the end. Theologically, the term perseverance of the saints is the teaching that salvation cannot be lost, that the saints will preserver to the end. Person A variety of definitions can be offered from a human being to a legal organization with rights. In biblical reference it is generically a fleshly individual capable of free choice. In reference to the Trinity as three persons, the word refers to the attributes of personhood: self-awareness, choice, can reason, love, possessing a will and consciousness, etc. Humans possess these attributes as well. Pharisee The Pharisees were a Jewish sect from the second century B.C. to the first century A.D. They considered the entire Old Testament to be authoritative, unlike the Sadducees who only accepted the first five books. The Pharisees believed in life after death, the resurrection, the existence of angels and demons, and that the way to God was through keeping the law. "According to Josephus, the Pharisees were the group most influential with the people, were noted for their accurate and therefore authoritative interpretations of Jewish law, and had their own traditions and way of life to which they were faithful. They had a simple standard of living and cultivated harmonious relations with others. 2 2 Philosophy The study of seeking knowledge and wisdom in understanding the nature of the universe, man, ethics, art, love, purpose, etc.

22

"Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.

185

Pluralism The idea that reality consists of different kinds of things. The term is used in different fields of study. Social pluralism deals with the many different types of social structure. Cultural pluralism deals with the many different types of culture, etc. Pneumatology The study of the Holy Spirit, His person, works, relation to the Father and Son, relation to man, ministry in salvation and sanctification, conviction, and indwelling. Polytheism The teaching that there are many gods. In the Ancient Near East the nation of Israel was faced with the problem of the gods of other nations creeping into the theology of Judaism and corrupting the true revelation of God. Baal was the god of rain and exercised a powerful influence over the religion of many pagan cultures and even into the Jewish community. This is so because rain was essential to survival. Rain meant the crops would grow, the animals would have water, and the people would be able to eat. If there was no rain, death prevailed. Such visible realities as rain, drought, crops, and death often carried the spiritual character of the nation of Israel into spiritual adultery, that is, worshiping other gods. The Bible does recognize the existence of other gods, but only as false gods (1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9) and clearly teaches that there is only one true God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8;). (See Monotheism.) Pope In Catholicism, the Pope is supposed to be Christ's representative on earth. He is the alleged, visible successor of Peter. Postmillennialism The belief that through the preaching of the word of God, the entire world will be converted to Christianity and this will usher in the kingdom of Christ. This is when Christ will return. Postmodernism A relativistic system of observation and thought that denies absolutes and objectivity. Postmodernism has influenced theology, art, culture, architecture, society, film, technology, and economics. Traditional social, art, social, and cultural, constructs are discarded and reinterpreted in relativistic terms. An example of postmodern thought would be the validation of homosexuality as an equally legitimate sexual expression over and against the Judeo-Christian ethic of heterosexual monogamy. In other words, previously taboo practices and beliefs are given equal validity to traditional values and norms often to the point of displacing the latter. This equalization and displacement are not restricted to religious realms, but affect all circles of human interaction. Pragmatism A method in philosophy where value is determined by practical results. Prayer A privilege and an obligation of the Christian where we communicate with God. It is how we convey our confession (1 John 1:9), requests (1 Tim. 2:1-3), intercessions (James 5:15), thanksgiving (Phil. 4:6), etc., to our holy God. We are commanded to pray (1 Thess. 5:17). Some personal requirements of prayer are a pure heart (Psalm 66:18), belief in Christ (John 14:13), and that the prayer be according to God's will (1 John 5:13). We can pray standing (Neh. 9:5), kneeling (Ezra 9:5), sitting (1 Chron. 17:16-27), bowing (Exodus 34:8), and with lifted hands (1 Tim. 2:8). Pre-Adamites The teaching that there was a race of people before Adam and Eve lived in the Garden and that the fall of Satan caused a widespread destruction of the world. The result of this destruction was so vast that the world needed to be re- made with Adam and Eve being the first of the new order.

186

Pre-existence The teaching that before our existence here on earth, we had a prior existence. Biblically, we do not pre-exist. Our beginning is at our conception. Many aberrant groups teach pre-existence such as the Mormons and the Shepherds Chapel. Also, all groups that teach reincarnation affirm the idea of pre-existence.Predestine, Predestination The doctrine that God has foreordained all things which will come to pass yet He is not the author of sin. He does, however, use sinful things for His glory and purpose. For example, the crucifixion was brought about by sinful men who unrighteously put Jesus to death (Acts 4:27); yet, in that death, we are reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10). Predestination maintains that God is the one who decides who will be saved (Rom. 9:16) and that it is not up to the desire of the person (John 1:13). God is the one who ordains the Christian into forgiveness, "...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed," (Acts 13:48). Also, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and who He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified," (Rom. 8:29-30). Further verses to examine are Eph. 1:4,11; Rom. 9. (See also Election and Sovereignty.) Premillennialism This is a teaching concerning the end times (eschatology). It says that there is a future millennium (1000 years) where Christ will rule and reign over the earth. At the beginning of the millennium Satan and his angels will be bound and peace will exist on the entire earth. At the end of the 1000 years Satan will be released in order to raise an army against Jesus. Jesus will destroy them and then the final judgment will take place with the new heavens and the new earth being made. Preterition The act of passing over something, or neglecting it. In theology, it is the Reformed doctrine that God passed over people by not electing them into salvation. Instead, only those elected to salvation will be saved and passed over all others. Priest A person having the ability to perform certain religious rites, sacraments. Generally, a priest stands between God and Man and administers the ceremonial rites on behalf of the individuals as an offering to God. In many churches (Catholic), the priest is below the Bishop in ecclesiastical order and rank. Prophet Someone who is the mouthpiece of God. He stands between God and man to communicate to man the word of God. When the prophet spoke as the mouthpiece he was inspired and without error. The prophet, though, is not a puppet or a mindless repeater of what he hears. Instead, he retains his own will, mind, and thoughts as he speaks for God. God would put His words in their mouths (Deut. 18:18; Jer. 1:9). A prophet was God's servant (Zech. 1:6) and messenger (2 Chron. 36:15). The prophecies fell into three categories: concerning the destiny of Israel, the messianic prophecies, and eschatological prophecies. The term Law and Prophets refers to the writings of the OT divided into two categories. The Law is the Pentateuch, or Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Prophets are all the rest of the OT books. Propitiation This means the turning away of wrath by an offering. It is similar to expiation but expiation does not carry the nuances involving wrath. For the Christian the propitiation was the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. It turned away the wrath of God so that He could pass "over the sins previously committed," (Rom. 3:25). It was the Father who sent the Son to be the propitiation (1 John 4:10) for all (1 John 2:2). Purgatory An incorrect doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Purgatory is the belief that there exists a place after death where some of the sins of people are purged through suffering. After a period of time corresponding to the suffering necessary for the sins committed, the person is then set free and enters

187

heaven. "Gifts or services rendered to the church, prayers by the priests, and masses provided by relatives or friends in behalf of the deceased can shorten, alleviate or eliminate the sojourn of the soul in purgatory." 2 3 This is an unbiblical doctrine rejected by the Protestant church. It reflects the misunderstanding of the atonement of Christ as well as adding insult to the finished work of the cross. The error of purgatory is the teaching that we might perfect ourselves and remove sin through our sufferings. If that were possible, then why did Christ need to die? Gal. 2:21 says, "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (NIV) Additionally, on the cross Jesus said, "It is finished," (John 19:30). In the Greek, this was an accounting term which meant a debt was paid in full. If the payment for our sins was paid in full on the cross, then how could purgatory be a reality -- especially when the scriptures don't mention it and even contradict it: "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment," (Heb. 9:27). Rapture The rapture is an eschatological (end times) event whereupon the return of Christ the true believers who are "alive and remain shall be caught up together with them [those who already died as Christians] in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air..." (1 Thess. 4:17). This is the time of the resurrection where the Christian receives his resurrected body. First to receive their new bodies are those who have died as Christians, and then "those who are alive and remain." There is much debate over the time of the rapture. Does it occur at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the tribulation period? (See Tribulation.) Rationalism A branch of philosophy where truth is determined by reason. Reconcile, Reconciliation Reconciliation is changing for the better a relationship between two or more persons. Theologically it refers to the change of relationship between God and man. We are naturally children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), and are at enmity with God (Eph. 2:11-15); but, "...we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son..." (Rom. 5:10). Because of the death of Jesus, the Christian's relationship with God is changed for the better. We are now able to have fellowship with Him (1 John 1:3) whereas before we could not. So, we are reconciled to Him (Rom. 5:10-11). The problem of sin that separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2) has been addressed and removed in the cross. It was accomplished by God in Christ (2 Cor. 5:18). Redemption Redemption means to free someone from bondage. It often involves the paying of a ransom, a price that makes redemption possible. The Israelites were redeemed from Egypt. We were redeemed from the power of sin and the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13) through Jesus (Rom. 3:24; Col. 1:14). We were bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23). Regeneration The act of God whereby He renews the spiritual condition of a sinner. It is a spiritual change brought about by the work of the Holy Spirit so that the person then possess new life, eternal life. Regeneration is a change in our moral and spiritual nature where justification is a change in our relationship with God. Also, sanctification is the work of God in us to make us more like Jesus. Regeneration is the beginning of that change. It means to be born again. Reincarnation The belief in the birth and rebirth of a person's soul over and over again in different human bodies throughout history. Some forms of reincarnation include incarnations into animals, plants, or inanimate objects. The purpose of reincarnation is to allow the individual to learn spiritual lessons through life so that he/she may return to God from whence the soul came. Reincarnation is closely tied to Karma.

23

"Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.

188

Relativism The view that truth is relative and not absolute. Truth varies from people to people, time to time and there are no absolutes. See CARM's Relativism section. Religion An organized system of belief that generally seeks to understand purpose, meaning, goals, and methods of spiritual things. These spiritual things can be God, people in relation to God, salvation, after life, purpose of life, order of the cosmos, etc. Repentance To repent means to turn. In the NT repentance means to turn from sin. We were called by God to turn from sin. In fact, all men everywhere are commanded by God to repent of their sins (Acts 17:30). God's longsuffering leads us to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9) as does His kindness (Rom. 2:4). There is true and false repentance, "For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation; but the sorrow of the world produces death," (2 Cor. 7:10). Resurrection, resurrection bodies Resurrection means to be raised from the dead (John 5:28,29). The word is used in different contexts in the Bible. Lazarus was raised from the dead (John 11:43). This is a resurrection, but it is not part of the resurrection that occurs when we receive our new bodies when Christ returns (1 Thess. 4:13-18), on the last day (John 6:39-44) when the last trumpet is blown (1 Cor. 15:51-55). Lazarus died again. The resurrection of Jesus is promissory in that as we know He was raised, so we will be raised also. In that context, Jesus is the only one who has received a resurrected body. That is why He is called the first-fruit from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20-23). We will receive our bodies either at the rapture or when Jesus returns to earth. The resurrected body is not subject to death or sin. We know very little about it except what was manifested by Jesus after His resurrection; namely, that He was able to move about as He desired -in and out of rooms without the use of doors. Other than that, the rest is conjecture. (See 1 Cor. 15). Revelation This means the disclosure of something that was unknown. There are two types of revelation: natural and special. Natural revelation is that which is revealed about God through what we can see in creation (Rom. 1:20 ). Through creation we may learn that there is a God, that He is in control, that He has an order, and that He is concerned for our welfare. However, through natural revelation, we are not able to discover the plan of salvation. That comes from special revelation. Special revelation is that which is given to us through Prophets, the Bible, and even visions and dreams (Num. 12:6-8). The ultimate in revelation is the incarnation of Jesus because He came to reveal the Father to us (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; Heb. 1:1-3) and to communicate to us the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4 by which comes salvation. Righteousness Righteousness is an attribute of moral purity belonging to God alone (John 17:25 ). It is He alone who is truly righteous. No one in the world is righteous in the eyes of the Lord, that is, except the Christian. We are counted righteous in the eyes of God when we receive Jesus by faith (Phil. 3:9). Our righteousness is based on what Jesus did on the cross. The righteousness that was Christ's is counted to us. We, then, are seen as righteous in the eyes of God. Though we are actually worthy of damnation, we are made righteous (Isaiah 61:10) by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. As a result, we will spend eternity in the presence of the holy, pure, loving, kind, gentle, and righteous God who is our righteousness. Rosary In Catholicism, a string of beads containing five sets with ten small beads. Each set of ten is separated by another bead. It also contains a crucifix. It is used in saying special prayers, usually to Mary where the rosary is used to count the prayers.

189

Sacerdotalism The teaching that ordination imparts special abilities/powers necessary for the operation of the ministry. Also, the teaching that grace is administered through the one so ordained. Sacrament A visible manifestation of the word. The bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are considered sacraments in that they are visible manifestations of the covenant promise of our Lord: "In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you,'" (Luke 22:20). God, in the OT, used visible signs along with His spoken word. These visible signs, then, were considered to have significance. "Among the OT sacraments the rites of circumcision and the Passover were stressed as being the OT counterparts of baptism (Col. 1:10-12) and the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 5:7)." Sadducee A group of religious leaders in the Jewish religion from the second century B.C. to the first century A.D. In Hebrew their names mean "the righteous ones." They were smaller in size and the group of the Pharisees. The Sadducees were generally on the upper class, often in a priestly line, and the Pharisees in the middle class, usually merchants and tradesmen. The Sadducees accepted only the Torah, the first five books of the old Testament, as authoritative. They held rigidly to the old Testament law and a denying the life after death, reward and punishment after death, the resurrection, and the existence of angels and demons. They controlled the temple and its services and were unpopular with the majority of the Jewish population. Salvation Salvation is the "saving" of a sinner from the righteous judgment of God. When someone appeals to God and seeks forgiveness in Jesus, his sins are forgiven. He is cleansed. His relationship with God is restored, and he is made a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). All of this is the work of God, not man. Salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:3). We are saved from damnation. When anyone sins, and we all have (Rom. 3:23; 6:23), he deserves eternal separation from God (Isaiah 59:2). Yet, because of His love and mercy, God became a man (John 1:1,14 ) and bore the sins of the world in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24; 1 John 2:2). We are forgiven when we realize that there is nothing we can do to earn the favor of God and we put our trust in what Jesus did for us on the cross (Eph. 2:8-9; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). Only God saves. The only thing we bring to the cross is our sin. Both God the Father (Isaiah 14:21) and Jesus (John 4:42) are called Savior; that is, deliverer from sin. Remember, it was the Father who sent the Son (1 John 4:10) to be the Savior. Sanctify, Sanctification To sanctify means to be set apart for a holy use. God has set us apart for the purpose of sanctification not impurity (1 Thess. 4:7) and being such we are called to do good works (Eph. 2:10). Christians are to sanctify Christ as Lord in their hearts (1 Pet. 3:15). God sanctified Israel as His own special nation (Ezek. 27:28). People can be sanctified (Exodus 19:10,14) and so can a mountain (Exodus 19:23), as can the Sabbath day (Gen. 2:3), and every created thing is sanctified through the word of God and prayer (1 Tim. 4:4). 2 4 Sanctification follows justification. In justification our sins are completely forgiven in Christ. Sanctification is the process by which the Holy Spirit makes us more like Christ in all that we do, think, and desire. True sanctification is impossible apart from the atoning work of Christ on the cross because only after our sins are forgiven can we begin to lead a holy life. Sanhedrin The Sanhedrin was a council of 71 individuals, around the time of Christ, that was comprised of Pharisees and Sadducees who governed the Jewish nation while under the rule of Rome. It often served as a court to settle legal and religious matters.

24

Adapted from Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p. 470.

190

Scholasticism The method of study in the Middle Ages which was used to support the doctrines of the church through reason and logic. Scriptures The scriptures are, quite simply, the Bible which consists of 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. Each one is inspired, without error, and is completely accurate in all things it addresses. The entire Bible, though written by many people over thousands of years is harmonious in all its teachings. This is because each book of the Bible is inspired. Second Coming, The The Second Coming is a term applied to the return of Christ. If there is a second coming, it follows that there must have been a first. The first coming of Christ was His incarnation when He was born. At the second coming of Christ every eye will see Him (Rev. 1:7) as He descends from heavens in t he clouds (Matt. 24:30; Mark 14:6). Septuagint, The The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. It was during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.) that the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, were translated into Greek. Shortly afterwards the rest of the Old Testament was also translated. This translation was done by approximately 70 translators. Hence, the Septuagint is known by the letters LXX, the Roman numerals for seventy. Sin Sin is anything that is contrary to the law or will of God. For example: if you lie, you have sinned. Why? Because God has said not to lie (Exodus 20:16). If you do what God has forbidden, then you have sinned. In addition, if you do not do what God has commanded, you sin (James 4:17). Either way, the result is eternal separation from God (Isaiah 59:2). Sin is lawlessness (1 John 1:3) and unrighteousness (1 John 5:17). Sin leads to blindness (John 9:) and death (Rom. 6:23). Paul, in the book of Romans, discusses sin. He shows that everyone, both Jew and Greek, is under sin (Rom. 3:9). He shows that sin is not simply something that is done, but a condition of the heart (Rom. 3:10-12). In Ephesians Paul says that we are "by nature children of wrath," (Eph. 2:3). Yet, "while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly," (Rom. 5:6). Skepticism Skepticism is the philosophical approach that denies that the world can be objectively known in any absolute sense. It further denies the true know ability of God. Sola Fide The teaching that faith alone saves a person when he places his faith and trust in the sacrificial work of Christ. Sola Gratia The teaching that God pardons believers without any merit of their own based solely on the sacrificial work of Christ. Sola Scriptura The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Son of God This is a title of Jesus. It implies His deity (John 5:18) because the title is one of equality with God. In the OT it was figuratively applied to Israel (Exo 4:22). In the NT it is applied to Christ (Luke 1:35). It has many facets, for example: It shows that He is to be honored equally with the Father (John 5:2223). That He is to be worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6); called God (John 20:28; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:8); prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; 1 Cor. 1:1-2).

191

Soteriology The study of the doctrine of salvation. It is derived from the Greek word soterious which means salvation. Some of the subjects of soteriology are the atonement, imputation, and regeneration. Soul Sleep The teaching that when a person dies his soul ceases to exist. On the final judgment day he is brought back to life and judged. This is not a heresy, only an error of interpretation. The Bible is not specific on the condition of the person between death and resurrection. However, there are scriptures that strongly suggest man's continued self-awareness and continued existence after death (Luke 16:19-31; 2 Cor. 5:1-10; Phil. 1:21-23). Sovereignty The right of God to do as He wishes (Psalm 50:1; Isaiah 40:15; 1 Tim. 6:15) with His creation. This implies that there is no external influence upon Him and that He also has the ability to exercise His power and control according to His will. Spiritual Gifts Spiritual gifts are gifts given by Jesus to His church. Spiritual gifts are discussed in 1 Cor. 12 - 14 and Rom. 12. They vary in degree and nature. There are some that are obviously supernatural in the usage: speaking in tongues, discerning of spirits, healing, etc. There are others that are not so supernatural: administrations, help, admonition, etc. There is debate over the continuance of the gifts. Some say that the gifts have ceased because we now have the Bible. They argue that the gifts were used for the building of the body of Christ during the beginning of the Christian church when the Bible was not complete. Since the Bible is complete there is no further need for the revelatory gifts like peaking in tongues and the interpretation of tongues. Others maintain that the gifts are all for today though to a lesser degree. There are good arguments on both sides. Subjectivism The teaching that the individual is the source and judge of all religious knowledge based upon his own knowledge and experience. Supralapsarianism An issue within Reformed theology dealing with what may have happened in God's mind regarding the logical order of His considering whom to elect into salvation before the foundation of the world. The word means "before the fall." This position holds that God first decided that he would save some people and then second that he would allow sin into the world. By contrast, the infralapsarian ("after the fall") position is the reverse in that it holds that God first decided he would allow sin into the world and second that he would then save people from it. Synagogue A Jewish house of worship. Traditionally the first synagogues were established during the Babylonian exile. The early synagogues had a place in the center of the room where the sacred scrolls were kept and from where they were read. It is from the worship order established in synagogues that our modern church patterns of reading and expounding upon scripture from the pulpit are derived. Synergism The teaching that we cooperate with God in our efforts of salvation. This is opposed to monergism that is the teaching that God is the sole agent involved in salvation. Cults are synergistic in that they teach that God's grace combined with our efforts is what makes forgiveness of sins possible. Synoptic Gospels The first three gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They are referred to as the synoptics because of their great similarity.

192

Tabernacle The tabernacle was the structure ordered built by God so that He might dwell among His people (Exodus 25:8). It was to be mobile and constructed to exacting specifications. It is referred to in Exodus 25-27, 30-31, 35-40; Num. 3:25ff.; 4:4 ff.; 7:1ff. In all of scripture more space is devoted to the tabernacle than any other topic. Many books have been written on the spiritual significance of the tabernacle, how it represented Christ, and how it foretold the gospel. The tabernacle consisted of the outer court and the tabernacle. The outer court was entered from the East. The outer court contained the altar of burnt offering (Exodus 27:1-8) and the bronze laver (Exodus 30:17-21). The tabernacle stood within the court (Exodus 26:1ff.). It was divided into two main divisions: the holy place and the holy of holies which were separated by a veil (Exodus 26:31 ff.), the same veil that was torn from top to bottom at the crucifixion of Jesus (Matt. 27:51). Where the veil had represented the barrier separating sinful man from a holy God (Heb. 9:8), its destruction represented the free access sinners have to God through the blood of Christ (Heb. 10:19ff.). The tabernacle was a place of sacrifice. The holy place contained three things: first, a table on which was placed the shewbread, the bread of the presence (Exodus 25:23-30), second, a golden lampstand (Exodus 25:31-40) and third, an altar of incense (Exodus 30:1-7). In the Holy of Holies was the ark of the covenant which contained the Ten Commandments (Exodus 25:16). The holy of holies was entered only once a year by the high priest who offered sacrifice for the nation of Israel. Teleological argument An attempted proof of God's existence based upon the premise that the universe is designed and therefore needs a designer: God. Teleology The study of final causes, results. Having a definite purpose, goal, or design. Temptation That which moves us to sin. God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). But we can be tempted by our lusts (Jam 1:13-15), money (1 Tim. 6:9), lack of self examination (Gal. 6:1), and the boastful pride es of life (1 John 2:16), to name a few. We are commanded to pray to be delivered from temptation (Matt. 6:13) for the Lord is capable of delivering us from it (2 Pet. 2:9). Testament The word testament is a derivation of the Latin word testamentum, which was used in Jerome's Vulgate to translate the Hebrew word b'rith, covenant. The Greek equivalent is diatheke, which also means covenant. The word has come to be used in describing the two main divisions of the Bible: The Old Testament and The New Testament. It should be understood then, that the Bible is generally to be looked at as a covenant between God and man. Tetragrammaton (YHWH) This is a term applied to the four Hebrew letters that make up the name of God as revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14. "And God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM; and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you. YHWH make up the base of the verb "to be" from which God designated His own name as "I AM." In English the letters are basically equivalent to YHWH. It is from these four letters that the name of God is derived and has been rendered as Yahweh and Jehovah. The true pronunciation of God's name has been lost through lack of use, because the Jews, who were first given the name of God, would not pronounce it out of their awe and respect for God. Theism The teaching that there is a God and that He is actively involved in the affairs of the world. This does not necessitate the Christian concept of God, but includes it. (Compare to Deism) Theodicy The study of the problem of evil in the world. The issue is raised in light of the sovereignty of God. How could a holy and loving God who is in control of all things allow evil to exist? The answer has been debated for as long as the church has existed. We still do not have a definitive answer and the Bible does not seek to justify God's actions. It is clear that God is sovereign, and that He has willed the existence of both good and evil, and that all of this is for His own glory. Prov. 16:4 says, "The LORD works out everything for his own ends

193

-- even the wicked for a day of disaster"; Isaiah 45:7 says, "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." Theology The study of God, His nature, attributes, character, abilities, revelation, etc. True theology is found in the Bible which is the self-revelation of God. Theophany A theophany is a visible manifestation of God usually restricted to the Old Testament. God has appeared in dreams (Gen. 20:3-7; Gen. 28:12-17), visions (Gen. 15:1-21; Isaiah 6:1-13), as an angel (Gen. 16:7-13; 18:1-33), etc. There is a manifestation known as the Angel of the Lord (Judges 6:20f.) and seems to have characteristics of God Himself (Gen. 16:7-9; 18:1-2; Exodus 3:2-6; Joshua 5:14; Judges 2:1-5; 6:11). Such characteristics as having the name of God, being worshiped, and recognized as God has led many scholars to conclude that the angel of the Lord is really Jesus manifested in the Old Testament. This does not mean that Jesus is an angel. The word "angel" means messenger. Other scriptures that describe more vivid manifestations of God are Gen. 17:1; 18:1; Ex. 6:2-3; 24:9-11; 33:20; Num. 12:6-8; Acts 7:2. For further information on theophanies see the Plurality Study. Tithe A portion of ones earnings, usually one tenth, that are given to those who perform the work of the Lord since it belongs to the Lord (Lev. 27:30-33). Those who received tithes the OT consisted of priests (Num. 18:21-32). Further OT references are Gen. 14:20; 28:22; 2 Chron. 31:5f; Mal. 3:7-12). In the NT there is no command to tithe a tenth (since we are not under law but grace). But the tithe is mentioned in Luke 18:9-14; 1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 8). Total Depravity The doctrine that fallen man is completely touched by sin and that he is completely a sinner. He is not as bad as he could be, but in all areas of his being, body, soul, spirit, mind, emotions, etc., he is touched by sin. In that sense he is totally depraved. Because man is depraved, nothing good can come out of him (Rom. 3:10-12) and God must account the righteousness of Christ to him. This righteousness is obtainable only through faith in Christ and what He did on the cross. Total depravity is generally believed by the Calvinist groups and rejected by the Arminian groups. Transcendence A theological term referring to the relation of God to creation. God is "other," "different" from His creation. He is independent and different from His creatures (Isaiah 55:8-9). He transcends His creation. He is beyond it and not limited by it or to it. Transfiguration This refers to the mysterious change that occurred to Jesus on the mount: "Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white," (Matt. 17:1-2). The transfiguration preceded Jesus' time on the cross and may have been the Father's preparatory provision to strengthen Jesus as He prepared to bear the sins of the world. Transubstantiation The theory accepted by Catholicism, that in the Lord's Supper, the elements are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus. However, there is no perceptible or measurable change in the elements. The transformation occurs during the Mass at the elevation of the elements by the priest. Tribulation, The According to premillennialism, this is a severn year period that immediately precedes the return of Christ and the millennial kingdom of His rule which lasts for 1000 years. It will be a time of great peace (the first 3 years) and great war (the second 3 years) when the Antichrist rules over many nations. At the midpoint of the tribulation (at the end of the first 3 years) the Antichrist will proclaim himself worthy of worship. Many will bow down and worship the Antichrist and many will refuse. Those

194

who refuse to worship the Antichrist will be killed. The second half of the tribulation is called the Great Tribulation. It will involve the whole world (Rev. 3:10). There will be catastrophes all over the world. (See Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 17.) Trichotomy The teaching that the human consists of three parts: body, soul, and spirit. (Compare with Dichotomy.) Trinity The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. Nevertheless, it is a word used to describe one fact the Bible teaches about God: Our God is a Trinity. This means there are three persons in one God, not three Gods. The persons are known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and they have all always existed as three separate persons. The person of the Father is not the same person as the Son. The person of the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit. The person of the Holy Spirit is not the same person as the Father. If you take away any one, there is no God. God has always been a trinity from all eternity: "From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God," (Psalm 90:2). God is not one person who took three forms, i.e., the Father who became the Son, who then became the Holy Spirit. This belief is known today as the "Jesus Only Movement". It is taught by the United Apostolic and United Pentecostal churches, and is an incorrect teaching. Nor is God only one person as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Way International, and the Christadelphians teach (These groups are classified as non-Christian cults). For proof that there is more than one person in the Godhead, see the Plurality Study. The Bible says there is only one God. Yet, it says Jesus is God (John 1:1,14); it says the Father is God (Phil. 1:2); and it says the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). Since the Son speaks to the Father, they are separate persons. Since the Holy Spirit speaks also (Acts 13:2), He is a separate person. There is one God who exists in three persons. The following chart should help you understand how the Trinity doctrine is derived. THE Father Called God Creator Resurrects Indwells Everywhere All knowing Sanctifies Life giver Fellowship Eternal A Will Speaks Love Phil. 1:2 Isaiah 64:8; 44:24 1 Thess. 1:10 2 Cor. 6:16 1 Kings 8:27 1 John 3:20 1 Thess. 5:23 Gen. 2:7: John 5:21 1 John 1:3 Psalm 90:2 Luke 22:42 Matt. 3:17; Luke 9:25 John 3:16 TRINITY Son John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9 John 1:3; Col. 1:15-17 John 2:19, 10:17 Col. 1:27 Matt. 28:20 John 16:30; 21:17 Heb. 2:11 John 1:3; 5:21 1 Cor. 1:9 Micah 5:1-2 Luke 22:42 Luke 5:20; 7:48 Eph. 5:25 Rev. 2:23 John 17:6 2 Tim. 1:10; Titus 1:4; 3:6 Col. 3:24 John 14:1 John 15:11 John 5:21,30 Holy Spirit Acts 5:3-4 Job 33:4, 26:13 Rom. 8:11 John 14:17 Psalm 139:7-10 1 Cor. 2:10-11 1 Pet. 1:2 2 Cor. 3:6,8 2 Cor. 13:14; Phil. 2:1 Rom. 8:11; Heb. 9:14 1 Cor. 12:11 Acts 8:29; 11:12; 13:2 Rom. 15:30 1 Cor. 2:10

Searches the heart Jer. 17:10 We belong to John 17:9 Savior We serve Believe in Gives joy Judges 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10 Matt. 4:10 John 14:1 John 8:50

John 14:7

195

Type, Typology A type is a representation by one thing of another. Adam was a type of Christ (Rom. 5:14) and so was Isaac (Heb. 11:19). The Passover was a type of Christ (1 Cor. 5:7). There are m any types in the Bible and most of them are too extensive and deep to be listed. An example of a typology follows: Isaac a type of Jesus. ISAAC Only begotten Son Offered on a mountain, hill Took donkey to place of sacrifice Two men went with him. Son carried wood on his back up hill God will provide for Himself the lamb Son was offered on the wood Ram in thicket of thorns The seed will be multiplied 22:2 22:3 22:3 22:6 22:8 22:9 22:13 22:17 JESUS Matt. 21:10 Matt. 21:2-11 Mark 15:27; Luke 23:33 Luke 24:13-21 John 19:17 John 1:29 Luke 23:33 John 19:2 John 1:12; Isaiah 53:10 Luke 23:46 Eph. 5:22-32; Rev. 21:2,9; 22:17 2 Cor. 11:2 Rom. 6:23; 12; 1 Cor. 12

Genesis 22:2 John 3:16

Three day journey. Jesus: three days in the grave 22:4

Abraham went down, Son didn't, "not mentioned." 22:19 Servant gets bride for son The bride was a beautiful virgin Servant offered ten gifts to bride* 24:1-4 24:16 24:10

Tritheism Tritheism is the teaching that the Godhead is really three separate beings forming three separate gods. This erring view is often misplaced for the doctrine of the Trinity that states that there is but one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Uncial The Greek characters of upper case: ABGDE, etc. Different copies of Greek manuscripts appear in Uncial form. Minuscules are the lower case letters of the Greek alphabet order and rank. Unitarianism A theological error that holds to the unity of God by denying the Trinity, the deity of Jesus, and the deity of the Holy Spirit. Unitarians teach the unity of God and hold to a common system of believing as you will about God, salvation, sin, etc. They often profess to have no dogma. Unitarians also hold to the universal redemption of all mankind. Universalism The teaching that all people will eventually be saved through the universal redemption of Jesus. Some universalists teach that even the devil, after a time of punishment, will be redeemed. Vellum A material used for writing, like paper. It was made from animal skins, usually from cattle, sheep, goats, and antelope. The hair was scraped off of the skins, then they were washed, smoothed, and dressed with chalk. Vellum was used until the late Middle Ages until paper was introduced into Europe from China via Arab traders. Vellum lasted longer than papyrus and was tougher, but the edges sometimes became torn and tattered. The two oldest parchment manuscripts are the Codex Vaticanus (from Egypt) and the Codex Sinaiticus.

196

Venial Sin In Catholicism, a sin but not as bad as mortal Sin. It lessens the grace of God within a person's soul. Vicarious Atonement The theory of the atonement that states that Christs death was "legal." It satisfied the legal justice of God. Jesus bore the penalty of sin when he died on the cross. His death was a substitution for the believers. In other words, he substituted himself for them upon the cross. Jesus hung in our place as He bore our sin in his body on the cross. See 1 Pet. 2:24. Word, The In Greek the word for "word" is logos. It is used in many places, but of special interest is how it is used of Jesus. In John 1:1 it says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." The Word is divine and the word "became flesh and dwelt among us," (John 1:14). In other words, Jesus is the Word of God who represents God to us and us to God. The term is also used to describe the Scriptures (Rom. 9:6; Heb. 4:12), Christ's teaching (Luke 5:1), and the gospel message (Acts 4:31).

The Word of God: is inspired: "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness," (2 Tim. 3:16). is truth: "all thy commandments are truth," (Psalm 119:151). makes free: "...If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," (John 8:32). produces faith: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ," (Rom. 10:17, NASB). judges: "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart," (Heb. 4:12).

Worship The obligation of God's creation to give to Him all honor, praise, adoration, and glory due Him because He is the holy and divine creator. Worship is to be given to God only (Exodus 20:3; Matt. 4:10). Jesus, being God in flesh (John 1:1,14 ; Col. 2:9), was worshipped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6). Wrath Biblically, it is the divine judgment upon sin and sinners. It does not me rely mean that it is a casual response by God to ungodliness, but carries the meaning of hatred, revulsion, and indignation. God is by nature love (1 John 4:16), however, in His justice He must punish sin. The punishment is called the wrath of God. It will occur on the final Day of Judgment when those who are unsaved will incur the wrath of God. It is, though, presently being released upon the ungodly (Rom. 1:18-32) in the hardening of their hearts. Wrath is described as God's anger (Num. 32:10-13), as stored up (Rom. 2:5-8), and as great (Zech. 7:12). The believer's deliverance from God's wrath is through the atonement (Rom. 5:8-10). "For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Thess. 5:9). Yin and Yang A dualistic philosophy of passive and active, good and bad, light and dark, positive and negative, male and female, etc., and that they are in opposition, each is part of the whole and works together.

197

Yoga A philosophical as well as physical way of life emphasizing harmony of body and mind. The philosophy of yoga is based in Eastern Metaphysical beliefs. The goal of the philosophy is to help a person become balanced in mind and body and attain self-enlightenment. Yoga, apart from its metaphysical teachings, is beneficial to the body. Zodiac The stars in the heavens divided into twelve main groups. Imaginary patterns are imposed upon various star patterns as an aid to remember the stars. In Astrology, the Zodiac signs signify personality types for the people born under them. The Zodiac signs are determined by durations of time in the calendar. The twelve signs are Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces.

198

Evangelism
Introduction

Evangelism is the call of every Christian. Whether you want to admit it or not, how you are, what you do, what you say as a Christian tells others about Christ. Is your representation a good one? God calls us to tell others about the saving work of Christ. Unfortunately, however, many people are intimidated with the idea of sharing their faith. So, in order to help alleviate that fear and make you a better witness, the following papers are here to help.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Why should we witness? p. 200 Why are foundations important in witnessing? p. 201 What are three important verses in witnessing? p. 203-204 What are the differences between justice, mercy, and grace? p. 206 Are you memorizing scripture? p. 207 Why is prayer important in evangelism? p. 209 What are some of the do's and don'ts of witnessing? p. 211 Should you preach the law before the gospel? Why or why not? pp. 212-213 Have you mapped out the Roman Road in your Bible? p. 214 What is Christian CPR? p. 215

199

Why Should We Witness?

Have you ever asked yourself, "Why should I witness?" Several reasons should come to mind. First, because Jesus commands you to: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," (Matt. 28:19). Also, Ezek. 3:11 says, "and go to the exiles, to the sons of your people, and speak to them and tell them, whether they listen or not..." Second, you must witness because you love the unsaved (if you don't, you should). The most loving thing you can do is present the gospel in hopes of bringing others to salvation. Galatians 5:22 lists love as one of the fruit of the Spirit. It is love's nature to give. Take for example John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten So n..." Love gives, and if you have only a small portion of His love, you will want to give to others. Third, witness because it is a wise thing to do. Prov. 11:30 says, "...he who is wise wins souls." Now, I know I am not a very wise person. But, since God says I'll be wise to win souls, or try to, then great, let me at it. I want to be wise in God's sight. Fourth, witness to keep people out of hell. Hell is a terrifying place of utter anguish and eternal separation from God. Those who are not saved go there. Witnessing is an attempt to keep them out of hell. Fifth, witness because it pleases God and brings glory to His name. And finally, and most important, witness so they may find the love and fellowship of God (1 John 1:3), the greatest of all treasures. I can think of no greater gift than salvation. It frees the sinner from sin, it delivers the lost from damnation, and it reveals the true and living God to those who don't know Him. The angels of heaven rejoice greatly when anyone passes from judgment into salvation (Luke 15:10). Shouldn't we as Christians rejoice too? Shouldn't we weep over the lost? Shouldn't we ask the Lord of the field to send laborers into His harvest (Luke 10:2)? Certainly! The salvation of others is the goal of your efforts. The love of God is your motive. Is there anything greater? So, give.

200

Foundations are First

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth," (2 Tim. 2:15).

Without a proper foundation, buildings don't stand, civilizations don't last, and Christians don't witness well. The foundation I am talking about is the foundation of basic Christian doctrine. Do you know what the Trinity is? How m any natures does Jesus have, one or two? Are we saved by grace through faith or by grace and works? For what purpose did Jesus die? Did He rise from the dead? If so, why? Perhaps you do not believe that knowing doctrine is important. Maybe you think that we should just tell people about Jesus and let them choose to accept Him or not. Unfortunately, witnessing isn't always that simple. Knowing what and why you believe is essential. For example, if someone says he wants to receive Jesus as Savior but doesn't believe that He is God in flesh, is that important? If someone says that the Trinity is not biblical, what would you say? Is the Holy Spirit a force or God? Doctrine is important because it defines who you put your trust in. It is not simply that you have faith, it's who you put your faith in. A "Setup" at church. A few years ago an associate pastor of a local church asked me to give a talk on some biblical issues to his college and career group. As we talked about the lecture he decided he would like me to test the group on their doctrinal knowledge. He asked me to pretend I was someone off the street who happened to walk in to "see what was going on and challenge them." Since no one at the study knew me, it seemed like a great idea. He said, "Ask them questions that will make them think. Ask them questions about their faith." Since he wanted them to answer for themselves, he arranged not to be there. Instead, a Bible study leader, who knew of the "setup," would be in charge. This way, the group would be forced to defend their faith because their pastor wouldn't be there to bail them out when things got tough, and they did. I asked some questions about the Bible, got some answers, and then asked more questions about their answers. I asked them how they knew the Bible was true, how they knew they were going to heaven, why their beliefs were correct and everyone else's was false, and more. All I did was challenge them. Later I asked them about Jesus. I said, "If Jesus is God then why did He pray to God the Father?" The sudden silence spoke loudly against them. I continued with, "Some Jehovah's Witnesses I was talked to a little while ago said that there was no such thing as the Trinity. They had a bunch of proof texts. Why should I believe you and not them. They have answers and they seem to know their Bible." Needless to say, the group was thoroughly upset. One person left to get the pastor. Two girls were doubting their salvation and a couple of guys told me later they wanted to beat me up (and these were Christians!). Just about then it was time to stop. The Bible study leader, who had kept tactfully quiet until then, interrupted the discussion and, playing along for a few seconds longer said, "All right, all right. Let's put a stop to this. " He looked confidently at everyone and said, "Don't worry. We are going to have a speaker here tonight who will be able to answer all these questions and explain why the Bible really is the word of God, why there is a Trinity, and all that other stuff we talked about." A couple of people said to me, "Yeah, so why don't you stay and you can hear some answers." I smiled and said, "Maybe I will." The Bible study leader smiled too and as he pointed to me he said, "And tonight, he is our speaker." They stared at me for a moment. Then, as if on cue, they all began to moan and groan. They had been set up. I smiled. After a while, they smiled too.

201

What are you called to do? You are called by God to accurately know His word, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth," (2 Tim. 2:15). You are called by God to grow in your walk with Him, "Therefore, leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity..." (Heb. 6:1). You are called by God to search the scriptures daily, "Now these were more noble minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so," (Acts 17:11). How good is your foundation? Are you like the people in that church? Are you weak in your basic Christian foundation? Can you defend the Trinity biblically? Can you show someone in the Bible that Jesus is God in flesh or that salvation is by faith only and not by our works? Do you know if Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in or was it a different spiritual body? These questions are crucial and you need to have the correct answers. Do you? If your foundation is weak, then you need to strengthen it. Without a good foundation you won't be able to stand against a breeze of opposition. That is why you must first establish your foundation: you must witness in the strength of truth, not the weakness of error. Just as a baby must crawl before it walks, a Christian must know the basics before he can mature: "Therefore, leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity..." (Heb. 6:1). Let's first learn the elementary teachings before we go on.

202

Three Important Verses in Witnessing

"So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it," (Isaiah 55:11). If you only study one page on this section on evangelism, this page is it. Why? Because here is where you will learn three of the most important verses of evangelism: Isaiah 55:11; Rom. 1:16; and John 12:32. Isaiah 55:11 Isaiah 55:11 says, "So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." God's word is unique. It was by His word (speech) that God created, "God said, Let there be light'; and there was light, (Gen. 1:3). "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the Word of God..." (Heb. 11:3). Jesus is called the Word, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1,14). When Jesus was on the earth, He taught. He taught with words and His words had a very strong effect on people. They angered some and broke others. But when Jesus spoke, things happened. Jesus forgave sins by speaking, "And seeing their faith, He said, Friend, your sins are forgiven you,'" (Luke 5:20). He raised the dead by speaking, "Lazarus, come forth, (John 11:43). He calmed the wind and sea with words, "Then He arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and it became perfectly calm" (Matt. 8:26). He cast out demons by speech, "And He said to them, Begone!' And they came out..." (Matt. 8:32). He healed by speech, "And He stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, I am willing; be cleansed.' And immediately his leprosy was cleansed," (Matt. 8:3,13). God's words are powerful. The Word (the Bible) is described as having many qualities:

It is "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for inspired: correction, for training in righteousness," (2 Tim. 3:16). It is truth: "The sum of Thy word is truth," (Psalm 119:151). It makes "...If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall free: know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," (John 8:32). It produces "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ," (Rom. faith: 10:17) "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and It judges: marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart," (Heb. 4:12).

The Word of God is a mighty weapon. That is why you should memorize!

203

Romans 1:16 Rom. 1:16, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." What is the Gospel? 1 Cor. 15:1-4 says it is the sacrificial death and physical resurrection of Jesus for sins. It is the powerful message of salvation to sinners. If you know that the Word of God will accomplish what God wants it to and if you know that the gospel has power to save, then it should ease your mind to know that in witnessing you are using two very powerful weapons: God's Word and God's Gospel. The Word of God is the Bible. The Gospel of God is His revelation or redemption. John 12:32 John 12:32, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." Here Jesus speaks specifically about His crucifixion. It is He who draws to Himself all who are to be saved. When you present the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4), the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus for sins, Jesus draws the sinner to Himself. He does the work, not you. As a Christian, you are to witness with truth, honesty, and integrity. As the Lord provides the opportunity, you should respond in a humble and gentle spirit (2 Tim. 2:24). And in that, you should point people to Jesus. It is He alone who saves. If you know that God's Word will accomplish what God desires, that the gospel is powerful to save, and that it is Jesus who draws all men to Himself, then you should realize that the responsibility of salvation does not rest on you, but on God. You are the teacher, the deliverer of good news. "How shall they believe in Him who they have not heard?" (Rom. 10:14). You help them hear! These three verses should help you to gain confidence. You witness; God saves. You plant the seeds; God waters. He uses you. It is His Word that accomplishes salvation. It is His gospel that is powerful. It is His Son Jesus who draws. You witness in power when you witness with the Word of God.

204

Salvation is God's work

"Salvation belongs to the Lord," (Psalm 3:8).

When someone appeals to God and seeks forgiveness in Jesus, his sins are removed, he is cleansed, his relationship with God is restored, and he is made a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). All of this is the work of God, not man. The Bible has a phrase that describes the non-Christian. It is 'natural man'. In 1 Cor. 2:14 Paul says, "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." Our human condition can be compared to a drop of poison in a glass of water: all the water is poisoned but it is not as bad as it could be. The water is incapable of being good. We, too, are incapable of really being good. When Jesus' disciples asked Him who can be saved, He replied, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible," (Matt. 19:26). That is why salvation rests in God alone by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). About now you are probably wondering what this has to do with witnessing. Why do you need to know all this? I am glad you asked. It is helpful to know because you must realize it is God who saves people. Specifically, it is the Holy Spirit who convicts the sinner of sin -- not you. "And He [the Holy Spirit], when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment," (John 16:8). Remember, the gospel is preached after sin is made known. Because the sinner cannot come to God on his own, he must be convicted of his sin, and thus be made aware of his need for salvation. The conviction of sin is beyond our control. It is the work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8). Prayer is essential in wit nessing It is, then, vital that you pray and request God to convict as well as save. Prayer is an essential part of witnessing. When you witness you must pray. Then you are free to spread the gospel as effectively as you want and to trust God to give the increase (1 Cor. 3:6-7). Ask Him to send the Holy Spirit; ask Him to convict the world of sin. The work of the Holy Spirit is essential in salvation. The Holy Spirit The Holy Spirit works in two types of people during witnessing: the saved and the unsaved. In the saved, He dwells within (Rom. 8:11), teaches (John 14:26), anoints (1 John 2:27), guides (John 16:13), and sanctifies (1 Pet. 1:2). Without the Holy Spirit we would be like ships without rudders, unable to live as Christians and certainly unable to witness effectively. In the unsaved, He convicts of sin (John 14:8). Sinners come to Jesus to have their sins cleansed. They do this after they discover their guilt before God. This too is the work of the Holy Spirit. Since the natural man is separated from God because of his sin (Isaiah 59:2), the Holy Spirit uses the Scriptures (that you quote) to convict him of his sinfulness, convince him of his need for salvation, and convert him through the Word. When a natural man (or woman) is aware of his sinful condition then the gospel message of deliverance from sin is preached and becomes effectual. Sin Sin does two things: it offends God and it kills man. How? It offends God because it is His law we break. It kills us because of the nature of Law. Have you ever heard of a law without a punishment? A law without a punishment is only a slogan. Since God is just and laws have punishments, then God must punish the lawbreaker. But that is not the end of the story. God is also merciful and gracious. His justice fell upon Himself -- on the cross. His mercy falls upon us -- by grace through faith.

205

Justice, Mercy, and Grace Imbedded in the relationship of Law and Gospel are the concepts of justice, mercy, and grace. One of the best ways you can show the difference between them is to use illustrations that show their differences and relationships. For example, Justice is getting what we deserve. Mercy is not getting what we deserve. Grace is getting what we don't deserve. Let's suppose you have a bicycle and I want it. So, one night I sneak over to your house and steal it. You catch me and I go to jail. (Jail would be where I "pay" for my crime of breaking the law.) The penalty is met and that is justice. I get what I deserve. Let's change it a little. I sneak over to your house and steal your bike. You catch me. But you don't send me to jail. Instead, you tell me to forget about it. The penalty, jail, is not met. That is mercy. I did not get what I deserved. One more change. I sneak over to your house and steal your bike. You catch me. You don't send me to jail. In fact, you give me the bike plus a hundred dollars. That is grace. The penalty is met (by you paying the 'damages') and I was given what I did not deserve (the bike and money). Justice, which demands payment, does not meet the requirement of mercy, which seeks forgiveness. Mercy does not meet the requirement of justice. Grace meets both. The Lamp Analogy 25 Let's say I am at your house or apartment with my wife. We are talking about church and in my zeal I accidentally knock over your lamp. Now, this lamp is special. A dear friend gave it to you and it has great sentimental value, and besides, you need a light in your room. After a moment or two you realize that the damage is done and decide to forgive. You say to me, "That is alright, Matt. I forgive you for breaking the lamp, but give me ten dollars." Is asking for ten dollars after you've just forgiven me, true forgiveness? Certainly not! When God forgives our sins, He says He will remember them no more (Jer. 31:34). Forgive and forget are similar in spelling and similar in meaning. If you forgive me can you demand payment from the one forgiven? No, because a forgiven debt does not exist. Let's say that instead of asking me for ten dollars you turn to my wife and say, "Matt broke my lamp. You give me ten dollars for it." I ask you again. Is that true forgiveness? No. You are simply transferring the debt to someone who was not involved in the original offense. But, we have a problem. The lamp needs to be replaced. In true forgiveness, then, who pays for its replacement? (Think about this a bit before you go on to read the answer.) Who pays? You do! You're the only one left. Remember, if you've forgiven me the debt, how can you demand payment? Now, who was my offense against? You. Who forgives? You do. Who pays? You do. When we sin, who do we sin against? God. Who forgives? God. Who pays? God! Did you get that? God pays! How does He do that? Simple. 2000 years ago on a hill outside the city of Jerusalem He bore our sins in His body and died on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). He took our punishment: "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried... He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him..." (Isaiah 53:4-5). God is just. God is merciful. God is gracious. In the justice of God, He took our place. In the mercy of God we don't get punished. In the grace of God, He gives us eternal life. Even though we are unworthy of salvation, even though we are unworthy of God's love, even though we are unworthy of mercy, even though we are worthy of wrath, God saved us. He did so not because of who we are, but because of who He is, not because of what we do, but because of what He did. God is love (1 John 4:16). God is holy (1 Peter 1:16). God is good (Psalm 34:8). We could never fathom the depths of His purity and kindness (Rom. 11:33). We could never, through our own efforts, attain Him. There is only one thing left for us. We must worship Him, love Him, and serve Him. He alone is worthy. Blessed be the name of the Lord.

25

I do not remember where I read the lamp analogy, but I have been using it for many years. Someone contacted me and mentioned that it was used by Josh McDowell. If that is the case then he receives the credit for the analogy.

206

How to Memorize Scripture

Many people don't think they can memorize their way out of a new shopping mall let alone remember a verse in the Bible. I've spoken with dozens of people about Scripture memorization who say the same thing: "I have a terrible memory." My answer to them is, "Nonsense!" Everyone memorizes all the time. You've learned to speak, haven't you? You've memorized thousands of do's and don't's in life, right? You know your social security number, your phone number, your address, how many brothers, sisters, or children you have, how to get to work and what to do when you get there. The problem is not that people can't memorize, it's that they won't memorize. The Bible is the foundation for witnessing and you must memorize verses to be able to use it -this applies to your devotional life as well as witnessing. One serious proble m I've found is that most people have memorized fewer than seven verses. The average Jehovah's Witness has committed many more to memory and, given the opportunity, could make the average Christian feel about as knowledgeable as banana bread. What I would like to do is help you memorize better. Four easy steps to memorization There are four easy steps to Scripture memorization. Let's use 1 Peter. 2:24 as an example: "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by his wounds you were healed," (NASB). Step 1: Location The first step is to memorize the location, not the verse. The reason for this is if you forget the verse, but you've memorized the location, you can always go look it up. First, memorize the location: "1 Peter 2:24." Say "1 Peter 2:24" over and over again. Don't worry about what it says at first, just memorize the location. Make sure that when you say 1 Peter 2:24 it flows smoothly off your lips. Say 1 Peter 2:24 emphasizing different syllables. Say 1 Peter 2:24, or 1 Peter 2:24 or 1 Peter 2:24 or even 1 Peter 2:24. But say 1 Peter 2:24 enough times that when you say 1 Peter 2:24, it is as natural as breathing. Step 2: Gist The second step is to learn the gist of what the verse is. In this case it is very simple, "Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross." Say, "Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross" in different ways. Say, "Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross," or "Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross," and "Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross," etc. But say "Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross" enough times that when you say, "Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross," it is as natural as saying 1 Peter. 2:24. (Kind of repetitive, isn't it?) Step 3: Association The third part is more fun. This is where you associate the two together. Say, "1 Peter 2:24 is Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross. Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross is 1 Peter 2:24. 1 Peter 2:24 is Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross..." Say this over and over again, about ten times. In no time, if you do this, you will memorize. This association part is important because it helps you to think of one part whenever you think of the other. For example, if someone asked you "Where does it say that Jesus bore our sin in his body?", you'd immediately reply with "1 Peter. 2:24." It works.

207

Step 4: A piece of paper The fourth and final part is to take a piece of lined paper, 8 1/2" by 11", and draw a vertical line about one inch from the left hand side. Write the verse location in the left column on your paper and on the right side simply write the verse. Do this with each verse you want to remember. Fold it up, put it in your pocket or purse, and carry it with you everywhere you go. When you forget a verse or its location simply pull out the paper and refresh your memory. In no time at all, you'll have over one hundred verses committed to memory. Memorization is like exercise. The more you do it, the easier it gets; the less you do the harder it gets. So do it. If you follow this procedure your mind will become like a sponge, you'll end up memorizing all sorts of stuff with the greatest of ease, like how many socks are in your drawer, everything that is in your refrigerator, and even where your car keys are.

And one more thing: You will be amazed at how the Lord uses what you've memorized.

208

The Importance of Prayer in Evangelism

"The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest," (Matt. 9:37-38). Prayer is essential in the Christian's life. Without it your witness will be far less effective and you will be far more vulnerable to the enemy. When you witness, you need the blessing and support of the Lord. You need to be in fellowship with Him. Prayer makes this all possible. When you witness you plant the seeds of the Gospel, but it is God who causes the growth (1 Cor. 3:6-7). In prayer you ask God to give that growth. In prayer you ask God to convict the unrepentant of their sin and by that awaken in them the need for salvation. In prayer you, "...let your requests be made known to God," (Phil. 4:6). Think back to your own conversion. Were there people praying and requesting your salvation? Jesus prayed frequently (Matt. 14:23; 26:36; Mark 6:46; Luke 5:16; John 17). Paul prayed (Rom. 1:9; Eph. 1:16). Stephen prayed (Acts 7:55-60). You must pray. God wants you to pray to Him and have fellowship with Him (John 1:1-4). Why? One reason is that our battle is not against flesh and blood but against powers and the spiritual forces of darkness (Eph. 6:12). That is where the real battle is, in the spiritual realm. You need prayer. Prayer is one of God's ordained means for you to do spiritual warfare and sharing the Gospel is definitely spiritual warfare. Another reason to pray is that you can actually influence God with your prayers. If you are doubtful then look at 2 Kings 20:1-7. King Hezekiah was told by the prophet Amoz that he should set his house in order because he was surely going to die (v. 1). Hezekiah prayed earnestly (v. 2,3). The Lord heard his prayers and said, "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the LORD. And I will add fifteen years to your life," (v. 5). Hezekiah's prayer made a difference. That is why you, as a Christian, can be an effective witness, because you have influence with God and because you can ask God to save. Prayer is a vital part of witnessing. What should you pray for? Pray for more people to witness. Jesus specifically asked you to pray to the Father and ask Him to send workers into the field (Matt. 9:37-38). What is the field? It is the world of sinners. Who are the workers? They are people like you. Jesus wants people to find salvation and enjoy eternal fellowship with Him. He wants you to preach the Gospel. He has given the command "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations..." (Matt. 28:19). Your witness for God may or may not be verbal. But either way, you need to pray and ask God to give you strength, love, and insight. Pray for compassion for the lost. Compassion is a necessary element in witnessing. It motivates you to speak, to teach, and to pray for others to come into the kingdom of God. Compassion helps you to cry over the lost and to come to God in humble request for their salvation. Paul said, "Brethren, my heart's desire and by prayer to God for them is for their salvation," (Rom. 10:1). Pray for the desire to witness. Pray this regularly and watch the Lord change you and give you a desire to reach out and tell people about Jesus. God will grant your prayers and joy will fill your heart as you fulfill the command of God by witnessing. Pray for boldness. Pray for the courage to step out in faith and speak up when needed. Many Christians are timid because speaking a word for the sake of the Lord can be risky and frightening. Boldness gives you the courage to risk ridicule and to endure the scorn. Ask God for it. "For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline. Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord," (2 Tim. 1:7-8). Pray to the Lord to bind Satan and his angels. There is a hierarchy of demons seeking to hinder your witness and steal the seeds of the Gospel that you plant. You cannot fight spirits with reason or flesh and blood, but you can ask the Lord to fight. With prayer you can assault the camp of the enemy and weaken his false kingdom. Prayer is a mighty tool, a powerful tool. You need it if you are going to witness.

209

Pray for your needs. Do you have a close walk with God? Do you need a deeper fellowship with Him? Do you have sins you need to confess and forsake? If so, then pray. Enjoy your privilege of coming to the Creator of the universe who meets your every need. He loves you. He wants to hear from you and He wants you to make your needs known to Him. "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God," (Phil. 4:6). Hindrances to prayer Prayer is important for many reasons, especially for witnessing. But prayer can be hindered. So that your prayers and witnessing might be as affective as possible, a discussion of the hindrances of prayer is necessary. Do any of the following apply to you? Sin hinders prayer. "If I regard wickedness in my heart, the Lord will not hear," (Psalm 66:18). We all sin, but do you have unconfessed and unrepented sin in your life? If so, confess your sin, repent from it as you are commanded in Acts 17:30, and continue in witnessing and prayer. Selfishness hinders prayer. "You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures," (James 4:3). Examine yourself. Make sure your prayers are not motivated by selfish desires. If you find that selfishness is a factor then confess it and repent. Doubt hinders prayer. "But let him ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind," (James 1:6). We all doubt. We all fail. But when you doubt be reminded of the man who said to Jesus, "Lord I believe, help my unbelief," (Mark 9:24). He believed and yet doubted and Jesus granted his request. Remember that God has given a measure of faith to every man (Rom. 12:3). Trust God, even when you have doubts. It does not matter necessarily how much faith you have as much as who your faith is in. Put what faith you have in Jesus. Trust Him. Watch Him be faithful to you. Pride hinders prayer. Jesus spoke of the Pharisee and the tax-gatherer who both were praying. The Pharisee boasted about himself while the tax-gatherer asked for mercy from God. Jesus said in Luke 18:14 regarding the tax-gatherer, "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other." Jesus shows us that pride is sin and that it hinders prayer (James 4:6). Have the same attitude that Jesus had in heaven in His full glory as He had on Earth as a man. He was humble. If you are prideful, confess it as sin, repent, and continue in humility. A poor husband and wife relationship hinders prayer. This may seem a little out of place here, but it isn't. A proper relationship with your spouse is very important. If there are problems because of selfishness, pride, argument, anger, unforgiveness, or any of the other multitudinous obstacles that can develop in marriage, then your prayers will be hindered. How are you doing with your mate? Are you witnessing while there is anger between you two? In Matt. 5:23-24 Jesus said, "If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." Are you reconciled to your wife or husband (for that matter, anyone you know with whom there is strife) before you offer sacrifices of witnessing and prayer to the Lord? If not, then be reconciled, so your prayers won't be hindered. 1 Pet. 3:7 says, "You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that you prayers may not be hindered." Prayer is a privilege Prayer is a privilege. It is a powerful tool. Without it you will be a foolish worker in the fields of the dead. Pray and ask the Lord of the harvest to raise the dead to life. Bend your knees in fellowship with your Lord. Let Him wash you in His presence and fill you with the Holy Spirit. Prayer is where you meet Him. Prayer is where you are shaped. Pray.

210

The Do's and Don't's of Witnessing

"Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6). Like most things in life, witnessing has guidelines. Following is a list of 20 Do's and 12 Don't's. They should aid you while witnessing and help prevent serious errors. If, however, you choose to ignore them, witnessing will be difficult and awkward. 1. Do's A. Do Pray. B. Do speak to please God. C. Do read your Bible. D. Do start with a positive witness for Christ. E. Do keep things simple. F. Do share your salvation experience with them. G. Do know what you believe. H. Do have a genuine love. I. Do be simple and define your terms. J. Do memorize appropriate Scriptures if possible. K. Do be ready to learn from the people you witness to. L. Do be patient and gentle. M. Do listen attentively. N. Do answer their questions. O. Do ask questions. P. Do let him save face. Q. Do bring him, if possible, to a decision about Jesus. R. Do encourage him to study the Bible by itself. S. Do use Scripture in context. T. Do remember that greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world (1 John 4:4). Don'ts A. Don't attack directly or make fun of someone. B. Don't jump from one subject to another. C. Don't expect too much from him. D. Don't have a spiritual chip on your shoulder. E. Don't lose patience. F. Don't come on too strong. G. Don't debate peripheral issues or doctrines. H. Don't get sidetracked defending your denomination. I. Don't be uptight. J. Don't assume. K. Don't argue. L. Dont speak to fast or unclearly.

2.

I hope these do's and don't's have brought to your attention areas that would improve your witnessing. If some of them have struck you as being particularly applicable then I would suggest you think them over and in prayer ask God to work on your heart and teach you the right way to witness. He will bless you. All you need is to trust Him and go witness.

211

Law and Gospel

"...for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3:20).

In the Old Testame nt God gave the Law through Moses. It is the commands and precepts that govern human conduct. In the New Testament God gave the Gospel through Jesus. It is the message of salvation by grace through the sacrificial death and physical resurrection of Jesus, for our sins. The Law is the do's and don't's of moral behavior. It consists of the 10 commandments (Exodus 20), rules for social life (Exodus 21:1-23:33), and rules for the worship of God (Exodus 25:1-31:18). It was a covenant of works between God and man and was (and is) unable to deliver us into eternal fellowship with the Lord. The Law is a difficult taskmaster because it requires that we maintain a perfect standard of moral behavior. And then when we fail, the Law condemns us to death. Works do not earn us salvation or play any part of it. The Bible says that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law (Rom. 3:28). The Gospel, on the other hand, is the good news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4). It is the message of what God has done for us, our delivera nce from sin and the punishment of the Law. "Law and Gospel" are also part of our foundation and a good understanding of their relationship will greatly help your witnessing. How? If you understand that the Law of God is a standard of perfection, that it reveals sin, that we are unable to keep from breaking it, and that the Gospel frees us from the need to keep the law perfectly, then in order to obtain forgiveness of sins you will be better able to communicate the message of salvation to the unsaved. The Law is different from the Gospel Most Christians already have a basic understanding of the difference between Law and Gospel; they just don't know they do. For example, "Y ou are a sinner (Law). You need Jesus as your Savior (Gospel)." The Old Testament (Law) came before the New Testament (Gospel). The Law shows us what we are guilty of and the Gospel delivers us by grace. First we must know we are guilty (Law) before we recognize our need to ask for forgiveness (Gospel). The Law kills. The Gospel makes alive. When Moses came down from the mount after receiving the Law and saw that the Israelites had fallen into idolatry, he threw the tablets of the Law down to them and 3000 people died (Exodus 32:28). Later, when Peter preached the Gospel, 3000 people were saved (Acts 2:41). With a better understanding of the Law, it will be easier for you to explain sin. Without the Law, sin cannot be known; Romans 3:20 says, "...through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." (See also Rom. 7:7.) If sin is not known, then the need for Jesus is not felt. This is why you mention the Law to those with whom you witness. How? By asking them if they have ever sinned. Tell them that lying, cheating, stealing, lusting, not honoring God, etc. is sin. Everyone is guilty somewhere (Rom. 3:23), so everyone needs to be delivered. Everyone needs the Gospel. The Law is peculiar. It says "be holy," but shows us we are not. It says "do not lie," but shows where we do. It says "honor the Lord your God," yet shows us where we fail. Since none of us can keep the whole Law, we are all under condemnation. There is no way out. What can we do? Nothing! That is why "the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith," (Gal. 3:24). The Law guides us to Him. How does it do that? By showing us that the attempt to keep the Law (our works) is insufficient to give eternal life and that the Gospel of grace is the only way to God. In other words, you must help the person realize that they are not good enough to merit God's favor. People tend to think that because they are sincere or "not that bad," they are going to be with God when they die. But the Bible reveals that "sincerity" and being "not that bad" are not good enough. God requires perfection.

212

Salvation is of God. That is why salvation belongs to the Lord (Psalm 3:8), by faith and not by works (Rom. 4:5). That is why it is a free gift of God (Rom. 6:23), through grace (Eph. 2:8-9). That is why God became man (John 1:1,14) and fulfilled the Law: "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did; sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh," (Rom. 8:3). And also, "For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on Law," (Gal. 3:21); "For by grace though faith you have been saved, not by works..." (Eph. 2:8). And, "...but to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, (Rom. 4:5). In presenting the Gospel, you show how the requirements of keeping the Law perfectly is removed. Say something like, The Bible says that if you break just one command of God, you are condemned, (James 2:10-11). I often add, "Sin can be forgiven but the effects continue. The effect of your sin is death. Your sin is an offense to the Law-giver, God. But Jesus, who is God in flesh, bore our sins on the cross and died with them. If you want your sins forgiven, then you need to come to Christ and ask Him to forgive you. He will."

213

The Four Spiritual Laws

If you've gone through a discussion with someone and you want to present the gospel message in a simple and systematic way, the well known "Four Spiritual Laws" can be of help. They are simple, to the point, and use Scripture to convict, convince, and convert. They are: 1. God loves you: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life," (John 3:16). 2. Man is sinful and separated from God. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Rom. 3:23); "For the wages of sin is death," (Rom. 6:23); "But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God," (Isaiah 59:2). 3. Jesus Christ is God's only provision for man's sin. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me," (John 14:6); "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Rom. 5:8). 4. We must individually receive Jesus as Savior and Lord. "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name," (John 1:12); "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved," (Rom. 10:9); "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8).

The Roman Road Another list of verses usable in the same way as the Four Spiritual Laws is the "Roman Road." The advantage to these seven verses is that they are all in the book of Romans. Sometimes this is an advantage when you don't want to flip through a lot of pages. 1. Rom. 3:10, "As it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one...'" 2. Rom. 3:23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." 3. Rom. 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." 4. Rom. 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." 5. Rom. 5:8, "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." 6. Rom. 10:9-10, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." 7. Rom. 10:13, "For whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." I recommend you put the Roman Road in your Bible. Go to Romans 3:10 underline it and write Romans 3:23 next to it. Then go to Romans 3:28, underline it and write Romans 5:12 next to it, and so on. That way all you need to do is memorize where you start: Romans 3:10

214

Christian CPR
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, (1 John 1:9). Witnessing is a spiritual battle where you not only fight against ignorance and prejudice but also against Satan. He will attempt to hinder your efforts, attack you spiritually, and do a thousand other things to stop you. As a result, you can suffer spiritually dry times brought on by his attacks. So what do you do to save your spiritual life? Simple . . . Almost everyone has heard of CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation. It has saved many lives. I would like to introduce you to Christian CPR It can save your spiritual life. It's simple: Confess, Pray, and Read. Confess The first of the three letters represents Confession: our human need. Each person who witnesses should have his own life right with God. That doesn't mean being perfect, but it does mean actively seeking to walk in accord with God's will. It means regularly confessing your sins to God and forsaking them. This is done in prayer. Sin is not something to be taken lightly. It is so bad, so evil, so wicked, that it cost Jesus His life. The greatness of the sacrifice of Christ only reflects the greatness of the depth of sin. It took something as incredible as God on the cross to undo sin. Sin can hinder your effectiveness so you need to make sure you confess any sin to God. He will forgive you and your fellowship with Him is restored. In that proper relationship, He will guide you and empower you to speak boldly for Him. The Bible says, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, (1 John 1:9). Confession is good for the soul they say -- and it is true. It is good to bow before the Lord in humility and seek His forgiveness: "Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord and He will exalt you," (James 4:10). Be ready to confess and forsake your sins. That is what God asks. Pray The second letter represents Prayer: your special privilege. Through prayer you are in fellowship with the Holy Creator of the universe. You can actually speak to Him. You can worship, love, and spend time with Him. Because of what Jesus has done for you on the cross, God hears your prayers. When you desire to pray, is it your flesh that seeks Him? No. Since your natural self does not seek God and since you are still in sinful flesh, when the inclination to pray comes over you, it is God calling you to spend time with Him. He wants you to fellowship with Him. 1 Cor. 1:9 says, "God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." He wants you to be in His presence and be dependent upon Him. The one who is in the presence of the Lord cannot but have his heart filled by Him. He cannot but speak of Him: "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, (Matt. 12:34). When Moses was in the presence of God, his face shone (2 Cor. 3:7). When you are in the presence of God, your heart will shine. Prayer is the practice of the presence of God. To be effective, you need to be in fellowship with God. To be in fellowship, you need to be praying, constantly. Read The third letter represents Reading: your daily bread. It is in reading the Bible that God speaks to you. The Bible is, of course, the Word of God. It is, "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work," (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Word of God is one of the ways He has made Himself known to you. It is light for your soul, food for your thoughts, and the guide by which you should shape your life.

215

By reading the Bible and memorizing Scripture, you are a much greater threat to Satan. When Jesus was tempted by Satan what did He use to rebuke Him? A miracle? A powerful sweep of His hand? No. He quoted Scripture (Matt. 4). Follow Jesus' example. Learn Scripture. Use it. Let it dwell in your heart and mind. Rebuke the enemy with it. Learn from it. It will nourish you. Prayer and Fellowship Fellowship with God is a privile ge and a great blessing. There is nothing better or greater to have. The purpose of Christian CPR is to help remind you of the requirements for fellowship with God. Fellowship with the Lord should be the number one priority in your life. If it isn't, make it so. When Solomon was asked by God what he wanted, Solomon desired wisdom (1 Kings 3:5-9). When David was asked what he wanted, he said, "That I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, (Psalm 27:4). In the New Testament whenever Solomon is mentioned, it is not in a favorable light. Jesus said, "Not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed as beautifully as one of these lilies, (Matt. 6:28-29). Yet, David, a murderer and adulterer, was called by God a man after His own heart (Acts 13:22). Why? I believe it is because David sought fellowship with God. David wanted only to be in the presence of the Lord. David, the sinner, loved God. Jesus was at the home of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38-42). Martha was busy with her preparations and Mary was at Jesus' feet. Martha mentioned that Mary was doing nothing and had left all the work to her. Jesus' reply is enlightening. He said, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only a few things are necessary, really only one, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her." You see, the Lord desires that you spend time with Him. It is more important than all your other responsibilities, even witnessing. If you are in fellowship with the Lord, then your walk will be stronger, your love bolder, and your sin weaker. You will shine as a light to the world (Matt. 5:14) and the world will know that you are His disciple (Matt. 5:16). When you sense the desire to pray, answer it. It is God calling you to spend time in His wonderful presence and be filled by Him. And there in His presence is where you will gain the greatest benefit and become the most powerful witness. As you can see, CPR is an easily remembered tool that should help you understand the importance of confession, prayer, and reading. In daily prayer time seek God. In daily reading time seek God. Be like David who wanted to dwell in the house of the Lord forever. Be like Mary who wanted to sit at Jesus' feet and be with Him. Be like Jesus who so often went to prayer for fellowship with God. Obey the Father who has commanded you to fellowship with Jesus. In Him are the blessings to keep your heart alive because, "grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ, (John 1:17). It is in true fellowship with Jesus that witnessing is at its best. Witnessing is not just words -- it is a way of life.

216

Leading Someone to the Lord

Alright, so you know about the Law, the Gospel, sin, salvation, the Four Spiritual Laws, and the Roman Road, but how do you lead someone to the Lord? How do you introduce someone to Christ? First of all, you tell them about God, sin, and Jesus dying on the cross. So, let's say that after all this, the person you're witnessing to is touched by God's Word and wants to become a Christian. You say... "Do you understand what I've been telling you?" "Yes." "Do you want to receive Jesus as your Savior?" "Yes. Yes I do." "Good. But first, I need to tell you something. Being a Christian means living for Christ. It means seeking to do His will and not your own. It won't always be easy. Satan will ma ke your life difficult at times. You may lose friends and things won't necessarily get better overnight. Being a Christian can be costly. In fact, Jesus said that you must deny yourself, take up your cross daily, and follow Him (Luke 9:23). That is what Jesus wants you to do, to follow Him always -- even when others don't want you to. "Now, If you still want Jesus as your Savior and Lord, I would be glad to pray with you." "Yes, I do. I understand and I still want Jesus." "Then let's pray." You tell him to repeat what you say, maybe bow his head and close his eyes, or not... It doesn't matter. An example of what to say is "Dear Jesus, I know I have sinned against you. I confess that I am a sinner. I accept the sacrifice you made on the cross on my behalf. I ask you to come into my heart. Please cleanse me of my sin. And give me eternal life. I repent from my sins and put my trust in You. Thank you Jesus. Amen." The preceding paragraph is only an example of how to lead someone to Christ. As I've said before, there is no formula, but only a recognition of one's sinfulness before God, confession and repentance of sin, and trusting in Jesus' sacrifice for sin. I would like you to take special note to tell the person that being a Christian is not easy. In a way, when you do this you are trying to talk him out of being saved. But what is really happening is three things: 1) you are making sure conversion is real, 2) you are warning him of what is to come, and 3) you are trying to prevent a 'false conversion' and the excuse he might say later like, "Oh, I tried Christianity once. It didn't help me." Remember, we receive Christ for the forgiveness of sins, not to "make things better." Also, you want someone to come to Christ with full knowledge of what it means to be a Christian. If we aren't willing to follow Jesus through thick and thin, then we aren't worthy to be called His disciples. We are to love Him more than anything else (Luke 14:26-28). Also worth noting is the short sentences used in the prayer. Don't worry about exactly what to say, just speak the truth, confess sin, ask Jesus for forgiveness, speak slowly, and use short sentences. This way, there will be no confusion.

217

Trust God and Go Witness

It is one thing to read about how to witness to someone; it is another to put into practice what you've learned. I tell my students, "If you want to witness, then go witness." That is the best, though not the easiest, way to learn. I call it "Trust and Go." Trust God and go witness. My very first evangelistic endeavor was just such a case. This is what happened. My first witnessing adventure. . . This really happened. My friend Chuck and I both had eager hearts. We had been studying cults, Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, for a while and were ready to go out and "teach the world." We prayed, got into my car, drove for a while, prayed, drove, prayed, drove, and prayed. Well, after a half hour of this we figured it was time to stop driving and start talking. The next street we passed was named Omega Street. Jesus is called the Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8). Since we were rather unsure of ourselves, we grabbed at this spiritual straw and Omega Street became our first witnessing attempt--it is amazing how God uses strange things and people to spread His Word. Chuck and I prayed again. We got out of the car and approached a home. The door was ajar. We knocked. From inside we heard a woman say frantically into her phone, "Send the paramedics to . . . " then she gave an address. Chuck and I exchanged stares. Five minutes later the paramedics arrived. They entered a nearby house and took away an elderly man on a stretcher. Now, if you've ever been around when the paramedics screech into a neighborhood with sirens blaring, you know how quickly a crowd gathers. That is exactly what happened and after the paramedics took the victim (of a heart attack) away, Chuck and I suddenly found ourselves, Bibles in hand, staring into the eyes of an excited crowd. A kid on a bike noticed our Bibles and said, "What are you guys doing here?" Chuck and I aren't geniuses, but it didn't take us long to see the work of the Lord. We told him we were there to preach the Gospel. I was too afraid to speak so Chuck spoke to him and others about Jesus, sin, and salvation. People listened. No one dropped to their knees in sobbing repentance, but they heard the gospel. That was years ago. Since then, I have witnessed thousands of times. The point is simple. When you are willing to be used by God and step out in faith, trust God and go, He can do amazing things. Are you available? Are you available to God? Are you willing to pray, take a risk, trust God and go? If you are, if you have the desire and a willingness to learn, then God will use you. He desires a willing, teachable, and available person more than the most learned mind. If you make yourself available, He will make you able. Get ready! He will use you!

218

Christian Issues
Introduction

Non-Christians dont see the world the same as Christians do. different set of presuppositions.

They have a different perspective, a

Christians need to not adopt the presuppositions and perspectives of the world. Christians need to be biblically submitted in mind, heart, and deed. This submission means that all areas of the Christian life are to be in alignment with Gods word.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

What is a world view? p. 220 Can you name some of the elements of a Christian worldview? p. 222 Why are schools so important from a Christian perspective? p. 223 Is homosexuality an acceptable life-style alternative for the Christians? p. 225 What is a family? p. 227 Is Christianity opposed to science? p. 229 Does science support the Bible? pp. 229-230 What are some of the failures of the Christian church? pp. 231-232

219

What is a Christian World View and why do Christians Need One?

A world view is a set of presuppositions and beliefs that someone uses to interpret and form opinions about his humanity, purpose in life, duties in the world, responsibilities to family, interpretation of truth, social issues, etc. A Christian should view all these things, and more, guided by the light that is shed upon them by the Bible. The Bible has much to say about the nature of man, the world, purpose, truth, morality, etc., and so does the world. More often than not, the secular world view is in conflict with the biblical one. For example: Where the world asserts that man evolved, the Bible says he was created and ultimately responsible to God. Where the world says that morals are relative, the Bible says they are absolute. Where the world says that there is no need of salvation and redemption, the Bible clearly states that all people are in need of deliverance from their sin. The contrast is obvious and profound. Both cannot be true. The secular world exalts man to the apex of evolutionary development, the sovereign over all he dominates, though only another animal. God is relegated to the belief systems of the uneducated and superstitious. Such opposing views will clash. The Condition of Society The fruit of the secular world view can be seen in around us. As we observe society, it is evident that not all is well. Television has degenerated into a bordello of violence, soft-pornography, antifamily sit-coms, commercials that appeal to immediate gratification, and senseless children's cartoons that are full of violence, occultism, and disobedience to parents. It often portrays pastors as psychotics, priests as pedophiles, and religious people as insecure, ignorant, and bigoted. The News is extremely biased and when speaking in areas where religious and secular morals collide, it uniformly presents information with loaded words. Instead of "pro-life" we hear "antiabortion rights." Instead of "conservative" it is "right wing fundamentalist." Other words are used such as "Bible thumpers," "censorship," "intolerance," "bigoted," etc. "According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, the average TV watchers sees 14,000 references to sex and the average child "watches 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence by the end of elementary school."1 Illegitimacy is on the rise. In 1970 babies born out of wedlock were 10% of all births. In 1991, it was 30%. Rape is increasing as is violent crime, venereal disease, drug usage, and prison populations. In many American schools the "Impressions" series is promoting the New Age and the occult. Some programs have students being taught that they alone are the ones who should decide if drug use is good or bad. Many school textbooks teach anti-family values, promote homosexuality, teach moral relativism, encourage sexual conduct, and, of course, instill evolution as a fact. In addition, they condemn the notion of a Christian God even being mentioned. Consider the following: "When 10-year old Raymond Raines bowed his head and silently said grace over lunch in a St. Louis public school cafeteria, he was placed in detention for a week and told that he must eat in a room by himself if he continued to pray. "When 30 Texas high school students gathered to pray at the flagpole before school one morning, the principal politely told them not only to leave, but to pray out of sight. "In Illinois, a high school principal sent police to break up a similar prayer group. Two students were arrested."2 Obviously, America (and the world) is in desperate need of the life changing gospel of Jesus.

220

The Progress of the Gospel But lest you get discouraged, the gospel is progressing. There are more Christians in the world now than ever before. In the 1700's less than 20% of the American population went to church where now it is above 50%. More people have heard the gospel than ever before, and Bibles are produced en masse and being sent to nations all over the world with unprecedented reception. The Gospel is preached on Television and Radio. Millions are coming to Christ in third world countries and a new Christian awakening is working its way through Russia and Africa with China becoming the new Christian frontier. Nevertheless, the Christian community has a great deal of work left to accomplish. To fully carry out the mandate of winning the world for Christ, Christians must adopt a biblical world view in all aspects of life and present to the world, biblical perspectives on every niche of our existence. This includes everything: education, medicine, the arts, politics, science, contemporary issues, ethics, and more. To God be the glory

221

What are Some Elements of a Christian World View?

Following is a representative list of statements that can help you establish a Christian World View. This list is not exhaustive. But it is a good cross section of biblically derived principles that should help as you seek to understand a biblical world view. As you study them, notice how they would affect your beliefs and actions about various topics: God, church, evangelism, creation, worship, family, sin, salvation, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Principles are like a fountain from which other beliefs and actions flow. The closer you are to biblical beliefs, the better able you will be to carry out the commission of our Lord and Savior to make disciples of all nations, to glorify Him, and to understand His creation. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. There is a God (Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6,8; 45:5). The Christian Trinity is the only God (Gen. 1:26; Zech. 12:10; 2 Cor. 13:14; John 1:1). God has revealed Himself in three ways: In creation, in the Bible, and in Jesus (Rom. 1:18-20; 1 Cor. 15:3; John 5:39; Acts 10:43; Heb. 1:1-3; John 14:9). God created the universe and all that is in it with order and design -- the universe is not an accident (Gen. 1; Isaiah 44:24; 45:18; Jer. 27:5; Neh. 9:6). All life on earth was created by God with a design and a purpose -- life did not evolve (Gen. 1:11,12,21,24,25; 1 Cor. 15:38,39). The unseen supernatural world is just as real as the physical world (Eph. 6:12; Job 1:6; Mark 5:2; Matt. 12:22) God made man in His own image distinct from the animals -- man did not evolve (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7; 1 Cor. 11:7). Man, from conception, is human and possesses dignity due to being made in God's image (Job 31:15; Ps. 22:10; 139:13; Hosea 12:3; Luke 1:41-44). The first humans were Adam and Eve (Gen. 2; Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22,45; 1 Tim. 2:13). Adam and Eve were the first family (male and female) according to the purpose of God for procreation and glorifying Him -- homosexuality, therefore, is unnatural (Gen. 1:28; 2:21-25). Man is morally responsible and answerable to God (Ex. 15:26; 1 Kings 11:38; Rom. 2:16; Ps. 50:6; 82:8; James 1:21). God gave dominion of the earth to Adam and Eve and, thus, to their descendants (Gen. 1:28; Titus 1:7) Man is steward of God's creation and is to subdue the world in a manner consistent with biblical revelation (Gen. 1-2; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Sin entered the world through Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:1-6; Rom. 5:12-14) All people have sinned and are in need of salvation (Rom. 3:23). Only God can save. Man cannot save himself (Matt. 19:25-26). Jesus is the only way to escape the judgment of God (Acts. 4:12; John 14:6). The Christian Gospel is the key to the conversion of all people (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Mark 8:35; 13:10; Rom. 1:16) The Bible is the inspired revelation from God and correct and authoritative in all it addresses (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Acts 17:11; Amos 3:7). The Bible reflects the true and moral character of God; therefore, truth and morals are knowable and absolute, not relative (Exodus 20:1-17). Government is ordained by God and is God's provision for order and safety in society (Rom. 13:17; John 19:11). Christians are to follow the laws of the land except where they contradict the Bible (Acts 5:29; 4:19). Christians are to evangelize the world (Matt. 28:18-19; Ps. 22:17). All areas of life are subject to God and should have Christian principles guiding them: personal, public, and political matters, as well as medicine, science, art, literature, etc.. (Gen. 1:28; Matt. 28:19-20). All areas of life are Christian mission fields: political, medicine, science, art, literature, education, technology, family, economics, etc. (Gen. 1:28; Matt. 28:19-20).

25.

222

Christians and Education

Harvard, Princeton, and other renowned colleges in America were originally founded by Christians who wanted to educate people in biblical principles. Princeton was founded as a seminary, for example. But history teaches us that educational institutions tend to drift away from what they were originally designed. Many colleges in America have abandoned classical biblical education for pragmatism, utilitarianism, and a curriculum designed to indoctrinate its people with secular humanism. We have a vast educational void in America that is slowly growing. Home Schooling alternatives and private schools are increasing. The need is obvious. More and more, Christians do not want their children indoctrinated by unbelievers who actively teach beliefs contrary to biblical theology. The Schools are the Battle Ground What cannot be conditioned into the minds of the mature must be propagandized to the young. Therefore, today's schools are battlegrounds for culture and political correctness. Reading, writing, and arithmetic have given way to humanism, anti-Christian indoctrination, and "values clarification." The Conservative Students for America conducted a survey of 13 colleges in the Southeast and found that of those surveyed, "56 percent said that right and wrong is a matter of personal opinion." Is this the kind of graduates the schools are producing? Would you want a lawyer to defend you if he thought morality was relative? What about politicians and those in power over us? Those who make our laws don't seem to give a second thought at exempting themselves from many of the laws and taxes they pass upon us. It is a scary thought. And things are getting worse. Sure, the three "R's" are still taught in schools, but poorly. The educated in America are increasingly less knowledgeable and trustworthy. Since the 1960's, Americans have become less capable and are falling behind the rest of the world in educational ratings. What is being promoted as the solution? Money! In 1996 the total Federal funding of public education was over 17 billion dollars. State funding totaled over 113 billion dollars. It hasn't helped. In fact, the educational system seems to be getting worse. In a national survey conducted by the International Communications Research group, in Pennsylvania, 58% of the parents polled strongly supported school choice as an option for parents. When asked if they thought that children were receiving the education they needed, 16% said yes and 79% said no. Clearly, people want a change. What is the Christian's Responsibility Regarding Education? As Christians our responsibilities are to make sure that we and our children are educated in the godliest manner possible. We should not let unbelievers teach our children ungodly philosophies. God has entrusted us with children and He will want an accounting of what we did with them. As people of God who are under His Lordship, we have been given the command to multiply and to subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28). To do this, we need to learn about God's creation and seek to discover what God has hidden in His creation. By doing this, we learn more about God's majesty and grow in our ability to praise Him and glorify Him. Electricity, radio waves, light, sound, physics, biology, medicine, etc., are all treasures God created and hid in creation. He gave us the ability to discover them, to become educated about them. All areas of knowledge, science, math, art, philosophy, medicine, etc, are merely categories of discovery made by people. Therefore, all education for the Christian is to be God-centered because it is disclosure of God's creative glory. The queen of the educational sciences should be biblical theology. I recommend that Christian parents seriously look into home schooling as a preferable option over letting unbelievers teach in a manner contrary to biblical revelation. Nevertheless, some will say that it is difficult. I know. My wife home schools our children and we are financially strapped because of it. It is work and it is sacrifice. But, our children are given to us by God to care for, raise for Him, and nourish in the ways of the Lord. We parents will answer to the Lord for how we raised our children. Connect with a local Christian home schooling organization. The support there is great as well as encouraging. There are many viable options to public school. Do some research. Another excellent alternative to public school is the Christian Day school. These are Christian

223

schools that are dedicated to teaching biblical perspectives. The faculties are Christian, God-fearing people who know the great value of raising children for God. There are many great ones all over this nation. What does the Bible Say? Please consider the following verses (NASB): 2 Tim. 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Rom. 1:20, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made. . ." Psalm 78:1, "Listen, O my people, to my instruction; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth." Eph. 6:4, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." 2 Chr. 17:9, "And they taught in Judah, having the book of the law of the Lord with them; and they went throughout all the cities of Judah and taught among the people." John 1:17, "For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." Christians should pray for the educational system in America and get involved in improving it. They should be very active in governing the education that their children are receiving, especially in the home.

Education of the young, and ourselves, is a responsibility given to us by God. *For further information see the Center for Education and Reform at http://edreform.com . Also, check out the Classical Christian Schooling Network http://www.ccsnet.org

224

Christianity and Homosexuality

The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through the TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do. In the California State senate, several bills have been recently introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by California law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket. The Christian church has not stood idle. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the "religious bigots." But when the homosexual community uses political power to control the church, no such cry of bigotry is heard. After all, it isn't politically correct to side with Christians. What does the Bible say? The Bible, as God's word, reveals God's moral character and it shapes the moral character of the Christian. There have been those who have used the Bible to support homosexuality, taken verses out of context and reading into them scenarios that are not there. Quite simply, the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different gro ups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. It doesn't. But when a group wants acceptance and the Bible is the Christians' handbook on morality, the homosexual agenda must try to make the Bible agree with its agenda. But it doesn't work. Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing.

225

Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation. Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another? In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No. No. No. The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies more on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethics. Homosexuality is not natural. The male and female bodies are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. In fact, if such couplings occurred in the animal world as a predominant practice, species would quickly become extinct. Nevertheless, some argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. In nature we see animals eating their prey alive. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image. Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.' What about pedophilia or bestiality? These are sexual practices. Should they also be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well? Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. But, the family is the basis of our culture. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy society. What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual? Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again. As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same you would any other person in sin. You should treat them with the same dignity as a person made in the image of God, that you would any other person. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.

226

The Christian Family

The family has come under heavy attack in today's society. On television, father's are often depicted as buffoons. Mothers are typically depicted as career minded and in control. Parents in general are characterized as dim wits who aren't "with it." In too many families, in order to make ends meet, the mother must work and entrust the care of her children to strangers. Children are independent, arrogant, and disrespectful. Everywhere you look society is offering quick and easy fixes, sexual promiscuity, "safe sex," and promises of freedom without penalty. Divorce destroys 50% of all marriages. Gangs are growing. Sexual molestations by parents of their own children is increasing as are acts of violence. Amidst all the depressing facts there is a ray of hope: the Bible. God has given us the instruction book for families. He has defined the family, taught us the roles of each of the family members, and has promised to bless those who adhere to His will. Praise God! We need it! 1. What is the Family? A. The Family is God's covenant arrangement where two people, male and female, are joined to one flesh, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh, (Gen. 2:24). It is a covenant in that it is an agreement, a promise made between the couple getting married. This covenant is before God and is binding until death (or adultery) breaks the union. B. The family does not consist of a homosexual or lesbian relationship where the two people of the same sex seek to be married. This is against scripture: "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth, (Gen. 1:27-28). Where did the Family begin? A. The Family was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden Genesis chapter 1:26-31 and Gen. 2:18-25. i. Gen 1:26-31 is the declaration of Man's creation with the command to be fruitful and multiply. Concluding the section is God's declaration that it was very good. ii. Gen. 2:18-25 is the account of Adam looking for a helper and God then making Eve from Adam's rib and instituting marriage. What is the purpose of the Family? A. To multiply and fill the earth -- Gen. 1:28, ". . .Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it. . ." B. Marriage C. Procreation -- Gen. 1:28 i. Continuing the covenant -- through procreation, the covenant between Adam and God is continued. ii. Fulfilling God's command to multiply and fill the earth iii. Fulfilling God's command to subdue the earth D. Sexual union - 1 Cor. 7:3-5 E. Sexual Fidelity and Purity - Exodus 20:14 The Important role of the Family in Society A. Building Block of Society. B. Place of learning. C. Society reflects the family.

2.

3.

4.

227

5.

Scriptures concerning the family A. Concerning Husband and Wife i. The husband is the head: 1 Cor. 11:3 - But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. ii. The husband is the leader: Gen. 18:19 -- For I have chosen him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice; in order that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him. iii. Wife is subject to husband: Col. 3:18 -- Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. cf., Eph. 5:22-24 iv. Husband is to love his wife: Eph. 5:25, Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; v. Sexual duty: 1 Cor. 7:3 Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. vi. Sexual Purity: Exodus 20:14 - You shall not commit adultery. B. Concerning Children i. Honor: Exodus 20:12 - Honor your father and mother. ii. Obedience: Eph. 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. iii. Child rearing: Eph. 6:4 - And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. C. Polygamy i. Permitted in the O.T.: Gen. 4:19 - And Lamech took two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah. ii. Condemned in the N.T.: 1 Tim. 3:2,12; Titus 1:6. D. Miscellaneous Scriptures i. Prov. 12:4, An excellent wife is the crown of her husband, but she who shames him is as rottenness in his bones ii. Prov. 14:1, The wise woman builds her house, but the foolish tears it down with her own hands. iii. Prov. 19:13, A foolish son is destruction to his father, And the contentions of a wife are a constant dripping.

The Bible has much to say about the Family. God takes it very seriously. As Christians, we should too. . . especially the fathers.

228

Christianity and Science

Science is that branch of study which seeks to observe, discover, and understand the nature and principles that govern our the universe, our world, and ourselves. The result of this process is a systematic categorization of knowledge with the goal of predicting and manipulating events according to discovered natural laws. Science has shaped our lives dramatically. Because of science we now have great medical knowledge. We can travel in jets, automobiles, and trains over great distances. We can harness rivers, predict storms, and use the power of the atom. By picking up a phone we can talk to almost anyone in the world. We can see anywhere on the planet via television and even gaze upon the surface of the moon and Mars. Like a giant flood gate that has been opened, what is flowing through its doors is a wonderful technology of helps, advancements, relaxation, amusements, security, answered questions, and hope. No longer must we till the land with our hands, pray for life giving rain to water our crops, be subject to the whims of nature, and be helpless during times of sickness. In fact, science has become for many a new god. Before the time when science was looked to for explanations of the unknown, ma nkind turned to religion. History is full of stories, writings, and the influence of religious beliefs upon entire societies. Temples dedicated to various gods are all over the world. Even though science has not replaced religion in all areas, it offers an intellectually justifiable reason to deny God's sovereignty. Evolution is a good example. When a society is powerless to control its future and is vulnerable to the elements of nature, it turns to that which is in control of those things: god(s). In all religious systems, prayers are offered in the hopes of appeasing and convincing a god or gods to help in time of need. But now that we can provide irrigation to replace rain, medicine to cure diseases, weapons to protect our homes, and television to dull our minds and hearts, the need for a deity to pray to has given way to the need to obtain money in order to gain the benefits of technology: comfort, leisure, and security. The world offers a new kind of religion: science. The scientists are its priests and the general populace is the congregation. What Does this Mean to a Christian? To the Christian, science is merely that branch of discovery that categorizes, discovers, and utilizes the knowledge woven into the fabric of the universe by a Sovereign, All Powerful, and Omniscient, Creator. Science is not the end of all things, but merely one of the means by which man may glorify God. This is because God is the creator of all that is. He has hidden the treasures of his ominous glory in the very universe in which we exist. The power in the atom, momentum, energy, mass, time, etc. are all creations of God and, therefore, under his authority. The more the Christian learns of these things, the more He can glorify God. Science must be subservient to Him, not the other way around. Science is not God's replacement. Every Christian should know that. Do the Bible and Science Disagree? Where other cosmologies found in religions have the world on the back of turtles, or the earth being the result of a fight between gods, biblical revelation is quite consistent with science. This is not to say that the Bible is vindicated by science; rather, it is science that is vindicated by the Bible. Consider the following: (note: all quotes are from the NIV) The Spherical Shape of the Earth - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in, (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew language did not have a word for "sphere." Circle is quite sufficient. The Earth is suspended in nothing - "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing," (Job 26:7).

229

The Stars are Innumerable - "He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars -- if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be, (Genesis 15:5). The Existence of Valleys in the Seas - "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils, (2 Samuel 22:16). The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas - "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened," (Genesis 7:11). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28. The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas - "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!...When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,...You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas, (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8). The Hydrologic Cycle - "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight, (Job 26:8). - "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28) - "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again, (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7). The Concept of Entropy - "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded," (Psalm 102:25-26). The Nature o f Health, Sanitation, and Sickness - The listing for this section is too large for this page. But the scriptural references are Leviticus chapters 12 through 14. There is no God but One Christians need to be careful not to let science usurp the place of authority and honor that belongs to God alone. If you are a Christian, you need to keep in mind that God alone is the Lord and that He placed the universe here. We are here for Him, so we might glorify Him and enjoy Him forever (1 Cor. 1:9). There is no God, but one (Isaiah 44:6,8). But. . . Do you look to science as your hope, your security, and your safety net? Do you go to God only after science has failed you, only after the medicine doesn't work, or only after your comforts are threatened? Is television an idol to which you sacrifice your time and energy? Are the pleasures offered by technology, which is the child of science, the fruit you seek more than God? How much of your dependence upon God has been replaced by your dependence upon things? Science is the creation of God and God is the Sovereign of all. Look inside your own heart and see which is on the throne.

230

The Failure of the Christian Church

Christianity is supposed to be the representative of Jesus who taught love, forgiveness, sacrifice, unity, and humility. Though that may be true to a large extent, Christianity has demonstrated an ability to overlook many of its professed virtues and allow denominational fragmentation to weaken it. Unfortunately, because of doctrinal "refining" on the non-essentials, a desire to be comfortable, and apathy, the American church has, in many respects, become castrated. It spends too much time splitting doctrinal hairs, separating, and then hiding in churches designed to keep its members comfortable and safe. On the outside, the world is going to hell while on the inside, we are playing the "religion game." I am not saying that doctrinal purity is unimportant. It most certainly is. Without proper understanding of who God is, what He has done, and what we must do, we would all be surely damned. Our salvation depends on who Jesus is and what He did. We need to know its truth. Therefore, as Christians, we should separate ourselves from the false doctrines that make powerless the saving truth of Christ's sacrifice. But the motive to divide should be reserved for our dealings with heretics. We should separate ourselves from false teachers and false doctrines, not from each other. In the non-essentials we need to remain united as much as possible. I recognize that denominations, to a small degree, are necessary and will never go away. But comfort and "doctrinal purity" have robbed the Church of much of its power. Where the early Christians had to rely on God for their every need, today creature-comforts and drive-through churches have made us complacent and sluggish to the call of God to make disciples of every nation. We are comfortable in America where we have the best of everything and only need to put on credit what our whims demand and thereby avoid the dependence upon God for our needs; this makes faith in God less of a pressing need. We have become distracted and the church is showing signs of spiritual apathy. We have our VCRs, air-conditioning, remote controls, and fast food. We have churches with central air, great sound systems, well educated preachers, plush pews, and fine-tuned choirs, pianos, and organs. We are blessed with committees, plans, and money. In fact, we have so many churches we are guaranteed we can find one to suit any whim or preference. And all too often, the messages are pleasant and dont make our hearts ache for the lost or our Lord. Doctrinal purity is a plague when it unnecessarily divides that which has been made Holy by Christs blood. It may already be that doctrinal idols have invaded our churches after all, we too often sacrifice people on the altar of doctrinal purity. Then we politely and lovingly expel fellow believers from our churches and bless them on the way out because they baptize by immersion or don't, or speak in tongues or don't, or believe in pretrib or don't, etc. Hurt and confused, some wander the spiritual landscape looking for a safe haven only to fall prey to false teachers or the seductive call of the world. Yes, we need doctrinal purity and we may even need to die for it one day, but doctrinal purity is not our God. Confessions and creeds are not our bread and wine. We should not sacrifice the blessing of unity for the minutia of purity. But some will say, "These doctrines are important and our church has the truth." Perhaps. But Jesus said the world would know we were His disciples by the love we have for one another, not the purity of our doctrine. And what does the world see in all this? Does it see a visible church full of sacrifice, full of love, or full of people who consider others more important than themselves? No. It sees polished televangelists with perfect hair and smiles pulling the wool over the eyes of countless thousands of gullible people as they ask for money. It sees the hypocrisy of moral uprightness proclaimed proudly in word and contradicted in deed. It sees a denominationally fragmented church that cant even clean its own house. And whats more, the church has all but stopped its public proclamation against sin. It has begun to believe the lie that the church is weak and powerless to stop the momentum of social decay. It flounders when faced with immorality and balks at standing strong against sin! What are the consequences of this? We see the effects in the rise of the cults like Mormonism and Jehovahs Witnesses who have millions of followers going door to door faithfully and consistently spreading their damning doctrines. Where are the Christians who oppose them? Where is the church? Is it supporting the efforts to stop this spread of lies? Is it uniting behind a common cause? No! It leaves the work to the weary and small who have a burden and who spend their efforts in a constant and mostly frustrating battle for the

231

truth. The church pats them on the back and says, "God bless. Go in peace" but leaves the depleted warriors to fend for themselves. We see consequences in the educational system with the rise of humanistic philosophy. Purely secular agendas are being taught on moral, political, and social levels in schools. Homosexuality, relativism, values clarification, and "ethical cleansing" are wiping the minds of the youth clear of Christian values. The children sit and listen while we go to church and talk about hymnals, the organ, and the color of carpet. May God have mercy on us. Society needs not concern itself with the musings of our people because its conscience cannot be pricked when so many of the bickering failures of Christianity speak louder than our words. Society is little affected by the gospel. The secularist does not need to be wary of the church that sits idly by and pampers its members and does not encourage them to take risks for the gospel. The secular world is free to mock the truth, chip away at our freedoms, and claim more and more converts for itself. It is safe from Christianity. But is Christianity safe from it? What Should We Do? First of all, we need to confess our sins to our Lord and Savior and repent from them. We need to recognize our sinfulness of apathy, pride, gossip, and any idols of 'doctrinal purity' that are so divisive. We need to forsake them, and drop to our knees, pray, confess, forgive, and go on. We need to recognize that we must be united to be strong. But we must do this without compromising the gospel of truth (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 5:1). Second, we need to recognize the Great Commission as something more than a recommendation from Jesus. It is not an option. It is a command. Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations . . . " (Matt. 28:18). Are we being fishers of men or keepers of the aquarium? Are we being obedient or comfortable? Third, we need to work together as much as possible to bring the gospel of truth to the lost. This will require sacrifice, prayer, humility, and risk. We cannot easily undo the great fragmentation of the body of Christ, but we can cross the denominational boundaries by focusing on that which unites us in the faith: Jesus is God in flesh (Trinity), salvation by grace through faith alone, the atonement, and forgiveness of sins in Jesus' shed blood. We need to look at the essentials and let the gospel of God change the hearts of people. Fourth, we need to use whatever gifts the Lord has given us for the increase of His kingdom. Whether it is praying for the lost and for the workers in Christ, or helping support financially, teaching the body, doing works of administration, or whatever gift you have, use it for the glory of God. Give it to Him and ask Him to bless you by letting you use your gifts and then do it! And don't be afraid to fail. Conclusion God is a God of forgiveness, love, and power. He has forgiven us of our sins and continues to do that by His awesome Grace (1 John 1:9). He loves us deeply and wants to commune with us and enjoy our presence through Jesus (1 Cor. 1:9). And, His gospel is powerful, able to save the lost from their sins (Rom. 1:16) and change this world. Pray for the work of God in your life and in the lives of others. Make a strong effort to support and spread the gospel. Intercede prayerfully to the Father on behalf of the churc h that preaches, and the lost that need to hear. Humble yourselves before God and men. Dont remain comfortable. Take a risk. Trust God and go!

232

To The Christian Church

Introduction
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. What is the great commission? p. 234 What is the Christian church? p. 236 What is the Christian Church supposed to be and do? p. 238 Is disunity a sign of apostasy? p. 240 Are Christians immune to being prideful? p. 242 What are some of the essentials of the Christian faith? p. 244 What are some of the signs of apostasy in the Church? p. 245-246 What are some of the signs that the Church is becoming secular? p. 249 Should unbelievers lead Christians in worship? Why or why not? pp. 253-254 Have you examined yourself to see if you're in the faith? What do you think? p. 255 Can you describe what the basics of the Christian faith are? p. 257 Why is comfort a potential problem in the Christian Church? p. 262

233

Introduction: Why this topic?

My motivation for writing this section is twofold: First, there is a slow apostasy that is creeping in to many so-called Christian denominations. Many groups that claim the name of Christ are advocating anti-Christian principles. Second, it seems that majority of Christians are not adequately trained nor sufficiently motivated to carry out or the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you..." (Matt. 28:19-20). To carry out this commission, Christians need to be disciples and disciple- makers. It means knowing basic Christian doctrine, knowing the Bible, and being able to defend the Christian faith. Of course, I'm not saying that every Christian has to be seminary trained, memorize the New Testament, and stand on street corners shouting about Jesus. Not at all. I am talking about the basics of knowledge of God's word as well as the basics of action in and out of the church that leads us to do what Jesus charged us to do: make disciples. When I teach seminars on cults, Christianity, and apologetic, I always take polls of the people I am teaching. I ask how many can quote me scriptures defending the deity of Christ. Usually about two people in fifty respond. When asked to explain the difference between justification and sanctification, rarely can anyone tell me what it is. When I ask how many have shared their faith and presented the gospel with anyone in the past year, about 1 in five say they have. These are not baby Christians. These are "seasoned" Christians who've been in churches for years. Apostasy means to fall away from the truth. To the degree that Christians adopt the ideas of the world above scripture they are committing apostasy. Jesus has given us a commission and to do this means we have to be prepared and Bible-focused. Carrying out the Great Commission means that we have to be praying, studying, tithing, learning, being trained, being active, supporting the church, supporting missionaries, etc. Some churches do this. Others do not. The Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) is the charge of Jesus to believers, to every believer, not just the pastor and the missionary. Perhaps you may say that you are not called to be a pastor, a missionary, or an evangelist. That's okay. But, are you praying for those who are pastors, missionaries, and evangelists? Are you supporting them in your tithes? Are you using whatever gifts that you have in support of the c hurch so that the Great Commission can be carried out? The Great Commission is a commission of love given to us by the God of love. It is what Jesus asked us to do. People are going to hell. Jesus wants us to help as many as possible find salvation in Jesus. He wants us to be His disciples and then make others into disciples as well. This is what He wants. Is this happening in your life and church? If it is not, you need to make some changes. In America, too many Christians are comfortable with their lives, their VCR's, their remote control TV's, their air conditioned cars, retirement funds, and their polished preachers. Our comfort is important to us. But, it can lure us into a casual relationship with God because all our earthly needs are met. Such casualness destroys the urgency, the intimacy of dependence upon God that excites and motivates the believer into action when God miraculously and continuously provides our needs. I also believe that many pastors are failing to do what the Bible says to do: equip the saints (Eph. 4:12). I suspect far too many pastors are more concerned about not offending their own congregations with the gospel than spreading its truth -- along with what it means to mature in Christ by picking up their crosses and following Jesus. The pastor is not there to baby sit Christians. He is not there to simply comfort them and to make them feel warm and cozy. Nor is he there to reflect the current social trends and morays of the secular environment. He is there to equip the saints, to train them up to be more like Jesus (Eph. 4:12), to help them mature in Christ so that they can become a people of action, as well as love. The gospel is not only about being born again, but is also about picking up your cross and following Jesus (Luke 9:23), about prayer, about supporting Christians who teach, about bearing one another's burdens, about defending the faith, about standing up for righteousness, and much more. For too many Christians, picking up the cross and following Jesus is too much to ask. But it is, however, easy to drop a check in the offering plate and think that they've done their part as a Christian.

234

Is this too harsh? If you think I am being too harsh, let me say that I know that there are many Christians who take their faith seriously, are learning and applying God's word, and doing what they can to expand God's kingdom whether it be by praying, tithing, witnesses, teaching, church work, living godly lives, etc. Likewise, I know that there are many pastors who labor to equip their congregations and who lovingly work to shepherd them with all sincerity and obedience to Christ. For you all, I praise God for His miraculous work in you. Pastors have a huge job before them. They are to preach God's word, teach the congregation, counsel, model godliness, and equip the saints. This is difficult to do, especially when secularism is slowly making inroads into the hearts and minds of Christians. Regarding moral issues, Christians, statistically, are in bad shape. According to Barna Research online, of those claiming to be born again, only 23% believe abortion should be illegal; 34% believe homosexuality is alright; 36% believe that a man and a woman living together is okay; 37% says profanity is acceptable; only 20% believe it is wrong to get drunk, etc. This is truly sad and dangerous. Oh sure, you may say they are not 'real' Christians. I hope you're right. But, the statistics are real and those who are truly born again should be out there fighting against abortion, homosexuality, drunkenness, etc., as well as praying for and seeking revival in Christian churches. People are going to hell. The enemy is making coverts to false gospels in the cults, humanistic principles in schools, and moral relativism in society. Christianity is not supposed to be keepers of the aquarium. It is supposed to be fishers of men. It is supposed to confront the world in a wise and loving fashion. This is what the Bible says to do. To do this, the Christians need a truly Christian world view with the desire to spread that world view everywhere. The Christian Church needs to wake Up! Christianity is under an ever increasing attack. Here in America, laws are being passed to reduce and remove our religious freedoms. Prayer has been removed from schools, the 10 Commandments removed from courtrooms. Movies and TV routinely portray Christians as ignorant bigots. Universities constantly attack the absolutes of Christianity and some even promote Eastern Mysticism, witchcraft, relativism, and a homosexual agenda by having representatives of these lies come in and teach! Secular society as a whole is imposing its mo ral agenda upon all people, the church included, and it is working! Christians are starting to listen to the false teaching of a fallen world and recanting on biblical doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, of Jesus being the only way, of moral absolutes, and of there being a Day of Judgment with the unsaved going to hell. This is the sign of apostasy within the church! Again, let me add that not all Christians are apathetic and worldly. There are many churches with godly pastors who are teaching all of God's word. There are many churches out there with members who are learning God's word, who are making converts, and who are standing up for righteousness. It is because of people like them that the gospel is spreading throughout the world. There are more Christians alive now than ever before. But, there are also more Muslims now than ever before, more Mormons, more Jehovah's Witnesses, more atheists, etc., than ever before. Let's not give up nor become discouraged. Let's support one another in prayer. Let's study to show ourselves approved to God. Let's tithe properly. Let's witness. Let's take risks for Jesus. Let's do what He asks of us. "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age," (Matt. 28:18-20, NASB).

235

What is the Christian church?

"that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless," (Eph. 5:27). The Church is the "body of believers." It is comprised of those who have been saved and redeemed by the True and Living God, based upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus upon the cross. Inclusion in the Body of Christ is not by membership in a denomination, nor by baptism, nor or by dedication. It is not received by ritual, or by ceremony, or by natural birth. It is received by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8). The invisible church is the church made up of true believers. The visible church consists of those who say they are Christian but may or may not be truly saved. Being a member of a church on earth, guarantees nothing. Being a member of the Body of Christ, guarantees salvation. The Christian Church does not include the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the New Agers, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Atheists, etc., These groups deny the true God and/or serve false gods. The true Christian Church is comprised only of those who have been redeemed by Christ who died on the cross and rose again. They are justified 2 6 by faith in Christ (Rom. 5:1). They are not saved by false teachers, false gods, false gospels, by their works, or by their works combined with the grace of God. They are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8) and that through Jesus alone: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved," (Acts 4:112, NASB).1 The word "church" comes from the Greek e kklesia which means "assembly" or "gathering." But, the church is more than a meeting place. It is much more than a gathering of believers who profess the true and living God and attend weekly worship meetings. The church is the bride of Christ. It is a living temple of the True God. It is not the building, the meeting place, an organization, or a denomination. The church is the totality of all true believers irregardless of denominational affiliation. The entire body of believers is the church and as such, it is the dwelling place of the Holy and Infinite God. Because the Church is the temple of God, it is holy because where God dwells is holiness. This Holiness is not derived from merit of deed or ceremonies of church members (Rom. 3:28). This Holiness is the Holiness of Jesus, God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), that is given to each and every Christian in the Body of Christ, by faith (Rom. 4:5; 5:1). Though the members of the Body of Christ still fail and still sin in their struggle to more like Christ (1 John 1:7-9), their sins have all been paid for by the risen Lord Jesus who bore their sins in His body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). They do not need to maintain their salvation by their deeds (Gal. 3:1-3). They have rest in Christ (Matt. 11:28). They have been made clean by the blood of Jesus (1 John 1:7) and possess eternal life (John 10:28). The church is the glorious mystery of God made real and revealed in scripture. It is the dwelling place of God. Are you in the church? Do you know what the church is supposed to be? The church The church was purchased by God: "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood," (Acts 20:28). Jesus is the head of the Church: "And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all," (Eph. 1:22-23). The church is the dwelling place of God: "in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit," (Eph. 2:22). Such a miracle as the church can result in a changed world. If we Christians can more fully understand what the church is and the power it has because of what it is and who it is indwelt by, then

26

To be justified means to be saved. Justification is the legal declaration by God upon a sinner where God declares the sinner righteous based on the work of Christ.

236

they can be more confident in seeking to stand up for the truth. As those who are indwelt by God Himself, you can move into and through the darkness of unbelief and conquer it by faith. The knowledge of what the churc h really is should result in countless believers living for Jesus in every way possible, being ready to lay down their lives for Him in both death and in daily living. It should not result in the mockery brought upon itself by its own failures and hypocrisy. The church is the temple of the Holy and Infinite God. You, if you are in Christ, have God living in you. You are in the church as much as you are the church.

237

What is the Christian church supposed to be?

"I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth," (1 Tim. 3:15). The Christian church should be a reflection of Jesus' love, words, and deeds. Its goal should be to glorify God, make Jesus known, develop godly people, and make disciples of every nation. The church should be a group of believers, on the whole and in part, who live and teach the saving words of Christ. To the extent that Jesus lived truth, so also should the people in the church. The church is not supposed to be the building or the structure of a ruling body who act in the place of God and dictate to the congregants what is and is not truth. The church is not headquartered at Salt Lake City, Utah, or Brooklyn, New York, or Rome, or Jerusalem, or any other city. The church is not headquartered in a central location -- except to say that the Head of the Church is Jesus who is in heaven. The church is not a convention, a building, a series of meetings, or commitments. The church is the living Body of Christ comprised of the redeemed in Christ. The external trappings of celebrations, rituals, buildings, robes, hymn books, organs, pianos, chairs, pews, windows, etc. are merely those things that give a tangible effect to the invisible reality of redemption. These externals should not be considered the substance of the church. The substance of the church is the redeemed in Christ. The visible church2 7 is supposed to be a collection of people who are saved by the blood of Jesus and indwelt by God Himself (John 14:23). The Christian church is comprised of believers, equipped by God with teachers, pastors, etc. (1 Cor. 12:28), who grow in their relationship with Jesus through prayer and the study of God's word and who actively seek to expand God's kingdom through preaching and living the Gospel. The Christian church is supposed to be a light to the world. It is supposed to fight against wickedness, oppression, poverty, sin, rebellion, adultery, homosexuality, fornication, abortion, etc. It is not supposed to sit idly by and watch the unbelievers go to hell. The church is supposed to be active, living what is right before God and standing against sin. Yet, this resistance against ungodliness is to be done with gentleness, love, patience, kindness, and wisdom. It is this last item, wisdom, which is so often lacking in the church today. Conduct yourselves with wisdom The church should be wise. "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity," (Col. 4:5). Christians should not parade themselves on television as incessant beggars of money, or gaudy over dressed "guides of the blind" who sit in gold chairs and weep at the drop of a hat. They should not display a drastic misuse of charismatic gifts by praying in tongues in public, becoming lost in uncontrollable laughter, or barking like dogs. Christians should not speak of Jesus in one breath and then laugh at a dirty joke in the next. All Christians are in the public eye one way or another and need to be above reproach, not hungry for money, not desirous of possessions, and not addicted to pornography, prostitutes, alcohol, drugs, off-color humor, or taking the Lord's name in vain. Such sin brings mockery to the name of Christ. The Christian church should be an example of propriety, decency, self-sacrifice, servitude, and love, not a money hungry, hypocritical, whining entity that is out of touch with reality as is so often portrayed on television. The Christian church has great liberty and I am not condemning the right to let financial needs be known nor am I discouraging the expression of the Holy Spirit within the church. There are thousands of godly Christians who are very loving and giving and who honestly desire to honor and serve God. But, the church as a whole needs to act and move in wisdom because the world is watching -- closely. It is the begging, the charismatic chaos, and the chicanery that permeates the high-profile, public church today that needs to be eliminated. We Christians need to clean our own house first before we starting pointing fingers at sinners! Those Christians who are in high public positions should always be mindful of what they do and should ask themselves "How will this appear to the unbeliever? Will it
27

The visible church is the social structure and buildings comprised of those who profess Christ. Not all in the visible church are saved. By contrast, the invisible church is comprised of those who are truly redeemed.

238

stumble them?" Such was the concern of Paul in 1 Cor. 14. He did not want the church in its freedom to stumble the unbeliever. Individual Christians should also be mindful of what they do and say in the workforce as well. Remember that for many unbelievers, the only time they encounter Jesus is when they seem Him represented in Christians. Therefore, the Christian should live his life lovingly, from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith (1 Tim. 1:5). The world hears us call ourselves followers of Christ but too often observes us following whatever draws away our interests whether it is money, buildings, or experience. Is this what the church is supposed to be and do? There is nothing wrong with having buildings or asking for money for legitimate needs, but they must not be the reason for the church's existence and they should not be the things looked to for security. The Christian church is supposed to be a light in the world, a light of love, peace, wisdom, truth, most importantly, it is supposed to bring Glory to God, equip the Christians for the work of the Great Commission, and demonstrate godliness and holiness. That is what the church is supposed to be and do.

239

The need for unity in the church

"Make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose," (Phil. 2:2).

One of the signs of apostasy in the Christian Church is the bickering and disunity among Christians. Jesus said that the world would know that we were His disciples by the love that we have for one another (John 13:35). In Col. 3:14, it says that love is the perfect bond of unity. The New Testament speaks about us being unified in Christ (Eph. 4:5). In response to Christians who following after individuals rather than Jesus, Paul says that Christ is not divided (1 Cor. 1:12-13). Though Christ is not divided, His body of believers is. Divisions in the Christian church can be a healthy and necessary thing: "For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you," (1 Cor. 11:19). But too much of a good thing isn't so good. It is all right to have differences of opinion on the non-essential matters like worship styles, or pretrib rapture or post-trib rapture. These things whether you believe one or the other, do not affect salvation. Yet far too many Christians use these non-essential differences as justification for division and sometimes even anger. When this occurs, the love of God in our hearts is sacrificed to our pride. Instead of saying to one another, "I am right and you are wrong," we should be saying something like, "It is certainly possible that you are correct. Now, let's work together to glorify God and expand His kingdom." Perhaps this is too simplistic, but at least it displays an attitude of humility that helps to bring unity. It is the devil that wants us to fall into the self abuse of division and bickering. Sometime apostasy means remaining united There is a time for division in the body of Christ. When an individual or a church group is denying clear scripture and remains unrepentant after being admonished, then it is time to break fellowship with that group. Such is the case with the Metropolitan Community Church denomination which openly advocates the support of homosexuality. Also, the Evangelical Lutheran church is in risk of apostasy by entertaining the idea of accepting homosexual relationships into church as is also the case with United Church of Christ: "The United Church of Christ set up a $500,000 scholarship fund for gay and lesbian seminarians Friday and urged wider acceptance of homosexuals by other denominations." (United Church Makes Gay Scholarship, CLEVELAND, Jun 16, 2000, AP Online via COMTEX). Or "The supreme court of the United Methodist Church was asked Thursday to reconsider the denomination's ban on gay clergy. (Church court of United Methodists asked to decide on gay clergy ban, NASHVILLE, Tennessee, Oct 25, 2001, AP WorldStream via COMTEX). Such movements by churches to move to accept homosexuality as acceptable in Christianity are clearly not believing God's word. If they don't believe God's word in such a fundamental issue, how can they be trusted to understand God's word in other issues? Church groups like this are in open rebellion against God and His word and it would not only be prudent, but it would be biblical to not fellowship with these groups. What is it that unites us? Primarily, it is the saving work of Christ that unites us. Secondarily, it is the essential doctrines that define orthodoxy. We have, as a common heritage, the blood of Christ that has been shed for the forgiveness of our sins. True Christians serve the true and living God and we know Jesus in a personal and intimate way (1 Cor. 1:9). We have been redeemed by God himself. Furthermore, we have the body of Scriptures which tell us the essentials of the faith and deviating from these essentials means to be outside the camp of Christ. It is the essential doctrines that we must know and unite in. Why then, for all practical purposes, do we elevate the non-essential is to the place of essentials? I cannot see how such a huge fragmentation in the Christian Church in denominations and sects glorifies God. The Christian church needs to repent. We need to look at ourselves. We need to look at our churches. We need to look at one another and decide that we will stand on the essential doctrines of the faith and that we will stand united against the enemy. Those of us who are united by the blood of

240

Christ are not enemies with one another whether we be Presbyterian or Baptist or Lutheran. It may be difficult for many of us to look lovingly into the eyes of those of a different denomination without thinking in our hearts that they are wrong about this doctrine or that doctrine. We need to be reminded that there is neither a Presbyterian nor a Baptist nor a Lutheran on the throne of God. All of us I am sure, will have our theologies corrected when we stand before the throne of God. Therefore, we need to seek to work together to further the Kingdom of God. Ask yourself what is most important in life. Is it your relationship with God? If it is, and it should be, should you not also be seeking the same thing that God wants? Should you not also be seeking to love one another as Christ commanded us? Love is the perfect bond of unity. Apostasy can begin in our own hearts when we put distance between ourselves and our brothers and sisters in Christ because of a difference of opinion on a non-essential doctrine. Apostasy means that we fall away from the truth. This falling away can be complete or it can be slight. Let's not to commit apostasy in our hearts by abandoning the call of unity and love within the body of Christ. Remember, it is the devil that wants us to fight each other so that he can be freed up to deceive the world. If we are fighting each other then we are falling pray to His tactics. I know that it is easy to speak these words and it is very difficult to apply them. That is true because true love is difficult to live. But what if the world began to see the Christian Church uniting in spite of its differences? What if the world started to see how the Christian Church started to love not only their own church members but other church members? What do you think the world would say if the churches' bickering stopped? What do you think the unbelievers would say if they saw us living more and more the lovingly attitude and a sacrificial life of Christ across denominational barriers? It would be a tremendous witness for Christ. It would be a tremendous assault on the enemy and I know that God would use it mightily to bring others to Himself by his grace. Apostasy begins with the individual. Apostasy begins in the heart and the mind. Whichever comes first is not important. Whether we think something wrong and then feel it or feel something wrong and then think it. The heart and the mind are so closely related that we must guard them both. We must focus on the truth of God's word and let our minds be shaped by it. We must seek to have our shaped by the love of God as we move not only to learn about Him, but also to carry out His desires. What should we do to bring unity wherever possible? We need to look at our own hearts and our own minds and compare them to Jesus and the Scripture. Where ever the two are not an agreement, it is we who need to change. We need to pray that the Lord would provide opportunities to work with other Christians across denominational lines. We need to recognize that we have differences of opinions and worship styles and that that is okay. But we need to lift each other up and be united in Christ.

241

There is pride in the Christian Church

There is in the Christian Church a great gifting in the area of pride. It is everywhere, in every Church, in every denomination. It manifests itself in division and polite "Christian" mockery, gossip, and condemnation of other Christians who do not believe as they do. Don't think you are so innocent. The pride that I speak of is that which is anchored in our self-assured opinions about non-essential doctrines. I am not speaking of the central doctrines upon which the Christian faith depends and by which we are able to recognize and refute error. Such central doctrines as the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, Jesus' physical resurrection, salvation by grace, etc., are the basics of the Christian faith that unites us all. It is not these that is the problem. Rather, it is the non-essentials of the faith where we draw the dividing line in our hearts and look down upon other Christians who are not as wise as we and then we say, "Lord, I thank you that I am not like that Christian over there." One Church teaches a pre-tribulation rapture and subtly implies that its doctrine is the true doctrine, rightly divided; other options are systematically looked down upon and indirectly division in the body of Christ is increased. Another church teaches that amillennialism is correct and that anyone not believing in it cannot rightly understand God's word. Another church condemns the Charismatic gifts in such a way that you are left believing that anyone who is charismatic is without maturity in the Lord. It is not an opinion that is offered, but the "truth" that is offered at the expense of humility and love and unity in the body of Christ. Do these teachers who "knowingly" teach that they have the truth say that their positions are opinions and that they are debatable and that the believer should study for himself and make up his own mind -- even if it is contrary to the teacher's position? Do these teachers leave the listeners believing that the grace of God is also working in others with whom they disagree in the non essentials? Is not God the God of all Christians? Didn't Jesus shed His blood for all Christians, even the charismatics, even the Calvinists, even the Baptists, even for those steeped in quiet tradition and liturgy, and even for those who weep during worship? Yes, He did. Where is the humility of teaching about the non-essentials and saying that it is possible that another position on them may be true? When do teachers say that other gifted teachers see things differently...and that that is okay? Unfortunately, those who focus on the non-essentials to the point of division in the body of Christ counter Christ's own words which speak of unity and love. Am I right or am I wrong? Are we prideful in our hearts or not? Pride, like humility, hides itself in its host so that it cannot be seen except my others. Pride is in the Christian Church. We see it in the denominational divisions that are rampantly scorching the land. Instead of uniting in humility, instead of admitting that our own sinfulness is what has resulted in our inability to come to a unified belief in the non-essentials is simply proof that we all must be humble before God and live according to Romans 14:1-7, Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lords. Christians who disagree should admit to each other that the reason we disagree is because of our own shortsightedness, our own inability to rightly divide God's word. All of us must and should admit that we can be wrong in these non-essentials. If we can do this, then it is necessarily true that the other person may be correct. This is humility. But, I know, you don't believe the other person is correct. Fine, neither does he think you are correct.

242

Look into your own heart. Are you so confidence about when the rapture will happen, or about predestination or the lack thereof, or baptism for infants or not, or alter calls, or Saturday or Sunday worship, or hymns verses praise music, or the charismatic gifts, that you will look down in your own heart upon a brother or sister in Christ for whom the Lord has shed His precious blood? Or, do you love them instead? Ask God to examine your heart and see if there be any prideful or hurtful way in it. "Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts; 24And see if there be any hurtful way in me, And lead me in the everlasting way," (Psalm 139:22-23, NASB).

243

Apostasy in the Christian church

"Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [Jesus' return] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction," (2 Thess. 2:3, NASB). Apostasy means to fall away from the truth. Therefore, an apostate is someone who known and then rejected the truth of God. Apostasy is a rebellion against God because it is a rebellion against truth. In the Old Testament God warned the Jewish people about their idolatry and their lack of trust in Him. In the New Testament the epistles warn us about not falling away from the truth. Apostasy is a very real and dangerous threat. The verse at the top of the page tells us that there will be an apostasy that is associated with the appearance of the antichrist. Most Christians are looking for the arrival of the antichrist, but very few are looking for "the apostasy" that must come first. the arrival of the antichrist cannot occur until sufficient apostasy has happened in the world. The antichrist, who is the ultimate of liars, cannot abide in a world where the truth of God's word is taught. This is why the Bible says that the apostasy will come first and then the antichrist will be revealed. Therefore, we must, as Christians, ask this question "Is there an apostasy occurring in the Christian church today?" Some would say no and others yes. But, as we look for the arrival of the antichrist, should we not also be looking for the arrival of apostasy? And where else should we first look but in our own house for the Bible tells us that judgment will begin in the house of the Lord (1 Peter 4:17). If there is indeed on apostasy occurring in the Christian Church, we would first need to know what is true so that we could recognize what was false. It is only after truth is established that we would then have a measuring rod by which apostasy can be detected. Therefore, I propose the following list of biblical truths as a sample of essential Christian and non-essential doctrines by which we might compare other teachings and phenomena. 1. Primary Essentials (Nature and work of Christ) A. Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9). B. Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21). C. Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9). D. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9). Secondary Essentials (Nature of God) A. There is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8) B. God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (See Trinity) C. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary Primary Non-Essentials (Church ordinances and practice) A. Male eldership B. Fidelity in marriage in heterosexual relationships C. The condemnation of homosexuality Secondary Non-Essentials - does not affect one's relationship with God. A. Baptism for adults or infants B. Predestination, election, and free will C. Communion every week, monthly, or quarterly, etc. D. Saturday or Sunday Worship E. Pre, mid, post trib rapture. F. Premill, Amill, and post millenialism. G. Continuation or cessation of the charismatic gifts

2.

3.

4.

Of course, the non-essentials are debatable (which leads to denominational fragmentation). But by way of explanation, the Primary Essentials are those doctrines that the Bible states if they are denied, damnation follows. I have written on this in essential doctrines. For brevity, the Bible states that if you deny Jesus is God, you are dead in your sins (John 8:24,58 cf. Exodus 3:14); that if you deny Jesus' physical resurrection, your faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:14, cf. John 2:19-21); that if you add works to salvation, you are not in Christ (Gal. 3:1-3; 5:1-4); and that if you preach a gospel contrary to what the apostles preached, you are accursed (Gal. 1:8-9, cf., 1 Cor. 15:1-4). Therefore, to deny

244

any of these doctrines, according to scripture, is to be outside the camp of Christ, and invited eternal damnation. This would obviously be apostasy. The Secondary Essentials are essentials are further clarifications of orthodoxy, but there is no explicitly scriptural statement regarding each (that I am aware of) which states that denying them results in damnation the way the Primary Essentials do. The Secondary Essentials deal with the nature of God, primarily. The fact that there is one God, who is a Trinity, is clearly essential to Christian orthodoxy, but there is no scriptural statement stating that to believe in the Trinity is necessary for salvation. However, that does not mean that denial of the Trinity is acceptable. A person can be saved without knowing about the Trinity. But, since the Trinity is a biblical truth, and the believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit who bears witness of truth, a true Christian will not openly denounce the Trinity once he has been taught it from scripture. So, it could be said that the Secondary Essentials are essentials to the faith as well as the Primary Essentials are. The Primary Non-Essentials are biblical teachings that if denied do not affect one's salvation. But, because the Bible teaches then, denying them is a sign of apostasy. The Secondary Non-Essentials do not affect ones position with God nor do they affirm or deny biblical teaching since they are very debatable. Having differing beliefs in these is not a sign of apostasy, just differences of opinion. Again, I am aware that the categorization of the non-essentials is debatable, but I must draw the line somewhere. Sadly, it is in Secondary non-essential doctrines that most denominational fragmentation occurs. This is a sad display that most division occurs over that which is least important. Furthermore, I believe that it is in the area of the Non-Essentials that apostasy can first be detected. 2 Thessalonians 2 As quoted above, there is a prophecy in 2 Thessalonians about a coming apostasy that is associated with the disclosure of the anti-Christ. "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [Jesus' return] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction," (2 Thess. 2:3, NASB). Have you been looking for the coming of the anti-Christ? Are you waiting for him to pop up on the world scene? If you are, are you also looking for the related apostasy? Most Christians are looking for the anti-Christ but are not looking for signs of apostasy. Since apostasy is falling away from the truth, perhaps this means that the Christian church is what will commit apostasy. After all, you must have the truth before you can fall away from it. Or could it be that this prophecy is about the general Christian church which is filled, sadly, with many unbelievers? Or, is it a prophecy about the general failure of huma nity to embrace the truth of God as they adopt false beliefs? I would like to add that I believe it is not the true Christians that will ever fall away from the truth. Instead, I believe it is the false sheep in the visible church that will be and are part of the apostasy. The Bible is God's word and it tells us what is right and wrong. To the degree that anyone disagrees with the truths of God's word, to that same degree they are falling away from it. What, then, might be some of the signs of apostasy? I've compiled a representative list of issues. You may agree with and some, or you may not. I provide them as food for thought. 1. Denial of basic Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, salvation by grace, and moral absolutes as found in the Bible. A. God's word is true. Deviation from the basics of its truth is surely apostasy. Countless denominational divisions that contradict John 13:35 and 1 Cor. 1:10. A. Of course, there are bound to be divisions in the body of Christ and differences of opinions are permitted (Rom. 14:1-12). But, the amount of divisions in the Church is ridiculous and contrary to Col. 3:14. Ordination of homosexuals A. Homosexuality is clearly condemned in God's word (Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9). To ordain homosexuals into ministry is clearly contrary to biblical truth and clearly apostasy.

2.

3.

245

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9. 10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Women elders and pastors A. Whether people like it or not in this politically correct environment, the Bible does not support women elders or pastors (1 Tim. 2:12-14; 3:2; Titus 1:5-7). Men are called to be leaders in the church. The fact that women elders and pastors exist is a sign that men are not doing their God-given job. Not preaching the gospel per 1 Cor. 15:1-4. A. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins. It is not a message of convenience or embarrassment. Do not be ashamed of the gospel (Rom. 1:16). Using the Lord's name in vain, something a surprising number of Christians do. A. God's name and title are to be used only by Christians in a reverent and respectful manner, never in casual exclamation. Just because the sinners do it, does not mean it is okay for the Christians. Not sending out or failing to support missionaries (or cutting back unnecessarily) in violation of Matt. 28:18-20. A. Carrying out the Great Commission is the command of Jesus. Any church that is able to support missionary work and does not, is in direct violation of Christ's command in the Great Commission. Marketing and merchandising A. Those in ministry should make a living from their labor. Churches should seek to spread the gospel best they can and selling things to do it is acceptable. But, how many trinkets and bobbles are offered in the name of Christ that do not honor God but are merely for the purpose of financial gain? Is the duty of the church business or the gospel? Remember how Jesus cleansed the temple? Pastors who are more concerned with growing a church than preaching the truth. A. Whoever and wherever they are, they need to repent. Pastors must stand on the truth of God's word, even if it costs them financially and materially. Pastors who don't pray and seek God's face A. Of course, this should be rare. But, any pastor who does not seek God's face in humility is seeking to do a job, not a ministry, under his own power. Pastors who cave in to pressures from the church in contradiction to the word of God. A. Any pastor who does this should repent now or step down from the pulpit. Pastors are to stand upon and for God's word, no matter what the obstacles or the cost. Pastors who fail to equip their congregations according to God's word. A. Pastors are called to equip the Christian for the work of the ministry in all aspects of life (Eph. 4:11): apologetics, evangelism, missionary work, prayer, service, love, etc. Far too many congregations are not being equipped with even the basics of Christianity and are instead being taught political correctness. Christians gathering teachers to themselves to make them feel good A. Is comfort or truth the primary objective for the Christians? Are we divine in nature or sinners saved by grace? Do we deserve to be saved or are we saved by God's free choice? Christians who want merely to be entertained and comforted from the pulpit are still children. They should be challenged to grow and take risks. Evolution A. Denominations that either adopt evolutionary principles or refuse to take a stand on evolution.

Apostasy is all around us in varying degrees. As Christians, we need to be very sure that we are clinging to the truth of God's word and resisting the inclusion of liberalism, moral relativism, and the oncoming secularism that is all around us. We need to stand on the word of God and never be ashamed of the truth of the Gospel: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek," (Rom. 1:16).

246

Examples of Apostasy in the Christian church

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths," (2 Tim. 4:3-4). Following is a list of examples of church that claim to be Christian who are adopting unbiblical ideas. Note: individual churches do not represent denominations. 1. Changing the Bible to suit gender-neutral wording. A. This has crept into the church periodically in the last 30 years. Due to pressure from the secular society, some Christian based Bible publishers are offering gender-neutral Bibles. This is sad. Is God's word any less true because it is not gender-neutral? Should Christians change God's word to suit the unbeliever? No and no. Metropolitan Community Church which openly approves of homosexuality. The Evangelical Lutheran Church (on homosexuality) A. "The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided Monday to undertake its first major study on whether to endorse the morality of homosexual relationships...The Rev. Ann Tiemeyer of Woodside, N.Y., said she supports greater acceptance of gay church members and clergy. "It is time to send a message that we are a welcoming church, in our clergy as well as our pews," she said," (Associated Press Online, 08/13/2001, Lutherans to Study Homosexuality). B. "The church currently allows homosexual clergy if they practice celibacy." (New Bishop for Evangelical Lutherans, ELCA, Associated Press Online, 10/06/2001.) The Evangelical Lutheran Church (on evolution) A. The ELCA doesn't have an official position on creation vs. evolution, but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may actually have used evolution in the process of creation. (http://www.elca.org/co/faq/evolution.html) The Episcopal Church (woman bishop to oust conservative priest) A. "An Episcopal Church committee has backed efforts by Washington's acting Bishop Jane Holmes Dixon to oust a conservative priest. A nine- member panel of clergy and laity said Dixon followed church law when she rejected the decision of the Christ Church vestry to hire the Rev. Samuel Edwards and ordered him to leave by May 25. Edwards refused, and continues to conduct services and occupy the rectory," (Religion News in Brief, Associated Press Online, 09/27/2001), The Mennonite Church (on homosexuality) A. "After nearly two decades of negotiation, the nation's two largest Mennonite denominations overwhelmingly approved a merger Thursday that creates the 125,000- member Mennonite Church USA....Many delegates expressed mixed feelings about the new membership guidelines, under which the church will not recognize same -sex marriages. Individual congregations and regional conferences will decide whether homosexuals will be allowed as members. (Two Mennonite Groups Approve Merger, NASHVILLE, Tenn., Jul 05, 2001, AP Online via COMTEX). The Presbyterian Church United States of America (on homosexuality) A. "In a closely watched case, the highest court of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) refused to rule Tuesday on whether a homosexual man is eligible to serve as a church elder. The court said the dispute surrounding Wayne Osborne had become moot because the First Presbyterian Church of Stamford, Conn., had installed another group of elders," (Presbyterian Court Sidesteps Ruling; Ky., Dec 04, 2001, AP Online via COMTEX).

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

247

8.

9.

The United Church of Christ (on homosexuality) A. "The United Church of Christ set up a $500,000 scholarship fund for gay and lesbian seminarians Friday and urged wider acceptance of homosexuals by other denominations." (United Church Makes Gay Scholarship, CLEVELAND, Jun 16, 2000, AP Online via COMTEX). The United Methodist Church (on homosexuality) A. "The supreme court of the United Methodist Church was asked Thursday to reconsider the denomination's ban on gay clergy. (Church court of United Methodists asked to decide on gay clergy ban, NASHVILLE, Tennessee, Oct 25, 2001, AP WorldStream via COMTEX).

In contemporary culture, homosexuality is gaining ground and acceptance. This should never bleed over into the Christian church. The fact that homosexuality is even in question in some denominations is a definite sign of apostasy since homosexuality clearly contradicts the plain teaching of scripture that homosexuality is a sin: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God," (1 Cor. 6:9-10, NASB). Unfortunately, too m any denominations are listening to the false gospel of the world and becoming secularized. They need to repent and stand on God's word, whether it is popular or not.

248

What are signs that a church is becoming secular?

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age," (Titus 2:11-12). What does a secular church look like? Would it be easy to find one? Would we know one if we saw one? Then again, maybe you attend a secular church and don't know it. It is certainly possible, but how would you know? How would you recognize a church that is more secular than sacred? Like any counterfeit, the best way to recognize the secular is to be familiar with the sacred. That is why dedication to God's word is so important. The Christian church focuses on being fed out of God's word and seeks to align itself with what it says. The secular church allows the ways of the world to seep into the beliefs and practices of the Christian church thereby diluting the truth. If we find something in the church that is contrary to scripture but is taught in the secular world, then that church has become, in part, secularized. The more we find from the world in the church, the more that church is secularized. Following is a list of things that, in my opinion, are examples of secularization in the church. Of course, this list is not exhaustive nor is it authoritative. It is my opinion. Nevertheless, it is offered as food for thought. Is your church becoming secular? Are you? 1. Teaching that the Bible is not inspired and inerrant. A. The Bible is the word of God (2 Tim. 3:16) and is the measure of truth and righteousness. To claim that it is not inspired is to reduce it to the level of the Quran, or the Bhagavad- Gita, or the Book of Mormon which are mere man- made writings and not inspired. B. When the authority of God's word is lost, then man- made doctrines creep in. The authority and inspiration of scripture is the anchor that keeps the church from drifting into error. Using books instead of the Bible in Bible study A. It is okay to use books that assist in Bible study, but the Bible should be the central source of spiritual truth, not books about the Bible. If Bible studies are using guidebooks more than the Bible itself, then the Bible has been moved to a secondary position. If Christians are having trouble understanding God's word, then the pastor (or Bible study leader) needs to teach them how to find its truths so they can check all things by scripture b7 themselves (Acts 17:11). Teaching that there is more than one way to God besides Jesus A. In this world of relativism, it is not popular to claim that Jesus is the only way to be saved. But this is what the Bible says. John 14:6, "Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me." Also, Acts 4:12, "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved." There is no other way to be saved. The Muslims, the Buddhists, the Taoists, etc., cannot be saved without Jesus. Being embarrassed to say that Jesus is the only way to salvation A. Like the issue above, Jesus is the only way (John 14:6). Christians should never be ashamed (Rom. 1:16) to speak the truth of God's saving work in Christ. For some, to be timid and embarrassed means that one's eyes are off of God and onto people. Teaching that there is no absolute right and wrong. A. As mentioned above, moral relativism is the norm of society. We often hear, "It is true if it is true for you." The Bible tells us that there are moral absolutes independent of what we think is right. Exodus 20:1-17 is a list of the Ten Commandments which are moral absolutes. The Bible teaches us there is absolute right and wrong. Without moral absolutes, no one can say anything is right or wrong. Being careful to not offend anyone at the expense of biblical truth. A. Whether or not someone likes what the Bible says does not change the truth of the Bible. We should not be offensive just to be offensive, but we should not be afraid to speak the truth of God when the need arises. The gospel that offends no one is not the gospel of the Bible.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

249

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16. 17.

Pastors preaching moralism instead of Christ centered messages A. Moralistic preaching is preaching that does not focus on the cross of Christ. For example, we do not try and be good because being good is nice. We try and be good because Jesus saved us from our sins and doing what is right glorifies Him. Preaching that is not focused on the cross is not preaching. It is a waste of time. Approving of homosexuality A. Homosexuality is being accepted as normal all over the world. It should not be accepted as normal in the Church. Homosexuality is a sin (1 Cor. 6:9). It is wrong. But this does not mean we are to hate homosexuals. We are to pray for them and their repentance. Homosexuals are not to be pastors or elders in churches. Approving of women elders A. This one may offend a lot of people, but the Bible teaches that the elder is to be the husband of one wife. This is not merely a cultural norm of the time. It is what the Bible teaches. Not condemning the sins of society A. If at all possible and according to wisdom, Christians should not be intimidated by the world when it comes to condemning sin. Sometimes, when Christian pastors condemn a sin in the world, like abortion, they are attacked. Truth is not silenced by complaining voices. We do not answer to them. We answer to God. Psychology as an authority on human nature. A. The Bible tells us that people are sinners by nature, selfish, prideful, and in need of the saving work of God. The Bible tells us what is right and wrong regarding childrearing, criminal behavior, actions, and words. Psychology can give us insights on many things, but if it contradicts God's word, it is wrong. We need to accept the fact that God is the authority on man, not the psychologists. Use of politically correct terms of the world from the pulpit where those terms replace biblical values and truths A. Is a wife or husband a "partner?" Are Christians who condemn homosexuality "homophobes?" Is it correct to say a woman can kill the baby in her womb and call it "abortion rights" when discussion "reproductive rights"? Is accepting false theologies called "diversity awareness"? If such words and terms become the common vocabulary of the pulpit without qualification and/or explanation, then the preacher is adopting the terms of the world and not of God and by it he is slowly being seduced by the world. Going to church as a social habit A. Church is not a social club where politically correct ideas are tried and tested. It is not a place we go to voice our opinions so that others can hear our wisdom. It is the place where we go to learn, to be corrected, to grow, and to encounter God who is not made after our own image. Prayer as a last resort A. To seek to accomplish things in life without God, whether it be big or small, is to say we do not need God and to proclaim our independence from Him. To resort to prayer as a last resort is to exclude God from the beginning of our work and to proclaim our independence from Him. It is the world that operates without God, not the Christian. Missionaries not sent out or supported A. Missionary efforts needlessly curtailed. If a church cannot support a missionary effort because of legitimate circumstances, that is one thing. But, if it can and it does not specifically reach out to the world with the gospel, then it is disobeying God's word (Matt. 28:18-20). Divorce statistics as common as secular society A. What a horrible failure this is that the Christians have the same divorce rate as the unchurched. Undoubtedly, this is due to the secularization of the heart. Evolution A. Either not condemning evolution or not taking a stand on it.

250

The elder in the church

The elder is a leader in the Christian church. It is a divinely appointed office that is held by men who are able to teach sound doctrine, refute error, be of good reputation, having believing children, who manage their households well, etc. The elder should not be in office if he is unable to fulfill the requirements of the office and he should not be chosen because he is a popular figure in the local church. Being an elder is a high calling and there are thousands of very godly men in many churches and who seek God and serve Him as best as they can. But, it is also true that many should not be elders who are in that position. Women, should not be elder's. Men with unbelieving children living with them should not be elders. And, elders should be able to teach correct doctrine and refute error. Sadly, many elders cannot do this. Below is an outline dealing with the subject of "elder." Pastors, elders, and congregation members should all be careful who they pick and recommend as elders. They should not let feelings of "let's be nice" influence their decisions and choose men who are not qualified. The church needs to take the office of elder very seriously and it needs to put the elder to the test according to the guidelines of scripture. If he is not qualified, he should not be an elder. 1. The Term "Elder" A. PRESBUTEROS - elder, an old man, a leader in the church. The term is used i. of the elder of two persons (Luke 15:25, or more, John 8:9). ii. of a person advanced in age (Acts 2:17; in Heb. 11:2). iii. of the forefathers in Israel (Matt. 15:2; Mark 7:3,5). iv. of members of the Sanhedrin (Matt. 16:21; 26:47). v. of those who managed public affairs in the various cities (Luke 7:3). vi. of those who were the heads or leaders of the tribes and families, as of the seventy who helped Moses (Num. 11:16; Deut. 27:1). This included: a. acting as judges in apprehending murderers (Deut. 19:12). b. conducting inquests (Deut. 21:2). c. settling matrimonial disputes (Deut. 22:15; 25:7). d. If theirs was a city of refuge they also heard pleas for asylum (Joshua 20:4). vii. of those qualified by the Holy Spirit who exercised spiritual care and oversight of the local congregation. B. EPISKOPOI - overseers, bishops i. Titus equates bishop and elder in Titus 1:59. Regarding the Office: A. The office of Elder is a divinely appointed office as defined in the Pastoral Epistles. B. Elders are apparently appointed by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). C. Should receive double honor in the church (1 Tim. 5:17). D. The pastor is an elder who preaches and/or teaches (1 Tim. 5:17). i. The pastor (elder) is to equip the body of Christ (Eph. 4:11-13). E. Must be a man (1 Tim. 2:9-13). i. All uses of "elder" are in the masculine except for 1 Tim. 5:2 where it means older women. The Responsibilities of Elders in the NT Church: A. Must shepherd the flock (1 Peter 5:2). B. Must voluntarily exercise oversight upon the flock (1 Peter 5:2). C. Must live as examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:3). D. Anoint and pray for the sick (James 5:14). E. They have the tasks of teaching (1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5,9). F. They have the tasks of acting as judges (Acts 15:2,6,22-29; 16:4).

2.

3.

251

4.

Qualifications for an elder A. Must be above reproach (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:2) B. Husband of one wife (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:2). C. Household must be in order with children who believe (Titus 1:6 ;1 Tim. 3:4). D. Not a new convert (1 Tim. 3:6). E. Self controlled and temperate (Titus 1:7; 1 Tim. 3:2). F. Honorable, hospitable, seeking good (Titus 1:7). G. Have a good reputation (1 Tim. 3:7). H. Not addicted to wine (1 Tim. 3:3). I. Not greedy (1 Tim. 3:3). J. Able to exhort (teach) sound doctrine (Titus 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:2). K. Able to refute false teaching (Titus 1:9). L. They must be ready to earn their own living if necessary (Acts 20:17, 33-35).

252

Should unbelievers lead Christians in worship in a church service?

This question should never arise in the Christian church. But, unfortunately, it needs to be addressed because there are churches in America that have unbelievers leading Christians in worship on Sunday morning services. This is wrong and it is a sign of apostasy in the Christian church. First of all, worship can only be rightly performed by believers who have been justified and sanctified by the blood of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 2:9). Only blood-bought believers have the right to worship God because only they have a mediator by which their worship may be accepted (1 Tim. 2:5). The unbeliever has no mediator. Unbelievers do not have that right to praise God for His goodness and mercy because they are in a state of rejecting it -- which is why they are unbelievers -and they are unclean before God! Remember how God rejected the sacrifice of Cain who was a murderer (Gen. 4:5), how much more the false and hypocritical worship of unbelievers. Jesus said to the Pharisees and Scribes, "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 8This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me," (Matt. 15:7). Are the unbelievers any better off than the Pharisees and Scribes? No, they are, like the Pharisees, under harsher judgment. How dare the unbeliever lead the believer in worship of the true and Holy God when he or she is in a state of rebellion against God! May it never be! "But to the wicked God says, What right have you to tell of My statutes, and to take My covenant in your mouth?" (Psalm 50:16). Can the unbeliever praise God with the following words and not be a hypocrite? "Come, let us worship and bow down; Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker. 7For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, and the sheep of His hand," (Psalm 95:6). No. He cannot! To sing such praises is a mockery to God. Therefore, they are in the same state as those who are condemned by Christ on the day of judgment: "Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? 23"And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness, (Matt. 7:22-23). Second, it is hypocritical for a pastor to have unbelieving musicians come into the church of Lord and lead blood-bought believers in worship. Hypocrisy is saying (singing) one thing and doing another. It is a display of behavior of falseness. And that is exactly what the pastor is encouraging when he has unbelievers lead believers in praises to God because, in their hearts, they do not trust in the sacrifice of Christ. Their words are singing praises of trust and adoration to God when in their hearts they do not believe it. This is hypocrisy and the pastor is encouraging it. Furthermore, I am sure that in the great majority of such hypocritical situations, the unbelievers are "praising God" for money. Think about it: a pastor offers money to unbelievers to have them come into the church of God and lead believers in worship. Worship is supposed to be an offering to God by believers and a means of preparation of the heart so that the Christian might receive the word of God in the sermon. How dare a pastor pay and unbeliever to do this! Third, it was the Pharisees in the New Testament who had an outward manifestation of worship but inwardly were unregenerate. To this, Jesus condemned them as hypocrites (Matt. 15:7). If a pastor of a church is not informing the congregation of the fact that unbelievers are leading believers in worship (which should never occur in the first place) then the following verses apply to the pastor: "But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 43"Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the front seats in the synagogues, and the respectful greetings in the market places. 44"Woe to you! For you are like concealed tombs, and the people who walk over them are unaware of it," (Luke 11:42). If the congregation is unaware of the unholy and unregenerate nature of those leading them in worship, then they are inadvertently participating in the unholy worship of hypocrites. When the Pharisees worshipped God, their worship was rejected and condemned. Jesus, exposed the hypocrisy

253

of outward worship and inward disbelief and said it "dirtied" those who followed their lead - referring to Levitical laws of cleanness. Is this not basically the same thing happening when unbelievers lead unsuspecting believers in worship? In this, the congregation thinks the worship leaders are "sanctified by Christ's blood" when, in reality they are not. And, to make it worse, the "worship leaders" further the deception on a weekly basis. Now, the pastor is the leader in the church. Woe to him who leads the church into hypocritical worship to God and encourages sinners to sin. Fourth, we find in scripture that only believers lead worship and are involved in true worship, never unbelievers: "These things I remember, and I pour out my soul within me. For I used to go along with the throng and lead them in procession to the house of God, with the voice of joy and thanksgiving, a multitude keeping festival," (Psalm 42:4). "Ascribe to the Lord, O sons of the mighty, Ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. 2Ascribe to the Lord the glory due to His name; Worship the Lord in holy array," (Psalm 29:1). "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for Gods own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light," (1 Pet. 2:9).

We find no place in the scriptures where unbelievers lead believers in worship. It is not in the Bible and it should never happen in the Christian church. What of the benefit to the unbeliever? What about the benefit of exposing an unbeliever to the gospel by getting him into church to participate in worship? After all, it has probably led to conversions. The ends do not justify the means. If God so chooses to save someone in spite of a sinful situation, that is God's business. The pastor is to make sure that the worship honors God. It is not the place of evangelism. It is the place of worship. Do not be deceived into compromising praise and worship to God by having unbelievers participate in it. To the pastor If you are a pastor who has unbelievers lead the believing congregation in worship, stop it now. You are responsible for shepherding your church in truth, honor, and sanctification before God. You must repent of this sin and confess it. You must dismiss the unbelievers from worship, invite them to attend the church service, confess your sin to the elders and the church, ask forgiveness It is far better that the worship in the church be less than perfect on the outside than have it be stained by unbelievers with unregenerate hearts

254

What kind of a Christian are you?

"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you unless indeed you fail the test?" (2 Cor. 13:5, NASB). What kind of a Christian are you? Have you ever sat down and asked yourself that? Are you a Christian with your heart and mind in the world and your feet in the church? Or, are you the kind that seeks to do God's will as revealed in Scripture? Whichever one you are, the Bible tells you to examine yourself to see if you are in the faith. Have you done that? Have you examined your beliefs, your actions, and your motives and compared them to scripture to see what kind of a Christian you are? Are you submitting your life to God or God to your life? This is an important question. No one should simply take it for granted that he is saved because he is born into a Christian family, or is a good person, or is sincere in heart and mind, or thinks that God is so loving that He'll let everyone into heaven. These things do not make anyone a Christian nor do they guarantee anything with God. Only faith in Christ (Rom. 5:1), trust in Him alone for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 4:12), receiving Him (John 1:12) is what being born again is about. It means to be changed from the inside because the Lord has changed you, saved you, and the Holy Spirit is now in you. What kind of a Christian are you? Are you one on the outside but not on the inside? Are you a social Christian? Do you claim the name but not the heart of Christianity? Are you a person who knows he or she is saved because of the work of Christ on the cross and you trust in Him alone? Or do you think that your sincerity and good works, in cooperation with God's grace, will get you to heaven? Are you the kind of a person who believes in God yet walks into sin, knowingly, painfully? Maybe you listen to the world and think that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative life style. Or maybe you think that true Christians need to remain open minded and not condemn anyone. Is premarital sex is okay if you love each other and/or plan to get married? Do you think that adultery is just an "affair" or is it a terrible sin against God? Your opinions reveal what you are inside: biblical, worldly, or a little bit of both. Ultimately, though, you must examine yourself to see if you are in the faith. Basically, if you agree with the Bible, you're fine. If you do not, then you are wrong. Here are some questions meant to get you to think and examine yourself to help you see what kind of a Christian you are, maybe to see if you really are one. The Holy Spirit can prompt you. He can let you know about sin and righteousness (John 16:8). Lovingly and humbly submit yourself to Him. Examine yourself: Do you believe the essentials of the Christian faith: Trinity, Jesus is God in flesh, salvation by grace through faith, Jesus rose from the dead physically? Do you confess that you are a sinner before a holy God? (Rom. 3:23) Do you confess that you cannot please God through your own efforts? (Isa. 64:6) Do you acknowledge that Jesus is the only way to salvation? (John 14:6; Acts 4:7-12) Do you acknowledge that there is only one God in all the universe? (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8) Do you seek to do the will of the Lord? (Matt. 7:21) Do you know that God loves you and desires your relationship with Jesus? (1 Cor. 1:9). Do you acknowledge that sin causes a separation between you and God? (Isaiah 59:2) Do you approve of social agendas in the church? (Rom. 12:12) Do you believe that morals are relative? (Exodus 20:1-17) Do you suspect that reincarnation might be true? (Heb. 9:26). Do you casually look at the Bible as a guide book, not the rule of truth and faith? (2 Tim. 3:16) Do you believe that feelings are as valid as scripture to find truth? (Jer. 17:9) Do you believe that those who reject Christ will go to hell forever? (Matt. 25:46) Do you pray only when something is wrong in your life? (Phil. 4:6) Do you go to church only on special occasions? (Heb. 10:25) Do you use the Lord's name in vain? (Exodus 20:7) Do you regularly watch things on TV and in the movies that you shouldn't? (Phil. 4:8) Are we basically good in nature or bad? (Eph. 2:3; Psalm 51) Is the devil a real being? (Rev. 20:110) Is dust collecting on your Bible?

255

If you have the Son in you, the Holy Spirit will bear witness of the truth of your life in Him. Jesus said, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand," (John 10:27-28). A call to repentance and commitment Repentance means to turn from that which is unholy towards that which is holy. It means to turn away from sin and move towards God. God is not where our sin is. He is not where rebellion to His word is. He is not in the world that seeks to use the Church as a social instrument, nor with the Christian who wants to change the church and make it more "tolerant." He is not in the hearts of the cold who do not take His words seriously, but instead give casual regard to it only when it agrees with their feelings and wants. Repentance begins when we realize that our hearts are not in accord with God and we willingly submit our wills to God's will as it is revealed in the Bible. We discover our need to do this this when we compare ourselves to the Lord Jesus. We discover this when we compare ourselves to the word of God. After repentance comes commitment. Commitment to God and His word should be the heart of every Christian. After all, Jesus said that those whom He knows hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27-28). That is, they follow what Jesus says and do what He does. What kind of a Christian are you?

256

Do you know the basics of the Christian faith?

"Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment, (Heb. 6:1-2, NASB). God tells us to grow beyond the basics of the Christian faith and to press on to maturity. Sadly, most Christians are not very well acquainted with the basics of Christianity and so linger in the milk of the word instead of going on to the meat. My interviews of Christians over the years has led me to believe that about 80% of them have a faulty understanding of justification by faith and about 90% as many couldn't defend the deity of Christ from the Bible. In fact, most Christians I've encountered do not understand who Jesus is biblically, let alone defend the proper understanding of what Jesus did on the cross. Now, I am not saying that all Christians need to be masters of theology, philosophy, and the Bible. I am saying that Christians need to grow passed the basics and onto maturity just like it says in Heb. 6:1-2. Following is a list of questions that are basics. The average Christian who has been a believer for, say, two years or more, should know the majority of the answers below. If you don't know them, then click on the answers link at the end of the questions to see what the right answers are and learn. I suggest that you get a notebook together and fill it with things about doctrines, who Jesus is, what He did, what salvation is, etc. Print papers from this site. You don't have to have them memorized, but know them. Understand them. Use them as foundations in your Bible studies. They will help. How do you fair with the questions? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Can you tell someone what the Great Commission is? Can you tell someone what the gospel is? Can you tell someone where in the Bible the gospel is defined? How many ways are there to get to God? Can you quote John 3:16? What book and chapter of the Bible has the 10 Commandments? What is the basic salvation message? Must you be baptized in order to be saved? Is salvation obtained by being good, by faith in Jesus alone, or both? Can you tell define the term justification? Can you tell define the term sanctification? Can you tell someone the difference between Mormonism and Christianity? Can you quote scripture and location that says we are saved by grace? Can you quote scripture and location that says there is only one God? Is Jesus God in flesh, a good man, or an angel who became a man? Did Jesus rise from the dead in a physical body or not? How many natures does Jesus have? Is the Holy Spirit a person like the Father and Son, or a force like radar? Can you explain what the Trinity is? Has God always been God? Can you tell anyone what some of the attributes of God are? Is Jesus going to return or not? Did Jesus bare our sins in His body on the cross or not? What is salvation? What is sin? What is damnation? What is hell? What is heaven? Is the Bible inspired or is it a good book full of good moral stories? What are the first five books of the Old Testament?

257

31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

How many books are in the Bible? Were Adam and Eve real people or not? What is the biblical reason that Adam and Eve cast out of the Garden of Eden? Is Satan a real being? What are some of the qualifications of an elder?

258

Answers to the questions on basics.

You don't need to have the scripture verses memorized, and this list isn't authoritative. So, if you don't know everything, that's alright. But, these are the basics in Christianity and Christians should, at the very least, be familiar with them. 1. Can you tell someone what the Great Commission is? A. "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age," (Matt. 28:1820). 2. Can you tell someone what the gospel is? A. "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:1-4) 3. Can you tell someone where in the Bible the gospel is defined? A. See above. 4. How many ways are there to get to God? A. Only one: "Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me," (John 14:6). 5. Can you quote John 3:16? A. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life," (John 3:16). 6. What book and chapter of the Bible has the 10 Commandments? A. Exodus 20 7. What is the basic salvation message? A. The basic salvation message is that Jesus die on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4). All who would believe in Him would have everlasting life and escape the judgment of God upon those who have sinned against Him (John 3:16-18). Receiving salvation from God is done by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8). 8. Must you be baptized in order to be saved? A. No, you don't have to be baptized to be saved (Rom. 5:1; Acts 10:44-48). See "Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?" for more information on this. 9. Is salvation obtained by being good, by faith in Jesus alone, or both? A. Salvation is by grace through faith, not of works (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 5:1). 10. Can you define the term justification? A. To be justified is to be made righteous. It is a divine act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his sins. It is not that the sinner is now sinless, but that he is "declared" sinless. This justification is based on the shed blood of Jesus, "...having now been justified by His blood..." (Rom. 5:9). 11. Can you tell define the term sanctification? A. Sanctification follows justification. In justification our sins are completely forgiven in Christ. Sanctification is the process by which the Holy Spirit makes us more like Christ in all that we do, think, and desire. 12. Can you tell someone the difference between Mormonism and Christianity? A. Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another world he became a god and brought one of his wives to this world. They produce spirit offspring who enter human babies at birth. Mormons believe they have the potential of becoming gods of their own worlds. B. Christianity teaches that there is only one God in all existence (who was never a man on a planet). God exists as a Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Jesus is the word made flesh (John 1:1,14) and we cannot become gods.

259

13. Can you quote scripture and location that says we are saved by grace? A. Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." 14. Can you quote scripture and location that says there is only one God? A. "...Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me," (Isaiah 43:10). See also Isaiah 44:6,8. 15. Is Jesus God in flesh, a good man, or an angel who became a man? A. Jesus is God in flesh. Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form." John 1:1,14 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." 16. Did Jesus rise from the dead in a physical body or not? A. Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in, though it was a glorified body. "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body." And, "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body," (1 Cor. 15:42-44). 17. How many natures does Jesus have? A. Two. Jesus is both God and man. Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." 18. Is the Holy Spirit a person like the Father and Son, or a force like radar? A. The Holy Spirit is a person like the Father and the Son. He speaks (Acts 8:29; 13:2), has a will (1 Cor. 12:11), loves, and can be grieved (Eph. 4:30). 19. Can you explain what the Trinity is? A. The Trinity is the teaching that God exists in three eternal, simultaneous, co-equal persons known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 20. Has God always been God? A. Yes, God has always been God. Psalm 90:2 says, "Before the mountains were born, or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." 21. Can you tell anyone what some of the attributes of God are? A. He knows all things (1 John 3:20). He is all powerful (Jer. 32:17,27). He is everywhere (Psalm 139:7-12). He is holy (Isaiah 6:3; Rev. 4:8). 22. Is Jesus going to return or not? A. Yes, Jesus is going to return. Acts 1:10-11 says, "And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them; 11and they also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." 23. Did Jesus bare our sins in His body on the cross or not? A. "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed," (1 Peter 2:24). 24. What is salvation? A. Salvation is the "saving" of a sinner from the righteous judgment of God. When someone appeals to God and seeks forgiveness in Jesus, his sins are forgiven. He is cleansed. His relationship with God is restored, and he is made a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). All of this is the work of God, not man. Salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:3). 25. What is sin? A. Sin is anything that is contrary to the law or will of God. For example: if you lie, you have sinned. Why? Because God has said not to lie (Exodus 20:16). If you do what God has forbidden, then you have sinned. In addition, if you do not do what God has commanded, you sin (James 4:17). 26. What is damnation? A. The righteous judgment of God upon a sinner where the sinner is cast out of the presence of God into Hell for ever. (Matt. 25:46).

260

27. What is hell? A. Hell is the future place of eternal punishment of the damned including the devil and his fallen angels. See Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Acts 11:27; 1 Cor. 15:55; Rev. 1:18; 6:8). 28. What is heaven? A. Heaven is the dwelling place of God and for those who go there a place of everlasting bliss. See Matt. 23:34-37; Luke 10:20; and Rev. 22:2,20-27. 29. Is the Bible inspired or is it a good book full of good moral stories? A. The Bible is inspired and inerrant in the original documents. See 2 Tim. 3:16. 30. What are the first five books of the Old Testament? A. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. 31. How many books are in the Bible? A. There are 66 books in the Bible: 39 books in the OT, 27 in the NT. 32. Were Adam and Eve real people or not? A. Yes, they were real individuals. (Gen. 2-3) 33. What is the biblical reason that Adam and Eve cast out of the Garden of Eden? A. They disobeyed God by eating of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3). 34. Is the devil a real being? A. Yes, he is a real being, a fallen angel. "But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you," (Jude 9). (see also Rev. 12:9) 35. What are some of the qualifications of an elder? A. Must be above reproach (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:2) B. Husband of one wife (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:2). C. Household must be in order with children who believe (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:4). D. Have a good reputation (1 Tim. 3:7). E. Able to exhort (teach) sound doctrine (Titus 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:2). F. Able to refute false teaching (Titus 1:9).

261

Are you comfortable?

"Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, 3knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing," (James 2:2-4, NASB). Are you comfortable? Do you feel safe in the Lord? I hope so. You should. Comfort and peace are great blessings from the Lord. He loves us so much that He gave His Son and sent the Holy Spirit who is called The Comforter (John 14:26, KJV). We are secure in Him (John 10:27-28), can rest in Him (Matt. 11:28), and don't need to be anxious for anything (Phil. 4:6). We have a great and awesome God who has made all this possible. However, sometimes comfort can be a stumbling block. Sometimes comfort can rob us of our strength and dependence on God. Think of a man who is so comfortable in his life with so few problems that he doesn't do much of anything let alone worry about anything. He relaxes and enjoys life. He also becomes weak and dependent upon his routine and life. So too the Christian who is very comfortable in his life, can also become weak and dependent upon the securities of life instead of the Lord. There is nothing wrong with being comfortable, unless that comfort makes us depend on God less and cause us to become complacent about the lost around us. Where the early Christians had to rely on God for their every need, today in America and much of the modern world, creature-comforts and drive-through churches have made many Christians complacent and sluggish. Most (I hope) are saved, but it seems that far too many have settled into the church routine: Sunday service; maybe Wednesday, too; don't share their faith much; pray when a need arises; enjoy life; tithe occasionally; let pastors and missionaries do the hard spiritual work, etc. In this mode, the call of God to make disciples of every nation is a faint whisper that if listened to, can only cause inconvenience and a disruption of Christian comforts. Are you one of those Christians? Are you so comfortable in your life that you aren't concerned about the lost, don't depend on God, tithe infrequently, and hardly seek God's face? God has blessed us in America. We have the best of everything and only need to put on credit what our whims demand. We have our VCRs, air-conditioning, remote controls, and fast food restaurants. We have churches with central air, great sound systems, well educated preachers, plush pews, and fine-tuned choirs, pianos, and organs. We are blessed with committees, plans, and money. In fact, we have so many churches we are guaranteed we can find one to suit any whim or preference. Unfortunately, all too often, the messages are pleasant and dont make our hearts ache for the lost or for our Lord. This is a recipe for danger. We are truly blessed. But, those blessings can become curses if they weaken our desires to live for God and reach the lost. God sometimes allows trials and tribulations in our lives in order to get us to look to Him. Struggle tends to strengthen faith because in struggle we turn to God. He answers our prayers and provides our needs and we in turn praise Him. In this process, the Holy Spirit is alive in us, working mightily, and we sense Him teaching us, guiding us, shaping us. That is why whenever we are close to God, we are far from sin. Whenever we are close to God, we are aware of our ungodliness. Whenever we are close to God, we are concerned for the lost--because He is. Are you far from sin? Are you aware of your ungodliness? Are you concerned for the lost? Therefore, I ask you. Have you become distracted from the calling of God to grow in grace and make disciples of all nations? I am not talking about doing your duty of going to church on Sunday and reading your Bible occasionally. I'm talking about making headway, actively seeking God, being willing take risks for Him, asking to be used, asking to be shaped, etc. Are you doing that? If not, maybe you are too comfortable.

262

So what should we do? Please understand that I am not advocating poverty and misery as a way of measuring the Christian life. There is nothing wrong with being comfortable, having money, or remote control TV's, and air conditioned cars. We should praise God for these. But, you need to ask yourself if your life has become filled with a familiarity with comfort and with the "Christian life" that you are simply in a routine that has unwittingly numbed you to the spiritual realities of life. If you think that maybe you have backslidden in this way, then I have some suggestions. First of all, pray to the Lord and ask Him to reveal your sins to you. Confess them and do your best to repent as you continue to rely on His grace. Second, read your Bible regularly and ask the Lord to apply to your heart what you read. Third, ask God to put a desire on your heart that is in accordance with your spiritual giftings so that you may not only grow and edify the body of Christ, but also to reach out to the lost. If you don't know what your spiritual gifts are, that's okay. God will show you. Fourth, don't be afraid to take risks for the Lord. Don't be afraid to become a little uncomfortable. Tithe. Pray. Intercede. Read the Word. Confess your sins. Speak the gospel. Remember, our life is not about our comforts. It is about loving God, loving others, and spreading the word of God.

263

264

Apologetics
Introduction
Apologetics is somewhat of a lonely endeavor. It is possible for a person to give a great deal of effort to apologetic work, to defending Gods word, to answering questions, to reasoning with people and have it all seem as though it was worthless. Discouragement is a reality to the apologist. There are certainly victories, by Gods grace. But there are many encounters that could simply be classified as "unprofitable." To help you keep your eyes on the real issue of apologetics, I offer the following illustration. The idea is to get you to understand what your job is as an apologist, as someone who answers questions and objections, and points people to Jesus. I believe that if you understand where you are and what your job is, then you wont be as overcome with discouragement as you might otherwise be. Apologetics is like . . . Apologetics is like a field. In the center of the field is a garden. This garden has one door and that door is Jesus. There is one path that leads to that door. Inside the garden is eternal life in the presence of God. Outside it, however, in the field, are rocks, boulders, thorns, thistles, valleys, hills, and many false paths that lead nowhere. The apologist resides in the field and points people to the true path so they can find the Garden. The apologist seeks to remove the intellectual thorns and emotional rocks that prevent people from finding the truth path to God. Also, there are many people who are walking false paths (cults, philosophies, etc.) who will never reach that garden. The apologist gently guides the person, removes the obstacles, and points in the direction of the Garden. When people arrive there, it is between them and God on whether or not they enter. Picture yourself as a laborer in the field. It isnt your job to save anyone. It is your job to point the way. You arent the only one in the field. Getting them to the Garden is not your job. They get there. You simply help them.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

What is apologetics? p. 266 Why is logic important in apologetics? p. 269 Why is prayer important in apologetics? p. 271 What are some of the guidelines for doing apologetics? p. 272 What is classical apologetics? p. 273 What is Presuppositional Apologetics? p. 275 What is Evidential Apologetics? p. 276 Basically, what is the Cosmological Argument? p. 277 Basically, what is the Teleological Argument? p. 278

265

An Introduction to Apologetics
The word "apologetics" comes from the Greek word "apologia," pronounced, "ap-ol-og-ee-ah." It means, "a verbal defense." It is used eight times in the New Testament: Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 7:11; Phil. 1;7,17; 2 Tim. 4:16, and 1 Pet. 3:15. But it is the last verse that is most commonly associated with Christian apologetics. "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence," (1 Pet. 3:15). Therefore, Christian apologetics is that branch of Christianity that deals with answering any and all critics who oppose or question the revelation of God in Christ and the Bible. It can include studying such subjects as biblical manuscript transmission, philosophy, biology, mathematics, evolution, and logic. But it can also consist of simply giving an answer to a question about Jesus or a Bible passage. The later case is by far the most common and you dont have to read a ton of books to do that. Apologetics can be defensive and offensive. The apologist can and should defend his reasons for believing (1 Pet. 3:15). But, he can also go on the attack. He can seek out those who oppose Christianity (2 Cor. 10:5). Of course, he should be prepared to do this before hand and all apologetics is to be done with gentleness. Apologetics can be, basically, evidential (often called "classical") or presuppositional. Evidential apologetics deals with the evidence for Christianity: Jesus resurrection, the biblical manuscripts, fulfilled prophecy, miracles, etc. Presuppositional apologetics deals with the presuppositions of those who oppose Christianity, because presuppositions effect how a person views evidence and reason. Some areas of debate within Christian apologetics deal with the use of evidence, reasons, philosophy, etc. Should the apologist use only those criteria acceptable to unbelievers? Are we allowed to use the Bible as a defense of our position or must we prove Christianity without it? Is reason alone sufficient to prove God existence or Christianitys truth? How much should reason and evidence be used in light of the Scriptures teaching that it is God who opens the mind to understand? What part does prayer, using the Bible, and the sinful nature of the unbeliever play in witnessing? How do these factors interrelate to bring an unbeliever to faith? The questions are easy. The answers are not. Jesus chose one highly educated religious person as an apostle. That was Paul. The rest were fishermen, a tax collector, a doctor, etc. They were normal people of the day who were available and willing to be used by the Lord. They were filled with the Spirit of God and they were used as vessels of God. God uses all things for His glory. So, we do apologetics by faith. The Lord has called every Christian to be ready to make a defense of his faith. That means you are called to give reasonable answers to questions regarding Christianity. Now, this does not mean that you must have a PhD or that you have to go to seminary. But it does mean that you should be willing to at least give an answer for your beliefs. If you find you cannot, then prayerfully take it to God and start studying. What do you study? You could pray and ask the Lord to teach you what He wants you to know. Ask Him to give you a burden for something to learn. It doesnt matter what it is. Just ask. Whatever you become interested in is what you should learn about because it is probably something God wants you to know for later use. It is like having tools in a tool shed. The more you have, the more you can accomplish. Another way to find out what God wants you to study is through circumstances. Lets say that a Jehovahs Witness comes to your door and debates the deity of Christ with you and you find you dont know how to defend it biblically. In that case, you know you need to study biblical verses that teach Jesus is God in flesh. Or maybe a coworker asks you how you know the Bible is true? If you dont have a answer, pray, and start researching. Go to a Christian bookstore and get some books on it. Talk to your pastor. Youll learn. Sometimes God will make a verse or subject in the Bible "come alive" to you and it might strike you as odd or interesting. You could get a commentary and read up on it. You could ask others about it. In so doing, you are preparing yourself through learning to be ready to answer questions and point

266

people to the truth. You'd be surprised how many details God can use to help you in your witness, even through those apparently odd times when verses suddenly "come alive." Get an Ignorance Notebook The ignorance notebook is something I started almost 20 years ago to help me study. You can make one yourself. Its simple. Get a 3 ring binder and fill with blank pages. Then ask God to fill it with what you need to know. As in the examples above, God will put burdens on your heart, or cause you to find places where you are lacking in knowledge, or a Bible verse will strike you. Write down what you learn in your notebook. Date the pages as you go. Youll be amazed at what you learn. Basically, apologetics is equivalent to theology in sneakers. It means getting the hay down off the loft and down to where the cows can eat it. Anyone can do apologetics. All it takes is willingness, a little work, and the Spirit of God in you.

267

Are you and apologist?

Sometimes when I do seminars, I stand in front of a group of people and introduce myself. I give a very brief history of what got me started in apologetics and what keeps me going. Usually, those who are there are there to learn about witnessing to Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, some other cult group, Christian doctrine, evangelism, or are simply there to ask questions on different subjects. Invariably, I introduce the term 'apologetics' to the group and define it as that field of Christian study that defends biblical truth against anything that opposes it. Also, I state that apologetics is as varied as there are people and subjects and that no one can master all areas. According to a person's gifts and interests, he or she will become proficient in what interests that person as God calls him into study. But one of my concerns when doing seminars is what I call "The Speaker Effect." Basically, when a group gathers to hear a speaker, it is assumed that the speaker knows his material and is very experienced in the subject. Given the fact that public speaking is America's number one phobia, the mere fact that a person can get up there and speak for an hour on a subject (and enjoy doing it) has a psychological affect of distancing the learner from the teacher. The speaker is often elevated to the status of "A Special Teacher Called of God." Actually, in my case, the speaker is just someone who likes to blab about what he knows. I'm no different than anyone else, and that is important. People need to realize that they are called by God to study and show themselves approved (2 Tim. 2:15). Furthermore this "effect" tends to make people think that they can't be good apologists since they aren't up there speaking. This is not true and I always try and motivate people to study and master those areas that the Lord calls them to study. Apologetics is the attempt to make a defense for the Christian faith. If you do that in any way, then you are an apologist. In fact, you are commanded to be an apologist by Peter: "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence," "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence," (1 Pet. 3:15). If God commands you to make a defense, then He is commanding you to be an apologist. So, you are, whether you like it or not, called to be an apologist. But don't worry. God is not in the habit of sending people to accomplish His will without equipping them. Now, what I am going to tell you is true. I've experienced this many times. But please understand that this is the work of the Holy Spirit, not me. There would be times in varying situations when I would be discussing something with an unbeliever. He would ask a difficult question that would give me pause. I'd nod, trust God, and inhale to begin to answer. The answer would come as I began to speak. In other words, I didn't know what to say, until I started to say it. I am reminded of Jesus' words in Mark 13:11, "And when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit." I say this because I want you to learn to trust the Lord. He said He will be with us always to the end (Matt. 28:20). I believe it. He is there when we need Him. So, you need to study and be ready and trust the Lord to provide what you need when you need it. Trust God and Go!

268

Logic in Apologetics
Logic is typically very important in apologetics. To defend the faith, the Christian must use truth, facts, and reason appropriately and prayerfully. The Christian should listen to objections and make cogent and rational comments in direct response to the issues raised. Logic is simply a tool in the arsenal of Christian apologetics. Logic is a system of reasoning. It is the principles of proper thinking used to arrive at correct conclusions. Of course, some people are better at thinking logically than others and there is no guarantee that using logic to the best of one's ability will bring conversion of anyone. After all, logic is not what saves a person. Jesus does that and we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1). Therefore, the proper use of logic in apologetics is to remove intellectual barriers that hinder a person from accepting Jesus as Savior. Logic is not to be looked at as the answer to every problem facing Christianity or every objection raised. Logic has its limits. It cannot guarantee wisdom. It cannot prove or disprove inspiration or love. It cannot replace the intuition gained through experience, the prompting of the Holy Spirit, nor the clear truth of God's word. Nevertheless, logic is still very valuable and can be quite powerfully used by people both the saved and unsaved. Opponents of Christianity use logic Sometimes, an opponent of Christia nity might use logic problems as a type of evidence against Gods existence. Consider this rather basic objection: Proposition: God can do all things. Statement: Can God make something so big he cannot pick it up? If He can, then he cannot do all things because he could not pick up the rock. If He cannot, then He cannot do all things because he cannot make a rock so big He cant pick it up. Conclusion: Since God can do all things and we have shown that there are things he cannot do, therefore, God does not exist.

On the surface, this logic could be difficult to answer. But, all we have to do is think a bit more and we can see that the problem asserted above is not logical to begin with. Here's the answer: Proposition: God cannot violate His own nature; that is, He cannot go against what He naturally is. Statement: God's nature does not permit Him to lie, to not be God, etc. Conclusion: Therefore, the statement that God can do all things, is not true and the conclusion raised against God is also not true.

Logic is a valuable tool in witnessing, particularly when using proofs of God's existence. Consider the following basic approach using logic: 1. 2. The universe exists The universe cannot be infinitely old because if it were, it would have entered into a state of entropy long ago. A. Entropy is the second Law of thermodynamics that states that all things are moving toward chaos and no-usable energy. In other words, everything is running down. The universe is not in a state of entropy; therefore it is not infinitely old. Since the universe is not infinitely old, it had a beginning. The universe could not have brought itself into existence. Something before the universe and greater than the universe had to bring the universe into existence. That something is God.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

269

I suggest getting books on introduction to logic and go through what you can. Absorb as much as possible. Also, learn to ask questions in discussions. Learn to think about what the ramifications are of what people are saying. Look for logic flaws in their speech and your own. Is logic a common ground between the believer and the unbeliever? Some state that there is no common ground between the believer and the unbeliever, that the unbeliever's initial presuppositions against the Christian God do not allow him to accurately reason concerning God, the world, truth, or themselves. Therefore, some Christian theologians conclude, there can be no ultimate common ground because the unsaved are unregenerate and their presuppositions are opposed to true rationality. I believe that logic is indeed a type of common ground. But I do not believe that it possess some innate quality that renders it above human capacity or limitations, nor is it possessing of any ethereal, mystic qualities that somehow transcends the blinding influence of sin. I think that logic, used properly, always vindicates the truths found in the Bible and point to God whether or not an unbeliever acknowledges it. Logic belongs to God. This is so because God has invented the universe, the physical laws, mathematics, and all other natural and true phenomenon in it. Existence has an order because God gave it order. Logic is true, not because it is logical, but because it is a reflection of God's nature which is order and truth. Therefore, logic, ultimately, belongs only to God and can only properly be used by Him and, in matters pertaining to God, by the Christian. This is not to say that an unbeliever cannot master the logic, say of mathematics, better than an unbeliever. There are areas of knowledge common to both and God has given some people abilities not possessed by others. However, this not an assertion that all Christians, when speaking of God, do so flawlessly. Many Christians are very illogical when they try and defend God. The fact is that no one can claim to have ultimately mastered logic. In a perfect world with unfallen people, reasoning would be a marvelous adventure that would lead us to more of God's revelation and truth. But, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a fallen world where sin has influence not only our bodies, emotions, and wills, but also our minds. Is logic enough? Is logic enough for the Christian? No, it isn't. Logic has two major flaws: First, it is only as good as the one who is using it (though that really isnt a flaw in logic). Second, logic doesn't save. Jesus does. We cannot reason someone into the kingdom of God. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin and righteousness and who opens the heart to understand the truth (John 16:8). But if that is true, then should we even bother to try and reason with unbelievers? Absolutely yes. For several reasons: We are commanded by God to give an answer to unbelievers (1 Pet. 3:15) and to reason (Isaiah 1:18). God can, in His sovereignty, use our witness and reasoning to bring someone into the Kingdom. He is not limited by our inadequacies. Answers that are in agreement with God's word, given to unbelievers, even if they are rejected, are still true answers. The unbeliever will be held accountable on judgment day for rejecting those truths. Conclusion Logic is a tool for the Christian. It is nothing to be afraid of. In fact, if you accept the truth that logic "belongs" to God, then you should be encouraged to use it. But, dont let it become an idol; that is, it is not the answer to problem. As Christians, we need to use logic, as well as evidence, prayer, God's word, love, kindness, etc., in our efforts to win people to Jesus. Reasoning has a valuable place in apologetics and with the believer. It is worth doing well. But, use it with love, prayer, and patience.

270

Prayer in Apologetics

One of the dangers of the apologist is falling into the trap of relying on his own intellectual abilities to try and wrestle someone into the kingdom of God. I am sad to say that I have been guilty of this. Pride hides itself in the heart so it cannot be seen. When we find ourselves relying on our knowledge instead of God's word, mercy, and grace, then we have fallen into that trap. It is not reason that converts, but God's Spirit. It is not logic that draws us to God but Jesus (John 12:32). It is not evidence that convicts a person of his sins, but the Holy Spirit (John 16:8). That is why we need to rely on God and trust that He will use our defense of the truth for His glory and their benefit. To ignore prayer in apologetics is to be prideful. It is the same as saying we don't need God. But we do. We need to pray for those who are lost, pray for their minds to be opened, pray that God's word will ring true to them, pray that our witness will be strong, and pray that the evil one will not have a foot-hold with them or with us. We are fighting a spiritual battle and need spiritual tools. Prayer is perhaps the most important of them all. It is the Lord who opens the heart and mind, not you (Acts 16:14). Ask God for guidance (John 14:14). Ask for blessing in your understanding (James 1:5) and your speech (Col. 4:6). Ask the Lord to also open their understanding to Gods word (Luke 24:45). This is what He does. Prayer brings humility to the one praying. It admits dependence on God. If we are humble and depended on God, we are more likely to hear His voice. Prayer means that you are seeking divine intervention. It works power to your words. It changes your heart. It moves you closer to God. Being a great apologist is not a badge of honor to be worn by the Christian as a demonstration of his intellectual abilities. Rather, it is a response to the calling of God upon all Christians (1 Pet. 3:15) that is be undertaken with love and humility: love of people and humility before God. Never let your study and practice of apologetics replace the power, received by faith, in prayer before the Holy Creator. Ask God to empower your words and open the hearts of those with whom you speak.... and then study and witness to the best of your abilities.

271

Are there Guidelines for doing Apologetics?

Most every discipline has a set of rules and guidelines that help a person perform better. In fact, guidelines could be produced for most any endeavor. Why should apologetics be any different? Following are some things I have found that are very helpful in developing apologetic skills. I am not saying that these are definitive or exhaustive in scope. Rather, these are simply the things that I have found that have helped me. I hope they help you. Remember, there is no method for apologetics that works in all situations. There can be no outline approach that, if followed, will always lead a person to understanding and accepting the truth. That is why apologetics is a combination of what you know and are. It is a fluid expression that must adapt the obstacles in its course. Apologetic skill is directly related to your experience and knowledge. You gain knowledge by experiencing a situation where you defend the truth. This is "doing" apologetics. It is through this doing that you polish what you know, discover your areas of weakness, and plan ways to improve your abilities. You need to learn as much as you can through study, practice what you learn in real situations, think of ways to apply what you know, mess up, and keep going. All of this is what apologetics is and is how you get better. So, is there one single rule that will help you develop skill in apologetics? Yes there is. Go for it! You will have success and failures. In fact, when I teach seminars on apologetics, I can confidently state that I have probably made more mistakes in evangelism, witnessing, apologetics, etc., than any ten people combined. My wife will attest to that. But hey, that's okay. You dont grow if you dont go. Here are some guidelines. 1. Pray - It is the Lord who opens the heart and mind, not you (Acts 16:14). Ask God for guidance (John 14:14). Ask for blessing in your understanding (James 1:5) and your speech (Col. 4:6). Ask the Lord to also open their understanding to Gods word (Luke 24:45). Memorize Scripture - Few things are as powerful when defending the faith as being able to cite chapter and verse of a particular verse (Psalm 119:11; 2 Tim. 3:16). Memorize the locations of information whether it be in cult material, secular material, or any other source youve got. - It is extremely valuable to know material in different disciplines. Of course, you cannot know everything, but you can memorize a few pertinent facts about Mormonism, or evolution, or philosophy, or the Bible, or whatever else may be needed. You will learn what you need as you witness. Listen to what is being said to you - and respond to what is said. It is by listening that you will then know what to say. Listen for errors in logic. Listen for motives, for hurts, for intent. Listen. Dont interrupt - This is just common courteously. You need to earn the right to speak. Just because you have an answer doesnt mean it must be heard right away. When interruptions become the norm, learning is thrown out the window. Dont be afraid to make mistakes - One of the best ways to improve, is to discover your weaknesses. The best way to discover your weaknesses is when mistakes uncover them for you. Study what you discover you dont know - If you dont know something, then study it. Get books and read. Write down what you learn. Dont be afraid to take a chance - This takes real faith. All you have to do is be available, speak up, and take a chance in defending the Christian faith. Youll be surprised at how well you do. And when you mess up, dont worry, review guideline # 6. Rehearse - Perhaps the best place to do apologetics is in your head. Think of a situation, a scenario that you need to have an answer for, and develop an answer. Practice in your mind. Try and corner yourself and then get out of it. Read Books that deal with what you need to know - The knowledge of others is invaluable. Isaac Newton said, "If I have reached the stars, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." In other words, he learned from others.

2. 3.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

Basically, the guidelines are common sense. All you have to do is try, dont worry about failure, keep going, pray, and trust God. It works.

272

Classical Apologetics
Classical Apologetics is that style of Christian defense that stresses rational arguments for the existence of God and uses evidence to substantiate biblical claims and miracles. It is quite similar to evidential apologetics and appeals to human reason and evidence. Early Classical Apologists include Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Acquinus. Contemporary classical apologists are Norman Geisler, William Craig, and J. P. Moreland. Some of the arguments relied upon for proofs of God's existence are the cosmological argument and the teleological argument. The cosmological argument attempts to prove God exists by stating that there has to be an uncaused cause of all things. That uncaused cause is God. The teleological argument uses the analogy of design; that is, the universe and life exhibit marks of design. Therefore, there must be a Designer. Other times, strict evidence is used establish Christianity's validity. Of course, both aspects are also combined in classical apologetics. An example of the latter might be as follows: Allen: I do not believe Jesus rose from the dead? Paul: Why not? The eyewitnesses stated that they saw him after his resurrection? Allen: Sorry, I can't accept that. The Bible has been rewritten so many times it cannot be trusted. Paul: But the manuscript evidence for the New Testament shows us that the manuscripts have been faithfully and accurately transmitted to us. We can trust the documents and we can trust that the Bible is reliable. Allen: What manuscript evidence? Paul: The fact that over 5000 supporting Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have been discovered, when examined, shows us that they are all copied with extreme accuracy. The New Testament alone is over 99% textually pure. In addition, another 20,000 manuscripts in other languages also have been discovered. All these manuscripts range from the second century to after the turn of the first millennium. They all demonstrate an amazing accuracy and consistency within the copies. Therefore, we can trust that the New Testament which has been transmitted to us as accurate. Since we can trust the documents, we have reliable eyewitness accounts of the resurrection accurately recorded and transmitted to us. Allen: Even if the New Testament is reliable, I still cannot believe Jesus rose from the dead. Paul: But, if it is reliable and it accurately records eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection, then why won't you believe the witness? If Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, then what He said is true. The preceding very simplistic dialogue has strengths and weaknesses but it demonstrates a way of using evidence and logic as a defense to support the resurrection, a biblical miracle. A variation on this could focus on prophecies and be as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The Bible claims to be the word of God. The Bible has been accurately transmitted to us through the copying method. The Old Testament was written before the New Testament. The Old Testament contains prophecies of Jesus fulfilled in the New Testament. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies This shows that the Bible is inspired. Since it is inspired, it is accurate. It says that God exists Therefore, God exist.

273

No argument is without strengths and weaknesses and all Classical Apologetic approaches have been tackled by critics. But, the critics are not left unanswered and Christians have, in turn, refuted the refutations. This back and forth process of point-counter-point is going to continue until Jesus returns. Nevertheless, God commands that we do our best to defend the faith and classical apologetics is one of the means to do that. Much of the information here on CARM can be used in a classical defense. There is documentation for biblical manuscript evidence in the Bible section. There is a list of prophecies about Jesus also in the Bible section and more. I recommend you go to the Apologetics Dialogues section and read a few of them to see how different subjects can be used. If you want logical approaches, try some proofs for God in the Atheist section. Finally, if you really want to test yourself, get on the internet, find a chat room through AOL instant messenger or Yahoo instant messenger and go in and debate with people in religious discussion rooms. You will learn real fast what you need to know. Whichever you do, think of apologetics as a mosaic of skills and knowledge that God uses in the believer to bring truth to the world. At first it is not that easy to do, but it gets easier and easier the more you do it. Adherents to this position have been Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, R. C. Sproul, and Norman Geisler.

274

Presuppositional Apologetics
This form of Christian apologetics deals with presuppositions. 2 8 A Christian presuppositionalist presupposes God's existence and argues from that perspective to show the validity of Christian theism. 2 9 This position also presupposes the truth of the Christian Scriptures and relies on the validity and power of the gospel to change lives (Rom. 1:16). From the scriptures we see that the unbeliever is sinful in his mind (Rom. 1:18-32) and unable to understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). This means that no matter how convincing the evidence or good the logic, an unbeliever cannot come to the faith because his fallen nature will distort how he perceives the truth. The only thing that can ultimately change him is regeneration. To this end, the presuppositionalist seeks to change a person's presuppositions to be in conformity with biblical revelation. I have found that a person's presuppositions are extremely important when discussing God and the validity of Christianity. I always ask diagnostic questions to find out where a person is philosophically and presuppositionally so I might better discuss Christianity. This is a very important point to focus on because one's presuppositions will govern how one interprets facts. Please consider the following dialogue as a realistic example of how this is works. Allen: I am an atheist and evolutionist. Prove to me there is a God. Paul: I do not think I can with your presuppositions. Allen: Why not? Paul: Because your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God's existence. Allen: That is because there is no evidence for God's existence. Paul: See? There you go. You just confirmed what I was stating. Allen: How so? Paul: Your presupposition is that there is no God, therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a ma nner consistent with your presupposition; namely, that there is no God. If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was masshysteria. If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated in correctly, or not real prophecies. So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it. It is limited. Allen: It is not limited. Paul: Yes it is. Your presupposition cannot allow you rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proof of His existence. Don't you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would forc e you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof. Allen: I see your point, but I am open to being persuaded, if you can. Paul: Then, I must ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence? I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them. Presuppositional apologetics differs from Classical apologetics "in that presuppositional apologetics rejects the validity of traditional proofs for the existence of God."3 0 A pure presuppositionalist tackles the worldview of a person and seeks to change the very foundation of how a person perceives facts. Adherents to this position have been Cornelius Van Til, Abraham Kuyper, Greg Bahsen, John Frame, etc.

28 29 30

A presupposition is an assumption that is taken for granted. Theism is the belief that God exists and is involved in the world. Geisler, Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, page 607.

275

Evidential Apologetics

Evidential Apologetics is that style of Christian defense that stresses the miracles found in the Bible, particularly of Christ, as an evidence for the existence of God and, of course, the validity of Christ and His words. It also uses historical evidences to support the veracity of the biblical account(s). In this, it is very similar to Classical Apologetics which stresses reason in its approach to evidences. Basically, evidential apologetics stresses evidence such as miracles, fulfilled prophecies, etc. and uses reason to support them. An example of evidential apologetics might be as follows (Note the similar argument to the classical approach):

Allen: How do I know God exists? Paul: One of the ways can be found in the gospel accounts where Jesus performed many miracles like walking on water, healing the sick, etc. and then finally rising from the dead. No mere man can do those kinds of things. There had to be something supernatural at work. Why can't that be God? Allen: But the Bible is full of myths. It is just a bunch of stories. Paul: Actually, they are not just myths and stories. The gospels, for example, were written by those who either knew Jesus personally, or were under the direction of those who did. The gospels are full of factual accounts of cities, customs, terms, locations, etc., that can all be verified historically and archaeologically. There are many books that have verified the authenticity of the gospel accounts. Allen: If that is true, then I am sure the gospels have been corrupted over time. Paul: Actually, that isn't quite accurate. You see, the New Testament alone has something like 24,000 supporting biblical manuscripts and they are around 99.5% textually pure. That means that they have been reliably transmitted to us through the centuries. We can trust them. Allen: Still, I can't believe all those miracles and stuff. Paul: Why not? Many eyewitnesses wrote and spoke aobut what they saw Jesus do. After the gospel accounts were written, there were plenty of people around who had seen Jesus who could have spoken up or written something down contradicting what the apostles wrote. But, we have no account of this happening. Allen: I didn't think of that. Paul: Furthermore, since the eyewitnesses wrote about what they saw, and they saw miracles, as did hundreds of others, and Jesus healed people, walked on water, calmed a storm by a command, and rose from the dead, then whatever He says must be true since He backed up His words with His deeds. Allen: That makes sense, but that doesn't mean there is a God. Paul: True, it doesn't require that a God exist, but since Jesus spoke about God, about the need to be right with God, etc., and since He performed many miracles including rising from the dead, then it is safe to say that not only is there a God, but that we should listen to Jesus. This would also mean that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Allen: I'll have to think about what you said. Generally, the evidential apologetics stresses data that supports the miraculous evidences of the biblical accounts thereby authenticating the Bible and the claims and deeds of Jesus. Adherents to this position have been B. B. Warfield, John Warwick Montgomery, Clark Pinnock, etc.

276

The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. It states that there must be a final uncaused-cause of all things. This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God. The Cosmological Argument takes several forms but is basically represented below. Cosmological Argument 1. 2. 3. Things exist. It is possible for those things to not exist. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. A. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence which is illogical. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence. A. Because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence. B. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things. The uncaused cause must be God.

4.

5. 6.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God. Strengths of the argument The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and simple. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes. Weaknesses of the argument One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes which cannot be. This is paradoxical. Also, by definition, God is uncaused. ___________________ Sources: Apologetics to the Glory of God, by John Frame, P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1994. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1999. Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1976. Dictionary of Philosophy, Edited by Dagobert D. Runes, Philisophical Library, New York, 1942. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. J. D. Douglas, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978.

277

The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument is also known as the argument from design. Quite simply, it states that a designer must exist since the universe and living things exhibit marks of design in their order, consistency, unity, and pattern. A typical analogy of this is the Watchmaker which was given by William Paley (1743-1805). The argument goes as follows. If you found a watch in an empty field, you would logically conclude that it was designed and not the product of random formation. Likewise, when we look at life and the universe, it is natural to conclude there is a designer see we see how perfectly the universe and life forms operate. The eye is typically used as an example of design. It is a marvelous development. In order for it to work there must be many different convergent parts that individually have no function but have value only in a designed whole. It is only in the combined total do they exhibit their total function. This function is by design. Paley's argument is as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design. The universe resembles human artifacts. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design. But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe. Strengths of the argument This argument is simple to understand and has merit since humans are designers by nature and it is natural to think in terms of things having purpose. It is also consistent with Rom. 1:20, For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. I think the teleological argument carries weight because it is consistent with Scripture. The Bible states that we are made in God's image. Therefore, there are certain things that we will resonate to. Even though the unbeliever suppresses the truth of God in his unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-32), the truth is still there. Additionally, evolutionists have difficulty accounting for apparent design in objects like the eye, the heart, and the brain where many different parts come together to form the whole. These individual parts have no purpose except in the function of the whole. How can evolution account for these detailed congruent occurrences? So far, it can't. Weaknesses of the argument The idea that the universe is designed is subjective. Different observations in the the natural world can produce different theories to account for their existence. Also, this proof is built upon analogy. If we find things in the universe that are chaotic, then by analogy, that would imply there is no designer. ___________________ Sources: Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1999. Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1976. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. J. D. Douglas, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978.

278

Apologetics Bibliography
For further reading on apologetics and areas related to it, please consider the following books which I have used in researching apologetics for this section. Bush, L. Russ, ed., Classical Readings in Christian Apologetics. A.D. 100-1800. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books. 1983. Douglas, J. D., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Douglas, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978. Frame, John. Apologetics to the Glory of God. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1994. -----, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1987. Geisler, Norman. Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1976. -----, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books; 1999. Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1994. Harrison, E. F. ed., Bakers' Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1960. Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. New York: Simon & Schuster. 1996. -----, Mere Christianity. New York. Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc. 1960. McDowell, Josh. Evidence that demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, CA. Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1979 -----, More Evidence that demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, CA. Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1981 McDowell, Josh & Stewart, Don. Answers to Tough Questions skeptics ask about the Christian Faith. San Bernardino, CA. Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1983. Runes, Dagobert, D., ed., Dictionary of Philosophy, Philisophical Library, New York, 1942. Van Till, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, Co. 1976.

279

280

Apologetics Dialogues
Introduction
These dialogues are from various sources: IRC Chat, ICQ, and AOL Instant Messenger. For those of you who are unfamiliar with them, these are places where you can have live dialogues with people by typing back and forth. Some of the dialogues were one-on-one discussions and others were in public forums. I have edited them down for grammar, syntax, and continuity, yet have retained the original dialogues. One of the disadvantages to publishing ones own dialogues in apologetics is the problem of remaining unbiased. These dialogues represent, in part, my ability to defend the Christian faith. Therefore, I want to make myself look good. Realizing this danger, I have sought to remain unbiased - though I admit I am grossly unable to do this in selecting which dialogues to post. Nevertheless, I will produce dialogues, as they occur, and plan to include those where I fail in my goal to defend the faith. The reason is simple: we can learn from failures as well as successes. As I read through some of them, I see areas where I could improve. I also see areas where logic was not that good, or points were missed, or plain old mistakes occurred. But thats okay. No one dialogues perfectly and it is easy to go back over something later and pick it apart. Nevertheless, for those of you who are interested in reviewing real dialogues, I present this section as an aid to see how it's done. I hope they help. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. What scripture is used to support the physical resurrection of Christ? p. 282 What verses can you use to support Jesus' divinity? pp. 282-283 Why is Luke 24:39 important in the discussion about God having a body? p. 286 Why is baptism not necessary for salvation? pp. 289-292 Was Jesus' resurrection literal of symbolic? p. 293 Is the trinity illogical? p. 297 Is it right to tell people that what they believe in is false? Why or why not? pp. 302-304 Does Christianity have any evidence supporting it? What is it? pp. 310-312 Is evolution a fact? p. 318 What does it mean to have a relationship with Jesus? p. 321 What is the problem with the Muslim form of salvation? pp. 323-325 Why is Luke 22:42 important in a discussion with Oneness people? pp. 326-328 What is the problem with an atheist saying there is no evidence for God? p. 330 What is the problem with an atheist saying he knows there is no God? p. 331 What is the basic argument around using logical absolutes as a proof for God's existence? pp. 338-339 What are some points in arguing against a Catholic about interpreting the Bible? pp. 343-346 What are the mistakes the Mormons make in their definitions? pp. 347 What did the Mormon misunderstand about salvation and works? pp 356-358, 364-366 Why is it that Joseph Smith did not see God the Father? pp. 359-360

281

Jesus' Resurrected Body, the Atonement, and Islam

This conversation dealt with the resurrected body of Christ, the atonement, and a bit on what Muslim theology has to offer. It is brief, but it has value in the discussion of Christ. Gil: Hey Matt Matt: Hi Gil: Can I ask a question? Matt: You just did Gil: How about another? A third one I mean. Gil: Heheh Matt: Now you've got it. What's up? Gil: Okay, Well actually, I've got one specific question: Is Jesus eternally human? Matt: He is now. Gil: Okay. So, you believe that He is human? Matt: Absolutely...! Gil: As he sits next to the Father? and the Father is spirit.and the Spirit is spirit Matt: Yes... Gil: But the Son is human and spirit? Matt: The son is both God and man. He has two 2 natures. Gil: I personally believe that he was man for 33 years because in the Bible it says that God is Spirit and not a man. Matt: Do you go to church? If so, which one? Gil: Reformed Church of America. My belief is unorthodox. Matt: Okay... Bible lesson time. After the resurrection, Jesus retained the scars, right? Gil: Yes. Matt: He had a body of flesh and bones after the resurrection, right? Gil: Yes, but he also walked through walls and stuff. Right? He had a supernatural body. Matt: He did not walk through walls. He just appeared.... Gil: Well that's not a human behavior. He didn't do that before he resurrected. Matt: It is the behavior of a resurrected body... We do not have resurrected bodies right now. Gil: I know Gil: but I'm saying I don't believe the resurrection body is a human body. It's a supernatural spirit body. Matt: If it isn't human, then what is it? Gil: Spirit Matt: 1 Cor. 15 says it is a resurrected body... Flesh and bones... Gil: hmmm. Okay. Matt: Jesus was recognized and he retained the scars of his crucifixio n. Matt: Also, consider this... Jesus prophesied that he would raise His body, the very same one that was crucified (John 2:19-21). Matt: Therefore, his same body was raised.... Gil: hmmm Gil: What about when He ascended? Matt: Same body. Matt: If you deny his physical resurrection, you are in trouble. Gil: But the bible says that God is Spirit not man. Gil: I believe that he physically resurrected. Matt: The Father is a spirit. John 4:24 speaks of God as the Father... Jesus, rose in the same body he died in, right? Gil: How do you know it meant the Father? Matt: Because that is how John refers to God in his gospel. God is the Father. The word is Jesus. Ref. John 1:1,14, 18; 6:46 for the pattern of usage. Gil: Okay, Can I be blunt with you? Matt: Sure. Gil: I used to be really unsure about the trinity and how it's all set up. I read James White's Forgotten Trinity which helped me tons...

282

Matt: good Gil: But now its like it all seems like weird to me again. Two of my best friends are Muslim. And its soooo appealing to me. Matt: How are your sins forgiven? Gil: Through the blood of Jesus and God's grace. Matt: Do the Muslims have an atonement for your sins to offer you? Gil: Yes, the mercy of Allah. Matt: Mercy is not atonement. Gil: Um okay. Matt: Atonement rem oves sin (1 John 2:2; Heb. 9:26). Gil: His mercy provides atonement. Matt: Atonement means to remove, to cover the sin... in Christianity, it is by the sacrifice of God Himself. This guarantees your forgiveness.... Jesus walked the earth, rose from the dead, walked on water, etc. Gil: I agree Matt: He said He was God in flesh... He atoned..... Can Islam compare to that? Gil: When did He say he was God in flesh? (Just so I can tell my Muslims friends the verse.) Matt: John 8:58 is where Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Gil: I know about John 8:58 and John 10:30. But He never said "I am God in flesh." Matt: What would YOU think, if you were a Jew, knew where God said I AM in the OT [Exodus 3:14] and then you have this guy standing in front of you (who walks on water, calms storms, etc.) and then he says to you, "Before Abraham was, I AM." What would you think Jesus meant by this? Gil: That He is God, which would explain why they tried to stone him. But He never said it flat out. Matt: If He was saying He was God, and He was right there in the flesh, then what was He claiming? Gil: Okay. Matt: Now, do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in? Gil: Yes. But as far as the ascension goes, I don't know. Matt: Why would his body NOT be a body at his ascension? Also, in 1 Tim. 2:5, it says that Jesus is a man. Gil: But the Bible says God is a spirit. Matt: In Acts 7:55-60, Stephen has a vision and sees Jesus... how would he recognize Jesus if it wasn't in His body? Gil: I see your points. Interesting. Gil: I gotta get running I will catch you later. Matt, thanks for talking to me. Matt: Sure. Gil: Peace and Grace Sometimes people just get stuck on an idea and have problems letting God's word change those ideas. We are all guilty of that one way or another. But, at least with the resurrection of Jesus, He rose in the same body He died in. This is important because Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:14, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." This combined with Jesus' prophecy that He would raise His body in John 2:19-21 is proof that believing in the bodily resurrection of Christ, is one of the essential doctrines of Christianity. John 2:19-21, " Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20The Jews therefore said, It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days? 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

283

Discussion with a Gnostic on Jesus' Resurrection

This short dialogue is an interesting one. This gentleman retained the nickname Gnostic. Gnosticism is/was the teaching that tried to reduce Christianity to a philosophy. The Gnostics claimed they had secret and superior knowledge. It generally taught that matter was evil and that the God of the Bible is a lower god called the Demiurge. The Absolute Supreme Being is unknowable. Jesus could not be God in flesh, because matter is evil. Therefore, Jesus became the Christ when the "heavenly Christ" came upon Him at His baptism. This dialogue is short and it was my first encounter with a Gnostic. Gnostic: Hi Matt: Hi. What's up? Gnostic: Not much...You? Matt: Not much. Why the nickname. Why 'gnostic'? Gnostic: I am a gnostic. And you? Matt: Im a Christian. What do you mean by gnostic? Gnostic: As in the "heretical movement" of the first two centuries. Matt: So, you deny Jesus is God in flesh? Gnostic: That is a difficult question to answer. We believe the answer to be yes and no. He was God, but not truly manifested in the flesh. Matt: To say that Jesus was God but not truly manifested in the flesh, is a form of docetism, I believe. Gnostic: Docetists said that the flesh and the divine cannot mix, therefore Jesus was truly God but only in the form of a human being. Gnostic: Gnosticism offered two traditional answers to the question...Adoptionist Gnostics said Jesus was a regular man, but when he was baptized by John a divine power descended on him and he was "adopted" as the Son of God. Gnostic: and Valentinian Gnostics accepted the idea of Jesus being truly human and truly divine, but argued that there were actually two persons residing in the same body, a human person and a divine person...and when Jesus died it was only his physical nature that was crucified, while his divine person lived on. Matt: Both of those views are in error. Gnostic: But according to any, no Jesus was not actually an enfleshment of God, since, as St. Paul quite rightly tells us in 1 Corinthians, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor can the perishable inherit the imperishable. Matt: Flesh and blood... true, an idiom for sinful flesh. However after the resurrection, Jesus said he had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) He had risen from the dead in his physical body... He was god in flesh. Gnostic: He walked through doors...his disciples couldn't recognize him on the road to Emmaus... His post-resurrection body was different, it shifted forms, it was not like his pre-resurrection body...even according to the canonical gospels. Matt: He did not walk thru doors. He simply appeared in a room. Gnostic: Can a physical body simply translocate itself? Matt: Jesus said he would raise his body in John 2:19-21... he retained the scars after his resurrection. it was the same body. 1 Cor. 15 speaks of a resurrected body. It is different, yet it is the same body, only, resurrected. Gnostic: It also speaks of two bodies, a spiritual body and a physical body. Matt: Yes... but take it with all of the Bible... they are the same thing... like a butterfly was once a caterpillar... they are they same life, only transformed. Gnostic: Yes, I would agree with you absolutely that that is what Paul is ultimately teaching. I am just using his metaphor as a jumping-off point but I would go beyond it and say that they are two different things. Matt: But to do that is an error.... I mean no offense. Jesus said he'd raise the same body he died in. He did. Gnostic: And that resurrection can only take place when the spirit is free from the flesh, free from the pain and the pleasures of physical existence...and that separation of spirit from flesh at the crucifixion is how a Gnostic would describe Jesus' resurrection. Matt: He retained the scars... it was the same body... yet he was able to do 'weird' stuff.

284

Gnostic: Not a resurrection of a mass of flesh and sinful temptations, but an rising of the spirit up out of the physical nature. Matt: That isn't what Jesus said about his own body. Why would it be different for others? He is, after all, the first-fruits of the resurrection. Gnostic: Yes! and just as he shed physicality and arose as a "life-giving" spirit, so will we...he is the prototype of our "resurrection", of our ascension past the flesh. Matt: But, he rose in the same physical body he died in. John 2:19-21 prophesied that. Jesus said it. Gnostic: No, but Gnostics never accepted most of the canonical scriptures as actually being the word of God. Matt: Why not? Gnostic: Well, that is a primary difference in our beliefs. Matt: Canonicity is another subject. Gnostic: The life that he gives us is the capacity to move beyond the temptations and pleasures and pain of mortal existence. Matt: Wait a second, please. Gnostic: Sure. Matt: How do you handle Jesus' own words that he would raise His own body from the dead? He even told Thomas to stick his finger in His hands and into His side... He still had the wounds... It was his body, the same one. Gnostic: I don't believe Jesus uttered those words. I find the statement blasphemous, just as you would not believe that Jesus said some of the things written down in Gnostic gospels, I am sure. Matt: It is in the Bible recorded by those who knew him. So, then, you're accusing John the apostle of being a liar? Gnostic: sorry I'm going to have to run. Take care, god bless. I was surprised by the abrupt termination of this conversation. But that is often the nature of discussions on the Internet. Gnostics weak areas were his inconsistency with believing what Jesus said, casting doubt on Gods word, and not dealing with the issue of Jesus physical resurrection. My weak area was not knowing more about Gnosticism I was familiar with it, but not very . knowledgeable. Had I known more, perhaps the conversation would have been better. By the way, the intro to this dialogue is easy to write after the conversation as I did my research afterwards.

285

Does God have a Body?

This dialogue touched on issues of God's nature and physical manifestation. I've dealt with this before with many cult groups so I was able to recall a lot of scriptures and insert them into the dialogue as we were talking. Memorizing verses sure does have its advantages. Tony: Hey Matt! Matt: hi Tony: Are you busy? Matt: I've got about 5 minutes... what's up? Tony: Love your site! Matt: thanks... it's a lot of work... Tony: Yes I can see!!! Matt: Shoot Tony: Do you think God has a body? Or is he Spirit only like it says in john (I think). Matt: The Bible says that god is spirit (John 4:24). In Luke 24:39 Jesus says that a spirit does NOT have flesh and bones. We do not know what spirit is, but we do know what it is not. Matt: Also, God is everywhere. If he had a body, He could not be everywhere.... A body would mean that he has material, Matter, etc. Time is a function of the existence of Matter. Since God is outside of time, eternal, He could not be material. Therefore, He cannot have a body because he could not them be omnipresent. Tony: What about Steven when he looked up and saw Jesus sitting on the right hand of the Father...? Matt: It was a vision. Tony: Hmmmm Matt: Was Jesus LITERALLY sitting ON God's right hand? Tony: God gave him a vision of himself........? Matt: yep. Tony: Why did God do that? Matt: Not sure really. Good question. But God reveals Himself to those who seek Him. With Stephen maybe it was because he was the first Christian martyr. Matt: Now, let me ask this again. Was Jesus LITERALLY sitting ON God's right hand? Tony: I think so. The disciples wanted to sit on his right hand. Matt: Then does that mean that God could not use His right hand because someone was sitting on it? Tony: Ha Ha I though you were trying to say that but wasn't sure Matt: What does it mean to sit ON God's right hand? Tony: Power? Matt: Yes, and authority. Matt: If you someone says that God has a body, then does He have genitalia too? Tony: If a body then I guess so....but didn't God wrestle with Abraham in the Old Testament? Or was that just an angel of the Lord? Matt: An angel of the Lord. Angels often manifested human form (Gen. 18:1 and following is a good example) Matt: God is invisible and dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:16-17). Tony: I'll read it...... Matt: Are you a Mormon? Tony: No, I'm born again since 1980 and love the Lord!! I believe in the Trinity. Tony: Jesus said if you seen me you seen the Father. Matt: Heb. 1:1-3 says that Jesus is the exact representation of God. Tony: Yes...... Matt: He so completely represented the Father, that to see Him was to see the Father. Tony: Heavy!! What a beautiful thing for a person to accept Jesus....... Matt: Yes, Jesus has two natures: human and divine (Col. 2:9 Phil. 2:5-8). But God the Father, does not. Tony: Yes human and divine. Matt: Did you know that God was seen in the Old Testament? Tony: Yes I have read that.... How about with Moses Matt: Yes, in Num. 12:6-8, God says He appears to others in visions and dreams, but not Moses.

286

Moses beheld God's very form. Tony: Amen Matt: In Exo. 24:9-11, 74 people saw the God of Israel and under his feet there was a pavement of sapphire, etc.... Matt: God was seen in human form in the O. T., right? Tony: Yes Matt: But Jesus said in John 6:46 that no one has ever seen the Father. Tony: Yes, so? Matt: So, if God was being seen in the OT, but it was not the Father, then who was it? Tony: Hmmmmmmm Tony: The Son! Matt: Yep. Preincarnate Christ. Matt: The Father does not have a body of flesh and bones. Jesus does -- at least now... Tony: When Jesus said no one has seen the Father, was he talking bout the people right there at that time? Matt: Yes and those before Him. Tony: Oh ok... Matt: In John 5:37 Jesus says that the Pharisees had never seen the Father... He was talking specific to them there I believe. Matt: Besides, in 1 Tim. 6:16-17 it says that God dwells in unapproachable light whom no mans has seen, nor CAN see. Matt: John 14:9 is where Jesus said to see him was to see the Father. Does that mean that the Father has two legs, two hands, a beard, and a couple eye balls? NOT! Tony: I believe He is spirit...and worship him and in spirit and truth Matt: Good. John 4:24. Matt: Does all that help? Tony: yes it does Tony: appreciate it.......... I thought this was a nice dialogue. There was no name -calling and it flowed pretty well. Also, it's nice have some scriptures memorized. It comes in handy.

287

A Christian having doubts because of school.

I found this dialogue hidden on my computer and decided to put it up. It is about a Christian who is having doubts because of what he is learning in school. Sam: Hi. Do you have time to talk for a few minutes? Matt: A few. Yes. Sam: Okay. If you are busy please let me know. I've been looking at your web site. I am a Christian. A college student and I have q quick question. Matt: What? Sam: I go to a secular university and they teach that it doesn't matter what you believe and I've even had teachers make fun of Christ. It makes me angry and confused. What can I do to be more firm in my faith even while all those things are being taught. Matt: Faith is only as good as who you put it in. If it doesn't matter, then ask them if it is okay to put your faith in satanism and practice evil. Sam: Ok Matt: Always ask for documentation. Ask WHY they would say what they do... Sam: yes I see... Matt: Do you have my notebook? Sam: No I sure don't. I saw it advertised on teh page. Matt: well, it's basically what is on CARM. Could you email me with some of the specific questions they ask? Matt: I'm thinking of writing a book on this stuff. Sam: yes I sure will what is your address. Matt: carmorg4@hotmail.com Sam: Ok. I will do that. Sam: thank you for your time. i know you must be busy. Please pray for me. My name is James. Matt: What are you having doubts about? Can you get into my voice chat area? Do you have a microphone and speakers? Sam: No, sorry I don't Sam: I'm not as close to Christ as I used to be. I first placed my faith in Him 3 years ago. All the things I hear in college and everything doesn't seem to be strengthening my faith. Sam: I try and follow Christ the best I can. Matt: Well, tell me what it is that is causing you to doubt. Sam: Several things... when I first placed my faith in Christ I didn't know much about Jesus. I just knew I needed Him. I didn't know He was God in the flesh, and I've heard people say that....a person cant be saved unless they know specific doctrines. Matt: Yes and no.... Sam: I didn't know that stuff when I first placed my faith in Him. Matt: A Christian will eventually come to accept that He is God. If a person continues to reject that, then he is not saved. Sam: So sometimes I doubt my salvation because I didn't know those things then. Matt: So? It's okay. You aren't saved by doctrine, per se. You're saved by Jesus. Sam: I believe Christ is God. Sometimes I doubt. Mostly because of things I hear. But I always come back. Does it matter if you don't know the specific time you were saved? Matt: It doesn't not matter at all if you know the specific time you were saved. Heck, I can't even remember the year I got saved. Sam: yes. I've read it so many times to strengthen my faith I can quote it by memory. Matt: Praise God. I don't know what happened to this dialogue. I unearthed it and this was all there was. It is a shame there wasn't more and it equally sad that secular school is so antagonistic to Christianity.

288

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

This conversation is a good illustration of the need to know more than basic theology when discussing the issue of whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. Both Mark and myself had computer Bible programs at our disposal so we were copying text into the dialogue. This made things easier and quicker. Also, this dialogue belies my belief in infant baptism. I'm Reformed in theology and believe in the covenant aspect of baptism that includes infants. I do not believe it saves infants but I believe that as circumcision was a covenant sign in the Old Testament, baptism is the covenant sign in the New. My desire is not to convince you or anyone about this position here in this dialogue. Rather it is to establish the fact that baptism is not a requirement for salvation. Mark: You're from CARM right? Matt: Yep. Matt: I'm Matt Slick. Mark: That's what I thought. Mark: What do you think of water baptism regeneration? Matt: It is a false doctrine. Mark: Still another meaning refers to the sacrament of baptism, which is a spiritual rather than bodily cleansing (Matt. 28:19, Rom. 6:3, 1 Pet. 3:21). Matt: Correct. It is important, but it is not what saves us. Mark: event from water baptism (see John 3:5, Acts 2:38, 19:2-3, 22:16, Rom. 6:3, Col. 2:11-12, Titus 3:5, and 1 Pet. 3:21 on the subject of baptism's graces). But something instructive can be learned about the mode of baptism and the meaning of the word 'baptizo' even if they insist on separating Spirit baptism from water baptism. Aren't they the same? Matt: water baptism is a sacrament - a physical manifestation of a spiritual reality. Spirit baptism is an anointing, possession, movement of God on a person. Mark: Isn't it essential for salvation? "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," Acts 2:38; what about this? Mark: Acts 19:1-6 weren't they baptized immediately in this passage of scripture? Matt: Do you believe baptism is necessary for salvation? Mark: I don't know. Matt: Have you got a Bible? Mark: Yep. Matt: Acts 10:44, They are baptized after receiving the holy spirit, right? It was after they speak in tongues and glorify God. Tongues is a gift for the church, for church members, for the savedthen they were baptized. Matt: If baptism is necessary, then that means those people were filled with the HS, glorified God, and spoke in tongues, but they were not saved. Matt: Does that make any sense? Mark: How do you explain, the baptism 1st in (Acts 2:41)? Matt: Hold on. One thing at a time. Do you see the point in Acts 10:44ff? Mark: Luke 3:3; Luke 7:29; Acts 19:4; Rom. 6:4; Eph. 4:5 -- All refer to baptism and I read Acts 10:44 but there are other passages too, that should be looked at like Matt. 3:13. Didn't Jesus give us an example of how we should be baptized? Matt: First of all, were the people in Acts 10:44ff, saved before baptism? Mark: Yes, in that particular situation, but how about all these other verses. Why absolutize that passage and not others? Like Acts 1:5, why did John the Baptist give water baptism? Matt: If they were saved before baptism, then baptism isn't necessary for salvation, is it? Matt: Psalm 119:151 says that the SUM of God's law is truth. Matt: Let's tackle Acts 2:38, okay? Mark: Okay. Matt: What is 'the promise' spoken of in Acts 2:39?

Mark: The promise of the HS and the LORD shall call. But you still have not answered the above

289

passages that are in reference to baptism. Matt: First of all, let's stick with one thing at a time. Second, that is not it. Mark: What do you mean? Matt: To a Jew what would be "The Promise"? Matt: Gen. 17:7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. And I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. Matt: Gal. 3:8-14, And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, All the nations shall be blessed in you. 9So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them. Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, The righteous man shall live by faith. 12However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, He who practices them shall live by them 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree 14in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Matt: Notice that in verse 8 the promise is called the Gospel being justified by faith. Verse 14 mentions it as THE PROMISE. Matt: Acts 7:17, But as the time of the promise was approaching which God had assured to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt, Matt: Acts 13:32-33, And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art My Son; today I have begotten Thee. Mark: Verse 39 says, "for the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Matt: Yes. Very good. Matt: The Abrahamic Promise included infants, didn't it? The Abrahamic Promise is that God would justify the gentiles by faith. Matt: Check out Rom. 4:13-16, For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation. 16For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. Mark: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). 1 Pet. 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe), and following this are the same words as in Matt. 19:14. The Greek word brephe means "infants"-- could you explain these passages? Matt: We are doing Acts 2:38. One verse at a time. Mark: Okay. Matt: Do you see that the Abrahamic promise is still in effect? Mark: What you mean? Matt: The Abrahamic promise is THE PROMISE spoken of in Acts 2:39. THE PROMISE is that God would justify the Gentiles by Faith. That is reiterated by Paul in Gal. 3:8ff, and Rom. 4:13ff. Matt: Acts 2:38 is referred to in Acts 2:39, THE PROMISE. Matt: Do you remember what the sign of the Abrahamic promise was? Mark: I don't know, then how in the world can infants be saved, they do not understand to have faith? Matt: Were infants included in the Abrahamic promise through circumcision? Mark: Yes. Matt: Circumcision was the covenant sign of the Abrahamic promise, right? Mark: To be honest I don't know. Matt: THE promise in Acts 2:39 was meant for the children too, wasn't it? Mark: I guess... Matt: Gen. 17:11-12, "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12And every male among you who is eight days old shall be

290

circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants." Matt: Acts 2 is full of quotes from the OT. Peter was a Jew. He was speaking to Jews. THE PROMISE was understood by the Jews, they knew what it was. That is why Peter said it was for their children as well. That is why entire households were baptized. Don't households have babies in them? Mark: Yep. You see, this is theology. The groups that teach baptismal regeneration don't know this stuff... therefore, they make mistakes. Matt: Acts 2:38 isn't speaking about baptism being a requirement. It is a sacramental sign. Circumcision didn't save. Baptism doesn't either. Mark: I can see that. Matt: It is a covenant sign and promise for God's people and their children. That is the context. Matt: Peter wasn't saying that baptism saves... but he was drawing their attention to the significance of the NEW covenant sign for Christians: baptism. Mark: What about these passages? "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). 1 Pet. 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe), and following this are the same words as in Matt. 19:14. Matt: Acts 22:16, calling on Jesus name is what saves us, not water. Matt: 1 Pet. 3:21, let's look at it in the NASB. Mark: Okay. Matt: "And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Matt: "And corresponding to that" in the Greek, is the word, 'antitupon.' It means, antitype, representation, etc. The question is then, "Corresponding to what?". For that we need to look at the previous verses. Matt: 1 Pet. 3:18-20, "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water." Matt: What was it that saved Noah and his family? The water or the ark? Mark: The ark. Matt: Did they enter the ark by faith? Mark: Yes. Matt: Then they were saved by faith, weren't they? Matt: That is why it says in the rest of 1 Pet. 3:21, "...not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Matt: Peter is stating that it was not the water, but an appeal to God that saves. The appeal is done by faith, right? Mark: It looks that way. Matt: Then baptism is actually an appeal to God, a trust in Him by faith, a dying to ourselves (Rom. 6; Col. 3), a public declaration of our identification with Christ. Matt: Does that make sense? Mark: I think. Mark: Acts 1:5, why did John the Baptist give water baptism? Matt: In Matt. 3:13-15 it says, "Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus got baptized to fulfill all righteousness." Matt: He came to fulfill the Law. Quite simply, Jesus was baptized so he could enter into the Melchizedek priesthood so He could be the High Priest and offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins. Mark: When believers get baptized is that to show a fulfillment of righteousness? Matt: No. When JESUS got baptized it was to fulfill righteousness. Matt: To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be: - washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16). - Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16). Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. Additionally, He may have needed to be

291

30 years old - (Num. 4:3) Jesus said in John 5:39 that the Bible was about Him. Matt: Jesus came to fulfill the Bible prophecies and typologies. Matt: He was baptized to enter into the priesthood (Heb. 5-7). - Exodus 29:1 - "This is what you are to do to consecrate them, so they may serve me as priests: Take a young bull and two rams without defect." - Exodus 29:4 - "Then bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and wash them with water." - Exodus 29:7 - "Take the anointing oil and anoint him by pouring it on his head." Matt: The Holy Spirit anointed Jesus at His baptism. He was 30 years old. THAT is why He was baptized, to fulfill the Law and to be our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek so He could be a sacrifice for our sins. Mark: Okay, I've got to think about this for a while. Matt: Save the transcript and read it, okay? Mark: okay, no problem. Baptism is a very important ordinance for the Christian. But it is not what saves us and it is not part of salvation. We are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1), not faith and baptism.

292

The Resurrection of Jesus: Literal or Symbolic?

This dialogue was initiated after I was in a Christian IRC chat room. Shirley and I were in a private chat room, at her request. It began with her sending me a link to a porn site. Of course, I did not look and I initiated a dialogue on why should would do something like that. Our conversation continued for a while until I discovered she lived in Belgium and was a Catholic. Now, I in no way want to imply that her behavior is the result of Catholic teaching. I am simply stating the facts. She said that the Catholics there do no believe the Bible is literal. I replied that it was. What followed is this dialogue: Shirley: So why do you take the Bible so literally? I think it should be taken symbolically. Matt: The Bible is accurate, truthful, prophetically precise, the manuscripts copies are 99% pure, and it is archaeologically accurate too. Shirley: Perhaps. But there is one mistake you made. It's IMPOSSIBLE. Matt: Why is it impossible? Shirley: Dead is dead. Matt: You aren't making sense... please explain. Shirley: A dead man can not relive his life in the same body!!! Matt: Then you mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Shirley: No He didn't!!! That's just a symbol. Matt: Then you mean to tell me that all the people who saw him alive were mistaken? Shirley: They were hallucinating or on drugs. Matt: So, you are presupposing that the resurrection cannot happen. Why? Shirley: Well, ask any scientist... Matt: Many scientists believe it could indeed happen. Shirley: Yeah, true. But I see it as untrue until proven otherwise. Matt: But the biblical evidence is that the tomb was empty, that Jesus appeared, showed people his wounds, and that at least 500 others saw him. Why can you not believe the facts of what they attested to? Shirley: I don't believe the Bible literally. I like to see the symbolic use of it. Like 'just be good'. Look inside yourself to find the best in yourself. Matt: So then, you are not basing your opinion on the facts, but simply out of a desire, a whim, to NOT believe the biblical evidence. Is that wise? Can it lead to truth? Shirley: I hope so, or else my life would be useless. Matt: Very true. Then you are ris king a great deal by looking within yourself. You assume too much. You assume you have the natural ability to know truth simply by looking into yourself. Shirley: I assume all. I try to figure everything out for myself. I don't believe other peoples opinions. Matt: If you assume all, then you should also assume that the people who knew Jesus were telling the truth when they said he rose from the dead. If that is true, then you have no logical right to deny the resurrection and it is definitely possible. If it is possible, then you need to examine the evidence. If the evidence is there, then Jesus rose from the dead. If he did, that is utterly significant. No one else has done that. Therefore, what Jesus said must be true. Shirley: But the Bible has changed. Matt: The Bible is textually reliable and it was written by eye witnesses. Jesus said he would rise from the dead (John 2:19-21). He did. Shirley: He said nice things, good things. If we would all live by His word, this would be a better world. Matt: True. But you are not believing what He said. Shirley: Jesus said he would rise from the dead, but so does my father... (really). Matt: Has your father walked on water? Read the hearts of people? Calmed a storm with a command? Fed 5000 people with a few fish? Raised others from the dead? Healed people? You see, there is more to it than just making a claim. Jesus backed it up with what He did. Shirley: I believe what he said when he was talking about good and bad. I do not believe him when he said he would rise from the dead. Matt: But if He said it and you dont believe Him, then you are calling Jesus a liar. He is the one who walked on water, claimed to be God (John 8:58) and said He would rise from the dead (John 2:19-21).

293

Shirley: I do not believe he walked on water, etc. I only listen to his words, and I extract the things from it that I find useful. Matt: On what basis do you do this extraction of yours? Shirley: On the basis of what I consider to be right or wrong? Matt: Then you set yourself to be the final judge of right and wrong. Have you raised others from the dead, walked on water, healed people, and fulfilled prophecy? Why should I believe you over Jesus? Shirley: You shouldn't. You should believe anything you like. You should believe anything that makes you feel better. Thats what faith is all about. Matt: Sorry, I disagree. That is not what faith is about. Faith is only as good as who you put it in. Are you your own savior? Shirley: Yes, I hope so. Matt: I'll trust Jesus, his resurrection, His truth, etc. It was nice chatting with you. The dialogue ended there since it was late. As you can see from this dialogue, Shirley has no reason for her method of determining truth, let alone determining the veracity of Jesus' claims. The resurrection was attested to by eye witnesses. The Bible is reliable and trustworthy. For her to arbitrarily deny the veracity of Jesus' resurrection is illogical and contrary to the evidence.

294

Pain can make us doubt God

Pain can make us doubt God. But we must keep our eyes on Him anyways. Of course, this is easy to say and difficult to do. The following dialogue isn't much of an apologetic on anything except to say that any truth is good. Sometimes God can use us in ways we do not suspect. As I reread this dialogue, I find myself wishing I had been more compassionate with the loss and pain of the 'other' fellow. Perhaps this is why God allows us to experience pain, so that we might more easily and lovingly sympathize with those who are going through it. Sam: Perhaps you could help me out... Matt: Okay Sam: Is there anything in the scripture stating that every person has a match? I am not aware of it. Matt: No Sam: I didn't think so...after all...God told Jeremiah not to marry, and there is no evidence that any of the apostles married...am I wrong? Matt: Paul was married as was Peter - If I remember correctly. Sam: They were? What happened to their wives, and could you kindly refer me to scriptural evidence? or is it extra-scriptural that it is stated. Paul never refers to his wife in his letters, if I recall. Matt: I don't have it off the top of my head. Sam: Any ideas where to look, perhaps a specific book? Matt: [I have the advantage of a Bible program and was able to find the verses so I posted them for him.] "My defense to those who examine me is this: 4Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" (1 Cor. 9:3-5). Sam: OK, thanks... I must have forgotten it, but I have verse 5 highlighted... Matt: Good. Sam: I am emailing a friend concerning how he lost the love of an unbelieving woman after he was converted, and then you popped on [to the chat program]. I figured that you could help me... many thanks. Matt: How is he handling it? Sam: Its weird. This break-up was more than a year ago, and I haven't known him to be this distraught over anything this bad. Matt: Love does that... Is he a Christian? Sam: Yes... but he is going through doubts now. Matt: About what? Sam: Here's a quote from his email to me: "Let this be a lesson to you all: I've lost the only person that I've ever loved with all my heart, all my soul, and all my mind for a GOD whom I've never seen, never spoken too, and never touched... Why should I believe? I shouldn't, should I?" Matt: It is a difficult thing to live in pain. God the father, lost a greater love with the death of His son.... The pain was infinite because God is infinite. Love makes us vulnerable. Faithfulness to God is a decision -- no matter what. Sometimes God let's us go through trials for 2 reasons. 1) to show us God. 2) to show us ourselves This man has the opportunity to discover the loving sacrifice of God through his own experience. He also has the opportunity to discover where his faith is and WHAT it is in. If it is in God, truly, then pain won't drive him from Him. Sam: I couldn't say it any better. Matt: I'd be willing to call your friend and talk to him. Sam: Thanks, but I am going to try to get our youth pastor to talk to him. Matt: Okay..... Sam: I appreciate it. Matt: But just so you know, five years ago, my son was born and died hour after birth. The pain was incredible.... My wife and I wept a great deal.... Sam: I can't imagine... Matt: But... we had our eyes on the Lord... and through it, we grew stronger in our faith....

295

Sam: Amen. Matt: Sometimes God allows our heart to feel the sorrow of loss so that it will know the depths of hope and patience that only that loss can teach once it has healed. Then we can better serve others in their pain....... True love is other centered.... It seems as though he is becoming a little 'self' centered. That often happens when we are hurting. His love is turning to pain and anger... and he is trying to blame God... Sam: I see what you mean. Matt: The wrath spoken of in Rom. 1:18 is upon the heart. God will let people be given over to their sinful desires.... Ask him: What is the desire of his heart... where is his focus? Is God allowing Him to have what He wants? Sam: Thats interesting. Matt: as far as his lost love goes... It is a sin for him (as a Christian) to marry an unbeliever.... because it joins the holy with the unholy. Sam: I got that. Matt: Christians are the temple of God... they are not to join with unbelievers in marriage. God will honor him. But, he must keep his eyes upon the Lord. No matter what. Sam: You are right. He needs to do that. But it is difficult when he is hurting so much. Matt: Yes it is. I cant say Ive done it perfectly myself. But that doesnt make it any less true. Sam: Yep. You got that right.... Sometimes truth is better left unsaid. I think that perhaps I was not compassionate enough with my comments on Rom. 1:18. I think they were true, but that doesn't mean that saying it was the best thing to do. Sometimes people just need to be encouraged, not corrected. May I learn from my mistakes......

296

An Agnostic Questions the Trinity

This is a very brief dialogue, but it contains a bit of information that I think is helpful in dealing with people who are curious about the Trinity and who think it is illogical. Vick: Hello. I'm the Agnostic who e-mailed you yesterday. Want to have a little discussion? Matt: Sure. Vick: So why exactly are you a Christian, if you mind me asking? What led you to Christianity? Matt: Well, it's because I "got saved." It was an extremely emotional and spiritual event. Vick: What were your beliefs before then? Matt: Before I was a Christian I was an agnostic, an evolutionists, and I did not really take God, or the issue of God, very seriously. Vick: I think I've given it a good deal of thought. I just came to the conclusion that Christianity, Islam, and just about every other world religion was illogical. Matt: Why is that? Vick: Things like the Trinity, God having a arch enemy....that kind of stuff. Matt: Well, let's take a look at the Trinity quickly. The Trinity is the doctrine that there is one God who exists in three persons: Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are not three gods. Now, what about that is illogical? Vick: Well, for starters, why? Why exist in 3 persons? Matt: Asking why is not an issue of logic, but of curiosity. Matt: The Trinity is not illogical. Asking "Why" really isn't the issue. Do you see my point? Vick: Yea, I see. But I can't see why that would be essential for him to survive, or anything for that matter Vick: Not to mention the idea of a trinity was not popular until well after the 1st century. Matt: We do not know if it is or it is not essential, that God be a Trinity -- though I assume it is because that is what He is. We Christians simply state that the Trinity is the doctrine revealed in scripture. It is what God has revealed about himself. Take for example the concept of time. Time exists in three parts: past, present, and future. Each is not the other. But each shares the same nature: time. So too with space which is height, width, and depth. Matter is solid, liquid, and gas. Matt: You live in the trinity of trinities. Why would the concept of the Trinity be so difficult to accept? The Bible says in Romans 1 that God's nature is revealed in creation. It is all around us. Matt: Also, it does not matter if the Trinity was popular or not before or after the first century. The issue is whether or not the Bible teaches it. The Church merely took a while to recognize what the Bible said about God's nature. What they concluded was what we call the Trinity. Vick: While we're on the subject of the bible, what do you have to say about errancy of the bible? Matt: I believe the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts. What we have are copies of inerrant documents. There are minor areas of textual variation worth consideration. But, the overlapping concepts and the overlapping manuscript evidence is overwhelming. We can easily accept the Bible as a reliable and historically accurate document. Vick: be right back Vick never came back and the discussion ended here.

297

Claims to be a god
I don't know if this dialogue was productive or not and I'm not sure I handled it properly. I tried to get Dan to see that he wasn't been logical and that he needed forgiveness because he was a sinner. When someone claims to be a god, there are some natural questions that arise. His answers to them were interesting. Dan: Hi. Matt: Hi. Are you a Christian? Dan: Nope nope nope Matt: Then what? Dan: Satanist, a good Satanist, not a devil worshipping moron. Matt: Oh, Why? Dan: Because I'm my own god Matt: You're your own god? Dan: Yup Matt: Do you ever get sick or screw up at anything? Dan: I haven't been sick since I went vegan and yes I do make the occasional error... my god is not perfect. Matt: Well, then, you aren't a very good god are you? Dan: Not like your almighty imagination, neither like a character in a book. Matt: Have you created anything lately, raised anyone from the dead, walked on water, or anything? Dan: Neither. Matt: Oh... well, that isn't very good... tell me, as a god, what are you able to do... that is godlike? Dan: Yeah, I make stuff all the time and yes I walked on water today.... oh yeah and an amazing feat... Define godlike. Matt: God is able to do incredibly awesome things, like create, uncreate, heal people instantly, be all places at once, know people's thoughts... that kind of stuff. Can you do that? Dan: You said godlike, not like God. There's a major difference. And "he's" nowhere. Matt: No. You said you were your own god? You said it above. Dan: Yup. Matt: That is what you said... Dan: He's not material so he can't be anywhere. Yes. Matt: You didn't' say godlike... and, you blew it... so, you're failing at being godlike. Dan: But then you twisted my words to be the Christian god. Matt: I did not.... If you are godlike, you should have known this before hand. From what I can see, you aren't very good at this god thing.... Matt: So tell me, how are you godlike? Dan: I'm a humble god, satisfied with being average. I need no special abilities. I lead but one... myself. So, as long as I'm at least as good as myself, I'm fine. I'm being the best god I can be. Matt: You are humble? Dan: Of course Matt: if you have no special abilities, then how can you be a god? Dan: I'm not saying all must worship me or perish. God's are just better at something than someone else, perhaps I'm a god of wit and being a decent guitar player. Matt: Okay, but how can you be a god, if you boast about being humble and don't have any special abilities? Dan: I'm a laid back god, and only the Christian god knows everything. I've never heard of another god that was so full of himself. No roman gods claimed that. Matt: I don't think you're a god. Dan: Oh well, I'm not asking you to believe. Matt: You said you were one... but can't prove it... You've got nothing. Dan: Oh well. Matt: Jesus had a lot more going for Himself than you do. Dan: Doesn't bother me. Yeah, he had a fictional novel written about him. Dang! why not me? Matt: How do you know it is fiction and not true?

298

Dan: Because it's complete B.S. Matt: Really? What part? Dan: From page 1 on. That big chunk right in there. Matt: Got any specifics? Dan: Every reference to god, and Jesus, and Moses, and Mary, and Joseph, and the apostles, and everything else. Matt: You aren't saying anything here. You aren't even offering any credible evidence or reason.... Dan: Neither are you. I don't care. I'm not looking to convert. Matt: You admit your aren't? If you were a god, would you really make that kind of mistake, not being able to prove anything? Dan: Why don't you let your precious god fight for himself? Matt: He will. He will fight quite well. Dan: Then let him. I'm not an egotistical jerk. Matt: You aren't? And you claim to be a god! Isn't that rather egotistical? Dan: I'm not asking you to believe anything, and here you are pushing your beliefs on me. Matt: I'm not pushing anything. I'm just trying to show you how illogical you are being. Dan: Egotistical: being excessively interested in ones self: having a self centered attitude. I have none of these problems. Matt: oh... like saying your a god isn't egotistical? Dan: And i don't think I'm the one being illogical. I do know who's being irrational, and it's not me. Matt: Well, I'm going around claiming to be a god.... and you're the rational one? Dan: Yes, because I'm not trying to get anyone to believe in anything. I said I was my own god Matt: you're trying to get me to believe you're a god aren't you? Dan: You know very well that I was not saying I'm some supreme being. But you use it as an excuse to push Jesus Christ and all his bull on me Matt: I didn't say you were a supreme being. Dan: You're trying to get me to prove to you I am a god. I wasn't trying to convince at all. Matt: So, you admit he existed? Dan: nope Matt: Do you believe Jerusalem exists? and Egypt? and Israel? and the Jews? and the Red Sea? Dan: They all exist, but not because of the Bible. Matt: But the Bible speaks of them... accurately, right? I mean, they are there. Dan: All that proves is the bible was written after they all were established. Matt: By people who were actually there.... right? Dan: Perhaps by anti-Semitic people to get everyone to hate the Jews. Matt: Are you guessing? Dan: Assuming, yes. Matt: So, all the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus, the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' miracles, etc. are all bogus? Dan: Yup, I've not seen them and no one will ever convince me that they really have. It's illogical. Matt: No one will convince you no matter what the evidence is, right? Dan: Someone's cancer goes away and OHHH IT MUST BE GOD. Dan: A plane crashed and people lived OHHHH THAT'S DEFINITELY GOD! Matt: no one will convince you no matter what the evidence is, right? Dan: If I saw God with my own eyes I would believe. That's about it. Matt: Why don't you ask Him to appear to you, then? Dan: No... that's most certainly it Dan: I have, and guess what hasn't happened. Matt: guess what? I asked him too. He didn't appear....Does that mean he does not exist? Dan: Apparently. Matt: oh... so, if I can't see your mother, does that mean she doesn't exist? Dan: If that's what you want to believe even though people have actually seen her as opposed to someone I've heard of. Matt: But you exist, you must have had a mother, to believe contrary would be illogical... to believe other than that, by simply choice, would be contrary to evidence. Matt: Why do you do the same with God? Dan: Because God never did anything. An imaginary being can't do anything. He made nothing. He said nothing.

299

Matt: You don't want Him. Why should He help you? You insult Him.... Dan: Why would I believe in something that contradicts every law of physics and nature? I'm not asking him to help me with anything. Matt: What laws does God contradict? Dan: Everything, and immaterial being, who lives on forever and was here since forever, knows everything, is everywhere at once. It is all illogical. Matt: If you do not know all the Laws of nature, you cannot say that is impossible. Dan: I wouldn't believe in a human who didn't physically exist, or a dollar that existed for all time. Matt: Claiming to be a god is illogical. Dan: I've never seen (nor has anyone) anything that was immaterial and eternal and was all places at once. Claiming that there is a god is illogical Matt: Therefore, it doesn't exist because you think it is illogical? Dan: Yup. How can something that doesn't physically exist in some way, possibly exist? Matt: Thoughts exist and are not physical. Dan: So is everything we've ever known, so asking someone to believe something different than what they've known as fact since before they were born is irrational. Dan: But they belong to something that is physical. They are not their own entity. Matt: Thoughts exist and are not physical.... you believe in them, right? Dan: That's a really really bad analogy. Matt: Why? Dan: I pity you now Matt: Thanks.... Dan: no problem Matt: I think you need to study logic a bit more if you want to be a god. Dan: Stick it! I'm not a god you're not a god. God's not a god. No one's a god Matt: And you want him to appear to you? and you insult him like that? That isn't smart Dan: Oh well, he enjoys sending people to horrible places of pain and suffering.... some kind loving god huh?.... so let him do his worst. Matt: He will.... you'll not like. Dan: Oh well. Matt: Not after you insult him so much... and he is a lot bigger than you. You need Jesus. Dan: Bigger in what way? Matt: Much bigger and stronger than you. Dan: If he doesn't physically, exist he has no size. So I'm much bigger than him. An ant is much larger than him. Matt: God is loving. That is why He sent His son to die and pay for the sins of the world. Dan: Oh yeah that's love, too. Matt: Hey, if you slap him in the face, and reject his offer to help you, what do you want him to do?' Dan: Yeah, that's real loving. "Go die son." Dan: He's self centered apparently. Matt: God HIMSELF died.... became a man... he sacrificed himself. Dan: Follow me. Believe in me or suffer. Matt: No... love gives. God so loved the world he GAVE his only begotten son. Dan: Yeah right. Matt: Yep, that is right. Dan: If he's so mighty he could make more Matt: He can forgive you of your sins, if you want. Dan: I already forgave myself, i don't need him. Matt: But if you don't want, then you'll spend eternity without Him. Matt: Eternity is a long time to be wrong. Dan: Thank "God" because I don't want to be around an egomaniac for eternity. Matt: Neither do I. But I do want to be with God. Dan: He is the biggest self centered egotistical, bitter, unforgiving, unloving S.O.B ever. Matt: If god is real, would you want him to forgive you? Dan: I'd believe in him, forgiveness.... I dunno. Matt: Wow! You make him sound like Hitler. But that sure isn't the Lord I know. You've been told some pretty weird stuff. Dan: Sounds like god to me.

300

Matt: Do you want forgiveness, and cleansing, and a warm and good heart? Matt: You can find out if He's real.... Dan: I have a good heart. I can take baths, and I'm not sorry for anything. Matt: You'd have to humble yourself before Him.... Matt: You'd have to ask him to forgive you of your sins.... and mean it. Matt: Jesus forgives sins. Dan: Impossible. Matt: Why? Dan: I wouldn't mean it. Matt: Are you a sinner? Have you ever done anything wrong? Dan: "He" made me a sinner, it's his own fault. Matt: No. You're a sinner because Adam sinned....and his children were sinners, and so on... Matt: Ever done anything wrong? Dan: I still don't get why you're trying to convert me. Why do you let religion take over your life and make you further alienate people like me? Matt: I'm trying to point you to Jesus, that's all. Dan: You're trying (seemingly) to push me as far from Jesus as you possibly can. Matt: Ever done anything wrong? Dan: All the time. Matt: If you've done wrong things, then you've offended God. Dan: Oh well Matt: He's the one you have to worry about. Dan: He made mankind sinners, let him deal with it Matt: No. He made Adam good. Adam chose to rebel. Adam, the sinner, had children. Blame Adam. Matt: ...and you would have done better than Adam? Dan: So Adam has the power to overcome god's will? Matt: God let him have the freedom to sin. Dan: So shouldn't you be worshipping Adam? You just said god made him good Matt: I'll put my faith in Jesus. Dan: Supposedly god knows all that will happen and has for all time, so I'm predestined to whatever fate may await me. Matt: Make your choice Dan: well as I said, God already made that choice for me. Matt: You are making it right now. Don't blame God for your anger and rebellion. Dan: I'm not angry.... Matt: Could have fooled me. Dan: well I'm angry that you can't accept my decision seeing as how it's mine. Matt: Make it... and live with it for eternity. Dan: God made it for me before time began Matt: You made it... you are making it now... make your choice. Dan: He likes to watch people suffer. Matt: No he doesn't. Matt: make your choice... and live with it for eternity. Matt: can you change your heart away from anger, mockery, and pride? Matt: If not, you are no god. Dan: Great, I wanted to leave an hour ago, but I didn't want you to think you won. Matt: Okay, then have the last word. Dan: I don't want the last word Matt: Okay, then let me have it. Jesus can still forgive you and give you a new heart. Dan: bye Matt: bye

301

Is it right to tell people that what they believe in is false?

This dialogue deals with the right, or lack thereof, of Christians like me calling other peoples beliefs false. Is it right to do that? How do we know we are not deceived ourselves? Tim: Hi. I have some questions. Can we talk? Matt: Sure. Whats up? Tim: What right do we have calling someone a heretic. I mean nobody is perfect. Nobody understands the Bible perfectly. We are all mistaken about something about the Bible. Matt: The Bible defines what is true and states that those who fall outside certain parameters of doctrine are false. We are only repeating and teaching people what God has already stated about truth. Tim: True, but how do we know if we are right? We could be interpreting the Bible falsely. It is like the tea pot calling the kettle black, if you get my meaning Matt: That is true. But let me ask you. Is Jesus God in flesh? Tim: I believe so! But there are verses in the Bible that seem to discredit this. Matt: Such as? Tim: Jesus saying the father is greater than him. Matt: But how does that mean that Jesus is not God? Remember, according to Phil. 2:5-8 and Heb. 2, Jesus became a man. He ADDED human nature to himself and became one of us. He was made for a little while, lower than the angels. Matt: I am married. My wife is a Christian. I am greater than she is in authority and position in the family. Does that mean that she is not human because I am greater than her in position? Tim: Okay, I see what youre saying. Tim: But, we are saved by grace Matt and if God wants to be gracious to a Mormon or Jehovahs Witness, what right do we have to deny the possibility? God is gracious to whom ever he wants to be he does not care about denominations. Tim: Is it possible their could be a few Mormons running around who understand and are saved? Matt: Yes, it's possible. But official Mormon doctrine is very false and leads to damnation. Matt: This is because Mormonism teaches that God came from another planet, has a goddess wife, and that men and women can become gods and goddesses of their own worlds. Matt: The Bible contradicts this in Isaiah 43:5, 44:6_8, for example. Tim: True but not all Mormons believe this. The reorganized Mormon church does not. Matt: The RLDS church is quite different than the LDS church in many respects. But, by far, most Mormons believe Mormon doctrine. Besides, I do not argue the position from a possibility that they might know the truth. I argue against Mormon doctrine. Matt: Now, God says that we are to honor and worship Him only, not any false gods (Exodus 20). Is the Mormon God true? Tim: No Matt: Then they are serving a false god, right? Tim: Yes. Matt: Does a false god save anyone? Tim: Nope. Matt: Then it is proper to say that if someone believes in the Mormon god, he will not be saved, right? Tim: True, but most Mormons dont even know what they believe. They just go to church to feel good. I should know I have met Mormons who dont know that the Mormon church teaches they could become a god. Matt: I dont' know about that. 99% of those I've spoken to over 20 years have known Mormon doctrine. Matt: God is not a man from another planet who has a goddess wife as Mormonism teaches. That is false doctrine. It is right and proper to state so. Tim: True. I never looked at it that way. Matt: To ignore it, knowingly, is to not warn them about the dire consequences. That is why I have my web site up....to teach the truth and expose error. I don't want people to go to hell.

302

Matt: It isn't because I hate Mormons (I like them and work with them), or Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., it is because I care about them...... Tim: True. But it does no good to argue. They are trained to argue and they want to argue. They do not know what they are doing to themselves. It is so confusing because it is hard to deal with someone who believes they are Christian when they really arent. Matt: I am trained to discuss the issues with them and expose the error. Each and every Mormon is created in God's image and is worth the struggle of truth which is why I do what I do. Tim: True. Matt: Besides, the more that Mormonism (and all cults) spread, the more people are damned. Tim: True but as a Calvinist you must know the elect will be saved no matter what you do...LOL That is what gets me about Calvinism. Matt: True. But, I also know that God uses the preaching of His word and that he ordains the means of saving people. Matt: My web site makes a difference in people's lives because God ordains that it does. Tim: But I think Calvinism is a very confusing doctrine. Matt: It isn't confusing at all.... Matt: God is sovereign, right? Tim: Yes. Matt: God is in control of all things, right? Tim: Yes. Matt: God uses all things for His glory and for accomplishing His will, right? Tim: Yes. Matt: God uses preaching, teaching, evangelism, and apologetics to bring His people into salvation, right? Tim: Yes. Matt: He uses the freedom we have as Christians to preach to the lost, right? Tim: Yes. Matt: He has said in James 5 that the prayers of the righteous make a difference with Him, right? Tim: True. Matt: So then, my prayers and preaching influence God, right? Tim: Yes....to a certain degree. Matt: Yet, God, from all eternity, has not changed, and His will is carried out. Matt: Right? Tim: Yes. Matt: I am free to preach and teach and let God worry about appointing people to believing (Acts 13:48). Yet, I know what I do makes a difference..... Tim: True. Matt: If I am a Calvinist as you think I should be, then why do I have CARM on the net? Tim: ...because of the reasons you gave me. Matt: You see, God is sovereign and He still uses us. Tim: Do you believe we are living in the so-called "end times"? Matt: Yes, I do. Tim: Well I am not so sure.....the human race could go on for another hundred years are so Tim: 1000 year to God is but a day. Matt: Maybe it will. But we must never stop evangelizing and telling the truth....even up to the day of His glorious return. Amen? Tim: YES. Matt: Now, are YOU saved? Tim: Yes I believe so....but I hope it is not a head thing and not a heart thing if you understand. I understand the words but have I really accepted it? Tim: You can believe something to be true and not accept it Matt: That is true. Matt: Let me ask you some questions, all right? Tim: Sure. Matt: Do you believe Jesus is God in flesh? Tim: Yes. I know that part is true. If the Bible is true then Jesus is God

303

Matt: Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in, though it was a glorified body (John 2:19_21; 1 Cor. 15)? Tim: Yes, but is that because I have been taught to believe or because I have accepted it? Matt: I understand, but what is your state of belief right now? Do you or do you not believe it? Tim: It changes from day to day Matt: I understand. But what you need to do is trust what God says. Faith is only as good as who you put it in. Tim: True and I believe that Jesus is the way. Matt: You need to read the Bible, study Jesus' words, pray to Him, and do your best. Tim: I have studied other religions and they have no answer to the sin problem. Matt: That is true. Only Jesus is the way out of sin. Tim: Hinduism believes in reincarnation, but that does not solve the problem of sin. It makes it worse. Matt: Yes. It does. Tim: Only Christianity does it for you....what do you think heaven is like anyway? Matt: It'll be great being with Jesus. Tim: With billions of other Christians....I hope Jesus will be in more than one place at the same time Matt: He will work it out. Tim: I would hate to stand in line for all eternity. I cant stand to stand in line for food at the grocery store. Matt: It'd be worth it waiting for Jesus, right? :) Tim: Yes, it would. Tim: Well, I need to go and get some sleep. Thanks for talking. Matt: Sure. Anytime. Tim: Bye Matt: God bless.

304

Dialogue with someone who claims to be one of the two witnesses of Revelation
Palktalk (www.paltalk.com) is an excellent voice chat system that also has text chat ability. I was in charge in a paltalk discussion room teaching Christian theology when someone named Scott Hofstee came in. Scott claims to be one of the two witnesses of the book of Revelation and he has made a prophecy concerning Nov. 20, 2002. Nevertheless, he quickly became crass so I removed his voice and text privileges in the public chat room. A few minutes later, in a private message to him, I asked if he would like to be able to communicate in the room again and that if he did, he'd need to be polite. He responded with the following opening line in our private text dialogue. As you read through you will see how sad this person really is. I have blocked out his foul language. One more thing, he gave me permission to post this whole dialogue -- as is stated in the text below.

Scott Hofstee: Take your offer you pharisaical b****rd and shove it up your ***. Any questions? Matt Slick: So what is going to happen on Nov. 20, 2002? Scott Hofstee: Read it cult expert and await the beginning of your end. Scott Hofstee: http;//thedaysofthunder.faithweb.com/ahead.html Matt Slick: Do you believe Jesus is God in flesh? Scott Hofstee: Listen idiot stick. Jesus is not God. God is in Jesus. Big difference. Your paganism is from the devil. Matt Slick: So, then... the trinity is false too? Scott Hofstee: You have no idea who Jesus is because you you have never met him. Matt Slick: Did Jesus rise from the dead in the same body he died in? Scott Hofstee: The trinity is error. Matt Slick: Did Jesus rise from the dead in the same body he died in? Scott Hofstee: LOL [this means Laugh Out Loud] Matt Slick: I'm just asking what you believe. Scott Hofstee: Better ask him. Can you hear his voice or do you just follow the paper Jesus? All you know of him is what you have imagined in your bible. Unless the spirit of God is revealing you cant. Matt Slick: Did Jesus rise from the dead in the same body he died in? Can you please answer the question? I'm trying to politely ask you what you believe about Jesus in this regard. Did Jesus rise from the dead in the same body he died in? Scott Hofstee: Matt of course he did. The body was changed because even the disciple didn't recognize him as they were walking with him. It simple. Matt Slick: I would disagree with it being changed. It was glorified. Jesus rose in the same body He died in. He retained the wounds in His hands, etc. Scott Hofstee: Of course he did. But His body was glorified. But it had changed. The glory automatically changes. Matt Slick: Now, how are we saved from our sins? Scott Hofstee: Through Jesus. Of course he is the way the truth and the life. No man come to the Father but by HIM. He is the only path. Any other way and you are liar and thief belief and faith in his sacrifice and the fathers resurrection of HIM. Matt Slick: What do you mean, "through Jesus"? Must you be baptized to be saved? Matt Slick: So who or what is Jesus? Is He a man right now? Scott Hofstee: He is man in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily and to whom has been given all authority in Heaven and Earth. Matt Slick: Is Jesus a man right now? right NOW? Scott Hofstee: Matt he's a male Matt Slick: I'll take that as a yes. Scott Hofstee: LOL Scott Hofstee: Of course he is Matt Slick: But, you deny that Jesus is God in flesh. Scott Hofstee: There is only one God and its not Jesus. Matt Slick: ...and Jesus is not God, he is a man with God "in" Him, right?

305

Scott Hofstee: Jesus was preexistent with the Father. He proceeded forth from HIM and created all that is. Matt Slick: Was Jesus an angel or something? Scott Hofstee: An angel in the sense that He was a messenger Matt Slick: Jesus created all that is? Scott Hofstee: Yes. But he created all angels through the power of the father. Matt Slick: So, Jesus was pre existent. Was he a created thing? Scott Hofstee: He was created before ALL that was created and created all thereafter. The Father created it through HIM because the logos was IN HIM completely. Scott Hofstee: At the appointed time he took on humanity in order to atone for sins of ma nkind. Matt Slick: Was Jesus a created thing before he became a man? Scott Hofstee: Of course Scott Hofstee: He appeared in the OT many times. Matt Slick: Okay, so then, Jesus was a created thing according to you. I am just being clear. Matt Slick: Got a question for you. Scott Hofstee: Yes. Matt Slick: God says in Isaiah 44:24 that He created the heavens and the earth alone. How could it be that Jesus created all things if Jesus is not God, but a created thing? Scott Hofstee: He proceeded forth from the bosom of the Father. Very simple. The same way the apostles healed the sick. The power of God coursed thru them. They were a conduit. Jesus was even much more than they. Matt Slick: But it says that God did it alone. That would mean that Jesus didn't do it... if Jesus is not God. Scott Hofstee: He was the house that the Father dwelled in FULLY. Matt his power alone created it. Jesus in Rev 3:14 described himself. It doesn't diminish him at all. It makes what he did on the cross and in this earth even more awesome. He overcame ever obstacle, every temptation as a man like us. That was 100 percent submitted to God Matt Slick: It doesn't say it was His power alone that created. It says that God created alone. Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone." Scott Hofstee: The Father fully resided in HIM. So too was Jesus a complete visible image of the invisible God. Matt Slick: Then you have no true incarnation. You deny that the Word that WAS God and became flesh [John 1:1,14]. Instead, you have the Father "in" Christ. Scott Hofstee: They are ONE. Matt Slick: Without a true incarnation, there is no true atonement. You are dead in your sins. Jesus said, "Unless you believe that I AM" you will die in your sins," (John 8:24). Scott Hofstee: The word is the thoughts of God. They were in Christ. Matt Slick: So, the the thoughts of God ARE God? The things that are OF God ARE God? Scott Hofstee: Well tell me what God looks like. Tell me his shape. Matt Slick: God thinks thoughts. Thoughts are not Him. They are His thoughts. Scott Hofstee: LOL Scott Hofstee: You think he is sitting on literal thro ne in Heaven? Matt Slick: You deny the incarnation and according to Jesus own words, you are lost. Matt Slick: In Exodus 3:14, God said "And God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM; and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." Matt Slick: Jesus said in John 8:24 that "Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." Scott Hofstee: No matt your Walter Martin logic don't work. A lot of people don't understand the trinity and they re saved in your book. LOL. No where does it say that you believe in the trinity you will be saved. LOL Scott Hofstee: You have added to the counsel of God and begun to preach another cursed gospel. Matt Slick: I do not believe you know God. Jesus reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27) and without the true Jesus, you will not know the truth Father. Scott Hofstee: Hey Matt I know the father because Jesus introduced me to HIM. Matt Slick: Can you quickly tell me exactly what the gospel is? I'm curious.

306

Scott Hofstee: I was a Trinitarian like you for 34 years. Trinitarianism is pagan in its origin and you are therefore a false teacher which only further reveals the fact that you don't know the TRUTH who Jesus is Matt Slick: I have a lot of info on the trinity as in www.carm.org/doctrine/trinity.ht m, etc. But, can you please tell me exactly what the gospel is? Matt Slick: Well, I'd be glad to debate you on who Jesus is sometime. But for now, can you quickly tell me exactly what the gospel is? Scott Hofstee: LOL Scott Hofstee: The gospel is contained in Jesus matt. I have presented it to you Matt Slick: Okay, but what IS the Gospel? Scott Hofstee: He is the way unto the Father and that happens by knowing him. Matt Slick: Can you please tell me what the gospel is? Can you tell me what it is according to scripture? Scott Hofstee: He said my sheep hear my voice and another they will not follow. So to know him you must believe He is the one in whom salvation is contained. Matt Slick: Yes, I know, but can you quickly tell me exactly what the gospel is? Scott Hofstee: His sinless life was a perfect sacrifice. Matt Slick: Yes, I know all that, can you quickly tell me exactly what the gospel is? Scott Hofstee: That was presented unto the father. He became sin. The object of the fathers wrath toward sin that we might have life. Believe in that, then follow HIM and submit your life as a living sacrifice and you will live the gospel, the good news. LOL Scott Hofstee: matt one thing I know is that you know everything. One needs only to ask you. Matt Slick: 1 Cor. 15:1-4 tells us that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins. You mentioned sacrifice, that is good. But, you didn't really get it. Matt Slick: 2 Cor. 4:3-4 says, "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." Matt Slick: It is you who is the false teacher. You deny the incarnation. You deny that Jesus is God. You deny that Jesus is the "I AM." You, therefore, do not know God the Father and are a false teacher. Matt Slick: Now, how would you like to debate whether or not Jesus is God in flesh? We can do it on paltalk. I am sure it will draw a large crowd. Are you interested? Scott Hofstee: Hey matt. I couldn't care less about crowds. Your the ego maniac. I'm here to talk to you. Matt Slick: Good. Then you won't mind it when people listen to your side of the issue as we debate it. Scott Hofstee: All these people have heard what I have said a dozen times. I'm on here and teach very openly. Its well known what I believe. Matt Slick: I want to have a public discussion with you on the deity of Christ, for all to hear. Scott Hofstee: Then drop in our room any time. Matt Slick: In your room I am treated very poorly. Scott Hofstee: LOL Scott Hofstee: You are treated as I am Matt Slick: I gave you a chance in my room, and you abused it and were very crass. Scott Hofstee: LOL Matt Slick: When I go into your rooms, I am mocked. Scott Hofstee: You are an idiot thus you are mocked. Matt Slick: When someone red dotted you in my room, I requested that it be removed. [red dot removes speaking and text privileges in the room] Scott Hofstee: If you weren't dead to this world it wouldn't matter Matt Slick: Now, I challenge you to a public debate on the deity of Christ. Scott Hofstee: I have had every manner of thing spoken about me in this room tonight. Matt Slick: Do you accept my challenge to a debate? Scott Hofstee: Take your challenge and shove it up your a** pee wee. Your challenge means nothing to me. Matt Slick: I'll take that as a no. Scott Hofstee: then you are one perceptive ba***rd. LOL. You come into my turf.

307

Matt Slick: Col. 3:8 says, "But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth." Scott Hofstee: Don't flatter yourself into thinking I'm mad at you. Let me tell you this. The Lord is mad at you and I'm here to tell you. Matt Slick: You mean you are NOT mad at me and you speak so badly? So, the LORD uses cuss words? Scott Hofstee: You are going to have your life flipped upside down in a short time. Yeah he uses the words b****d, a**, dung which is ***t. Toughen up buttercup. You think the Lord is like you?. You are a *****. Matt Slick: Well, since you won't accept my challenge to debate what you believe and since you continue to insult me, perhaps we should continue this at another time. Scott Hofstee: He aint anything like you. You run around with your degree and suppose you are speaking for the Lord. You speak for yourself you arrogant *****rd. Matt Slick: Perhaps you need to read Col. 4:5-6 and 1 Tim. 1:5. They are good scriptures. Scott Hofstee: And I'm her to tell you your days of speaking for the Lord as though you were sent are about done. Remember this night. Matt Slick: Really? So, what is going to happen? Are you threatening me? Scott Hofstee: No dip***t. The Lord is telling you. You are about done and what is the Lord saying. He is going to bring you to your knees and humiliate you. Matt Slick: If He brings me to my knees and humiliates me, I will be most grateful. It would be a great blessing. Scott Hofstee: You will have a choice to repent of being a Pharisee or harden your heart and be destroyed. Your false humility doesn't fool the Lord. He sees your heart. He sees past your pompous words Matt Slick: And, YOU are God's messenger? Scott Hofstee: I am indeed Matt Slick: Is it not true that you claim to be one of the two witnesses of Revelation? Scott Hofstee: It is absolutely true Matt Slick: How do you know you are one of the two witnesses of Revelation? Scott Hofstee: LOL Scott Hofstee: Very easy. The Father sent me and told me thru His SON Jesus. How does a man know anything about himself except thru Jesus. How did Jesus know who He was? Matt Slick: Well, since you have a false Jesus, I will conclude you do not know Jesus and that you are not speaking for God and that you are not one of the two witnesses of Revelation. Scott Hofstee: How did Peter know who Jesus was? LOL. Bad math matt. LOL Matt Slick: I wish I could post this dialogue on my website. Scott Hofstee: LOL. Matt please do. I wish you would. Matt Slick: Okay Scott H ofstee: Matt i know a few things you don't. Matt Slick: Such as? Scott Hofstee: I know from where I came. I know when I am speaking to one of the Fathers servants in a second because the Father reveals them. He has told me for a certainty you are not HIS. You sent yourself. HE NEVER SENT YOU. Therefore you are of the devil. Matt Slick: Thank you. Scott Hofstee: But you have hope. Matt Slick: My hope is in Jesus, not in you. Scott Hofstee: You can repent of your lies and your filth. Matt Slick: You are full of hatred and foul speech and condemnation. Scott Hofstee: Well what a coincidence. He is my master and has me speaking to you. Well my friend if you weren't walking in the flesh you couldn't be condemned. But because you are walking in the flesh you are totally condemned. Matt Slick: You know, you really are one of the more interesting cultists I've ever dialogued with. Scott Hofstee: I'm no cultist. Your carnality is at enmity with God. Matt... I cannot fit into any or your models of a cult bec ause we have no cult. Matt Slick: Look, I need to get going because this dialogue is getting no where now. I am convinced that you are lost and self deceived. Scott Hofstee: LOL

308

Matt Slick: I am convinced that you do not have Jesus and that you preach a false god. Scott Hofstee: Matt remember my words. Your road to Damascus experience is at the door what will you do when you meet the real Jesus and not the one of your vain imagination? Matt Slick: I am convinced that you are filled with a false spirit. Matt Slick: So, it was nice talking to you and very informative to have you verify from your own mouth (fingers), your error. Scott Hofstee: Matt. You don't get it. Matt Slick: I will let others know that you refused to debate me and that you called me lots of names. Scott Hofstee: We don't care about what you would consider negative publicity. Matt Slick: You have not shown the fruit of the Spirit of God. Scott Hofstee: I'm debating you right here you moron. You have a lengthy dialogue demonstrating such. Matt Slick: ....as I said... insults and name calling. Matt Slick: I am sure we will meet again. Scott Hofstee: Names like Jesus used Matt Slick: Till then, Scott Hofstee: Snake Matt Slick: Later. Scott Hofstee: White washed tomb Scott Hofstee: Fool Scott H ofstee: Hypocrite Scott Hofstee: Matthew 23 Scott Hofstee: Its all about you Scott Hofstee: Study it Scott Hofstee: It foretells of your fate Matt Slick: 2 Cor. 11:3-4, "But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully." Matt Slick: bye

As you can see, this person is quite deluded. He is full of hatred and condemnation as well as a false understanding of who Jesus is. Since He has a false god and Christ, it explains why he is so quick to swear and demonstrate the lack of the Spirit of God. Above, I referenced a couple verses that I though Mr. Hofstee should focus on. They are Col. 4:5-6, "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person. 1 Tim. 1:5, "But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."

If this person were a Christian, the Spirit of God would convict him of his errors and attempt to bring him to a consistent behavior with scripture.

309

Discussion on the possibility of Jesus' resurrection.

The following dialogue was a quick one in a crowded discussion room. On the fly, it is difficult to give adequate answers, but the more you know the better you can do. I can only hope that this conversation went well enough to be used by the Lord to accomplish His will in this person's life. This dialogue began because a topic was offered stating that Christians were mentally disturbed. I jumped in by asking a question.

Matt: Why are Christians mentally disturbed? Tom: Because they believe in things for which there is no evidence and that is irrational indeed. Matt: But they would offer the eyewitness accounts of the Bible, the fulfilled prophecies, etc., as some form of evidence. To say there is NO evidence is inaccurate. It would seem that you just don't like their evidence. Tom: You are assuming that the "eyewitness accounts" are worthy of being called "evidence." Matt: Why not? Is not eyewitness testimony in a court valid? Tom: I would contest that seemingly impossible happenings could be witnessed. Matt: You can contest it, but that does not invalidate the evidence. The eyewitness accounts are there. Tom: So you are saying the evidence is valid? Matt: You tell me. They claim to have eyewitness accounts recorded down. Tom: So you are saying that if someone says they witnessed something then it must be true? Matt: The accounts seem to be consistent with archaeological evidence of times and places. Tom: What are you trying to prove by this assertion? Matt: I am only trying to get you to think. Logic can help find error in thinking. Tom: I do plenty of thinking. Matt: To say there is NO evidence is an illogical statement, since you cannot know all evidence. Matt: The Christians claim evidence in the eyewitness accounts of Christ. I am asking why it isn't valid. Tom: I am not disputing that Christ existed. Matt: Okay. Matt: Are you disputing the eyewitness accounts. Tom: But what are you claiming that this evidence supports? Matt: The evidence supports what it supports. Tom: What proposition are you trying to establish? Matt: If eyewitnesses see Jesus rise, is it possible that it could be true? Tom: Hume said that no one should ever believe a miracle had taken place unless it would be a greater miracle that the person reporting the miracle was either mistaken or lying. Matt: Why would the eyewitnesses lie? Why didn't the Jewish community say Christ did not rise? I am talking about the evidence. What does the evidence of the eyewitnesses suggest? Does it suggest that Christ rose from the dead? Or, does it suggest they were all liars? Tom: Why would anyone believe that Jesus rose from the dead, when it is clear from all our experience that people do not do that? Matt: You beg the question. You assume the thing you are trying to prove. Tom: It does not suggest to me that Christ rose from the dead. Matt: If there is a god, is it not logical to say Jesus could have risen,....since he claimed to be God. Tom: You are presupposing that there is a god. Matt: I said, IF there is a god. That is not a presupposition. Follow the logic. Tom: So what if there isn't a god? Matt: If there is no God, then the resurrection cannot happen, correct? Matt: But, if the eyewitness reported a physical resurrection, then wouldn't that suggest that there is a God? Again, what does the evidence suggest? Tom: How is the supposed resurrection of a human suggestive of the existence of a divine being? Surely there is NO logical connection there? Matt: You asserted that it couldn't happen because it just doesn't happen. I am simply asking what the evidence suggests.

310

Tom: So if it did happen, why would that suggest that God exists? Matt: Okay, since the eyewitnesses saw him die, and saw him after three days of being dead, then isn't that evidence of the supernatural? Matt: A resurrection would be supernatural, right? You stated that things like that don't happen. I am asking what the eyewitness evidence suggests. Simple. Tom: If a dead and stinking body rose from the dead, then it would be supernatural yes. So, the socalled eyewitness accounts are either mistaken or downright lies. Matt: The third option is that they are accurate and true. Tom: Why would one suppose that? Matt: If you miss all the logical options, then how can you possibly draw accurate conclusions? Again, I ask you, what does the evidence suggest? Tom: So you think that it is more "logical" to assume that the eyewitness accounts of Jesus rising from the dead are accurate and true rather to suppose that they are the products of mistakes or lies? Matt: Mistakes are certainly possible. But, can all the witness be mistaken? That they lied is also possible, but why die for a lie? Remember, the Christian apostles died for the resurrection of Christ. Why would they do that if it were a lie? They had nothing to gain except being ostracized, ridiculed, and dying for what they believed. Tom: You are forgetting the motivation factor. Matt: Did they not see Him die? Did they not see him after the resurrection? These are the accounts, of eyewitnesses. Matt: So, please offer some rational explanation for their consistent and repeated mistakes by all the disciples, and/or their intent to lie about what they claimed they saw. Tom: If I were to produce several eye witnesses who assured you that they had seen a giant ladybird lumbering down the street singing "land of hope and glory" would you believe them? Matt: You are not addressing the questions I have asked. You offered a theory. Can you back up your theory with logic and or evidence? Tom: The onus is not on me to disprove that which according to all our knowledge of the universe could not possibly take place. Matt: You offered two alternative theories to account for the resurrection. I am asking you to somehow substantiate them. If you cannot offer some rational reason for your theories, then why do you hold them? Is it because you presuppose that the resurrection could not occur? I suspect that you must simply dismiss the evidence without logical reason. Tom: I have given a rational reason as to why I think that the resurrection did not occur. Matt: So, if that is the case, if you cannot offer something suitable, in place of it, then you have no point at all. Matt: What is that rational reason that the resurrection did not occur? Tom: That all our experience of the universe tells us that dead and stinking bodies do not return to life. Matt: Really? "All" our experience? So, the experience of the eyewitness is not valid? You dismiss it. On what basis, because it contradicts your presupposition? Tom: You didn't address my point about the giant ladybird did you? Matt: The facts should determine that, not a belief that makes an assumption as you have done. Matt: So, you simply dismiss the eyewitness accounts because they do not agree with your presupposition, isn't that correct? Tom: And YOU cannot assume that "so called" eyewitness accounts of things which happened two thousand years ago are any indication of truth. Matt: I am not assuming. I am simply asking you to tell me what the evidence suggests. But all you have done is dismiss the evidence. I do not consider that to be a good way to determine truth. Tom: Ok I am dismissing the evidence because I do not consider it to be valid. Matt: But you have not given a valid reason for invalidating the evidence. Tom: Do YOU have a valid reason for assuming that it IS valid? Matt: The evidence for its validity is that it is eyewitness accounts recorded, corroborated by other writers of the New Testament, and there is no contradictory evidence of the resurrection of Christ offered by the Romans or the Jews of that time period. Tom: Well, excuse me if I don't roll over and accept it. Matt: The eyewitnesses then died for their faith later, based upon the resurrection. They had watched Christ die. Tom: SO WHAT???

311

Matt: The most logical thing to assume is that He rose from the dead. Tom: Oh it is is it? Matt: Yes it is. Think about it. There is no contradictory evidence for the resurrection. Many people attested to it. The Jews and the Romans left NO writings contradicting it. The Christian witnesses ended up dying for it. Why would I NOT believe it? Tom: You are being totally illogical. So you would take the so called eyewitness accounts of people and hold them in greater account than all our present knowledge of how the universe operates???????? Matt: No, it is you who is being illogical. You do not know how the universe operates. Therefore, the resurrection is possible. Tom: You are placing your personal need to believe these things above all rational thought. Matt: You presuppose the resurrection could not happen and contradict the evidence. Is that logical? Tom: You are prostituting your intellect in favor of a selfish need to believe. Matt: You are not a good mind reader. I see that you have run out of answers and are now attacking me personally. I think this conversation is over. Tom: Fine by me. Goodbye. Matt: I will return another time and perhaps we can have another conversation after you've thought this through more carefully. Tom: No I don't think so. I don't wish to talk to you again This dialogue was interesting in that Tom refused to back up his denial of the resurrection with anything other than an argument that "It just can't happen." I offered him questions he failed to answer regarding the apostles and their willingness to die for their faith. Please note, however, that dying for ones' faith doesn't prove anything the faith is true. But, dying for the belief in the resurrection of Christ is a powerful commentary on the beliefs of the apostles; namely, that they all believed in Jesus' bodily resurrection. It would take something major to move the apostles away from their Jewish beliefs and culture which led to their deaths as martyrs. Tom offered nothing substantial in place of this and simply said that I was being illogical. If I am illogical, then demonstrate the illogic of my statements instead of saying that the universe operates a certain way and Jesus' resurrection isn't possible. In so doing, he simply begs the question. That is, he assumes the thing he is trying to prove. I would have like to have pressed him even more on this issue of logic and evidence. Perhaps next time in a similar discussion, I will.

312

Condemning words and pompous attitude

This dialogue occurred on paltalk (paltalk.com, a voice chat system), in a private text message box. The conversation was initiated by this woman who did not like it that a person was red dotted (speaking and writing privileges were removed) because she so consistently insults people wherever she goes. The person here in the dialogue sought me out and began the conversation as it is here. I tried to respond and be respectful, but you will see that she did not return the favor. All the names were changed, except mine.

Gale: You made trashing remarks about her .. and she was red dotted for far les .. just as I was. Matt: Perhaps you are unaware of her. Are you familiar with her history here on paltalk? Gale: I don't care what her history is. I care about FAIRNESS. If she is red dotted for her remarks about you then you should be red dotted for attacking her. You put yourself at the same level as Jim who is obviously a bigot. Matt: So, you don't care about the facts? Just so you know, Chris always insults me and others... every chance she gets. Matt: She constantly does that, un provoked, every time I enter a room. She is known to be a trouble maker. She is known to be rude and insulting. Gale: Facts? What facts? If you can't defend your views then your views need scrutiny. Matt: She has simply earned the need to be dotted. Gale: I saw nothing insulting .. only her opinion .. which I happen to share .. that YOU are a fake. Matt: Okay. So why am I a fake? A fake means "not real." Co, can you clarify? Gale: Your views are bigoted and often unChristian .. and usually contra-Scriptural .. I've observed you, too. Matt: Which views are those? Gale: You are a fake Christian. .that is, you claim to be a Christian, but your actions say otherwise. Matt: What actions are those? Gale: You often act in vicious unChristian manner. Matt: Can you please be more specific? Gale: I've seen you attack others for their views .. especially Catholics .. where is that Christian behavior? Matt: Can you please give me an example? Gale: Sure Gale: You attacking Sothe7 Matt: I am awaiting specifics... Gale: You "pretend" to not be a Calvinist .. yet, your views pretty much run in that vein .. like you are ashamed to wear that label. Matt: I do not pretend to not be a Calvinist. I openly state I am and defend it on occasion. Gale: specifics? you already know your behavior .. I'm not a tape recorder .. I usually discount anything you say as babble .. since you have almost no understanding of Scripture. Gale: You do pretend to be not Calvinist. I've seen you do it. Gale: Calvinism is completely unbiblical. PROVE to me that YOU are among the "elect" ..... PROVE it. Matt: I just stated I was a Calvinist in that room, did I not? Matt: May I ask how old you are? Gale: 59 Matt: I'm surprised. Gale: PROVE to me that YOU are among the "elect" ... PROVE it. Gale: Surprised that I do not buy in to horse crap theology? Matt: How do you want me to prove it to you? Gale: Any way you can. Matt: I don't know your presuppositions. Therefore, "proofs" might not work for you. Gale: Believing does NOT constitute proof. Matt: Since you are hostile, I doubt anything I offered would suffice. Are you a Trinitarian?

313

Gale: I am not hostile. I'm just not a sucker. Gale: I am a Catholic. There is my theology. Matt: My apologies, but it seems to me that you are hostile to me and what I believe. Gale: Catholics are Trinitarians. Matt: May I ask if you are going to heaven or not? Gale: I am never hostile. No need to be Gale: I hope in my salvation and WORK toward it as called for in Scripture. Need the verses? Romans 8:24. No one is "elect". Matt: So, you do not know if you are saved? Why not? Gale: We are ALL given sufficient grace to obtain our personal salvation. Gale: You are NOT saved. In fact, your views have you on a path to hell. You incorporate HATE as part of your beliefs .. HATE is a cardinal sin that DAMNS souls. Matt: Well, 1 John 5:13 says that I can know I have eternal life. Since I have trusted in Christ alone for my salvation and in nothing of my own effort, I trust Christ and believe that what He said is truth - that He gives me eternal life. Gale: That would be fine if that were the sum total of Christ's teaching .. but, its not. Gale: I have personally witnessed you committing acts of hate .. even tonight. Matt: Okay, could you please tell me what acts of hate I committed tonight? Gale: Sure. You "trashed" Chris and you failed to communicate to Jim & Pete that they have no business red dotting souls simply because that soul either disagrees with them or defends some one or a view they find distasteful .. that is hate by omission Matt: Excuse me, but as soon as I entered the room, Chris said that I was a fake. She got red dotted which was not my doing. I then said that she has "issues." So, how is that hate? Gale: I was red dotted simply for defending Chris .. by asking why they did not red dot you Matt: I cannot tell you why they do what they do. I can only speak for myself. Gale: Its hate because you made mention of it in public .. you "trashed" her in front of others .. is that a Christian act? Gale: no .. you DAMNED well better speak out against injustice .. that is the hate you manifest. Matt: Do you mind if I put this dialogue up on my website? I'll change your name so no one will know it is you. Gale: Be my guest. Matt: Thanks, I will. Matt: If I said she has "issues" shows that I was hateful, then is her saying that I am a fake also a hateful thing? Yes, it sure is. It was wrong. Matt: I am glad that you admitted that. Gale: Your web site is probably mostly visited by those who kiss your a** .. .and they are of no consequence to me. Matt: As I have already said, she is very antagonistic towards me. I honestly don't know why, but she obvious has some issues she needs to deal with. Gale: If she is antagonistic.. Why not seek to resolve the differences in a CHRISTLIKE manner? Like prayer ...like private conversations, like finding out why she feels the way she does. Gale: Speaking of prayer .. would you please describe your daily prayer life for me? Matt: I have asked her what her problem is and she simply insults me. Whenever I go into a room where she is, she immediately begins to insult me. I was forced to put her on ignore. Matt: She wouldn't explain to me what her problem is. So, why bother? Obviously, as I said before, she has some issues she needs to deal with. Gale: Keep asking .. and use prayer .. oh, I forgot .. since everything is PREDETERMINED .. prayer is of no value .. sorry, I'm not hip to Calvinism. Matt: You do not understand Calvinism. We believe that prayer is very important and that it has an influence with God, per James 5:16. Perhaps you might want to study it more before you attack it. Just a suggestion. Gale: Haven't you ever read Paul's accounts of his ministry? Matt: Of course I have read them. Gale: How can prayer be important if everything is predetermined by God's will? Matt: Let's leave the Calvinism discussion for another time, okay? Gale: I have no use for Calvinism Matt: You can dismiss Calvinism if you choose, but at least understand it before you do. So far, it seems that you have a false understanding of what it is.

314

Gale: 4-5 years ago Sothe7 was determined to lead me OUT of Catholicism and into Calvinism .. I attended her entrance into the Church and first Holy Communion .. so, that should alert you as to the strength of my convictions .. I have the Truth in the full risen Jesus .. no rotted soul in hell is going to draw me from Christ. Matt: Well, my concern is that you know Christ and not put your trust in anything else, especially your own works. Salvation is by grace through faith, and not by anything you add to it. Matt: My opinion of Roman Catholicism hasn't changed. I still believe it has "issues." Gale: My own works will determine my fate.. just as your will. Matt: From your own words, I think you are not saved. Sorry, but that is what I believe. Gale: Catholicism is the True Church given to us by Jesus. Matt: The Bible says that we are saved apart from our works, Rom. 3:28. Gale: Your opinion is of no value to me .. in fact your opinion makes YOU a hypocrite. Matt: Then please respond to Rom. 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Matt: Also, Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified." It seems that God's word contradicts yours. Which one do you want me to believe? Gale: Again, if that were the sole teaching of Christ ..it would stand as the final fact .. truth is .. you must take the entire teaching of Christ as a whole .. not snippets. Matt: The whole does not contradict itself. Gale: My words do not contradict the teachings of Christ. Matt: All the cults add their works to salvation: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. If you add anything to the work of Christ (your own works), then from what I understand in scripture, you are not saved. Gale: I do not claim to be "saved" .. I am, as Scripture teaches .. working out my salvation in fear and trembling. Matt: You are seeking to be justified, in part, by your works. Because of that, you will not be saved. You must rely on Jesus alone, not Jesus AND your works. Gale: Jesus said to store up treasures in heaven .. now just how do we get these treasures? The Scripture says that faith without works is DEAD .. is this Truth? Matt: Yes, it is true. The context is that those who SAY they have faith but have not works, that kind of faith is useless. I have written about this at http://www.carm.org/questions/faithorworks.htm. Gale: Not interested in your web site. Gale: You have little of the Truth and a lot of fluff. Matt: Well, I've studied the issue and written on it. You can reject it if you want. Gale: I suggest you read Romans ... Matt: Romans? I love the books of Romans. I've taught it many times. In fact, here is a great verse in Romans. Matt: Rom. 5:1, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," Gale: I reject your personal misunderstandings .. I have the solid 2,000 year teachings of the Church to guide me. Gale: Apparently you have never really read Romans. Try reading it for CONTENT. Matt: I have read it many times and taught out of it often. I strongly suggest you read Romans chapters 3 through 5. It will deal with your works issue in relation to justification. Gale: Why is your response limited to single verse quotes? Where is the full understanding? Doesn't Romans warn that we are JUDGED on our works .. good and bad? Matt: Single verse quotes? Interesting comment. We are judged for rewards, not for salvation. Gale: Where in Scripture does it ever say that we are judged on our faith? Matt: It does not say we are judged on our faith. Matt: Rom. 5:1 says, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Can you tell me what that means? Gale: I'm not going to bother. That is a waste of my time. Gale: oh, so, a "saved" soul who is among the "elect" can have several abortions and she has no need to fear damnation? Matt: Romans 6:1-3 and 1 John 2:4 refutes that error. Each speaks about NOT doing sinful things because we are saved.

315

Gale: Again, you pluck out a verse here and there that seem to support your view while ignoring the majority that disagree with you. Matt: Then you admit that the verses I have quoted agree with what I am saying? Good. Gale: What pomposity. Are you trying to tell me that "saved" women never have abortions? Matt: But, I ask you what a verse means, you do not tell me, and then you say I am pompous. Gale: Or is it that abortions are NOT sins for the "elect"? Matt: I cannot tell you what women do or do not do. Matt: I can only tell you what the Bible says about being saved. Gale: I do not disagree with any verse of Scripture .. I do, however, disagree with misapplying them. You are side stepping my direct question for the second time. Are "saved" women damned for unrepented abortions or not? Matt: Look, I am not going to argue the abortion women thing. I am trying to get you to tell me what the verses mean that I have raised. Gale: I'm not interested in cherry picking pet verses with you .. I have plenty of my own that will confound you. Matt: I have already told you that the Bible warns against sinning for Christians. Gale: I did not ask you to argue .. I asked you a direct question. Matt: Well, you can say what you want and ignore the verses and then call me names, but it isn't very productive on your part. Gale: What is the consequence of sin? Matt: Romans 6:23 says that it is death. Gale: So, it the wages of sin is death (damnation) then a "saved" woman who has an unrepented abortion is in serious danger of damnation .. true or false? Matt: How can someone who is saved, be damned? Gale: You are pompous .. over and over. Well, perhaps she isn't "saved" after all. Matt: Can you please deal with the issue and not insult me? Gale: I'm not insulting .. stop acting pompous and I'll stop making the comment. Matt: If you can't be nice, I'll just end our conversation. Gale: I'm nice .. you just can not handle anyone who has the upper hand on you .. you have to run and hide behind pomposity. Matt: You want me to judge the salvation of a hypothetical woman in a hypothetical situation? She is YOUR invention, you tell me. Gale: Deal with me .. if you are strong enough .. btw .. you avoided another important direct question of mine .. tell me about your personal daily prayer life. Matt: This is not a discussion where I am going to allow myself to be interrogated by someone who can't explain scripture, who calls me names, and who avoids the issues I've raised. You are mistaken about this and need to focus on the issue, not the person. Your dis like for me is evident and you simply want to find whatever you can to use against me. Matt: I have suggested that you read Romans 3 through 5 because it contradicts what you have told me about your works. Gale: Let's see... You are relying on standard Calvinist tactic number one .. run away and declare "victory". Matt: I mean no offense, but since you have contradicted scripture in regards to justification, I am forced to assume that you are not saved. Gale: You have yet to prove to me that you are among the "elect." Matt: Can you please stay on the topic at hand? Gale: Sure. .I've asked you THREE questions none of which you have made any attempt at responding to .. as for name calling .. I find that your pompous attitude reeks whether you like it or not .. btw.. I'm not alone in that assessment of you. Matt: I am sure there are many who agree with you about me. But, that is irrelevant. Gale: Yes, it is, so, get over the pomposity .. it does not serve you. Matt: Could you read Romans 3 through 5 and then can we discuss it later? Gale: While I read Romans for you .. please respond to my questions. Matt: I have responded to your questions. Gale: 1) prove to me that you personally are among the "elect" .. 2) how can a "saved" woman have an unrepented abortion and go to heaven? .. 3) describe your personal daily prayer life. Matt: I cannot prove to you that I am elect. It is something based on biblical principles that you do not accept.

316

Gale: Oh, so you don't KNOW if you are among the "elect" .. you are GUESSING. You have not responded to my questions in the least .. get off that POMPOUS, ASININE platform and act like an adult. Matt: I have responded here and earlier and you continue to insult me. Please, let me tell you that if you do it just once more, I'll politely end our conversation. Matt: If a woman is saved, will she want to have an abortion? Will she do that which is against God in such an egregious manner? And, I will not tell you about my personal life. That is between the Lord and myself. Gale: "Saved" women have abortions in this country every day. You can't describe your personal daily prayer life because you simply do not have one ... that makes you a LIAR to me Gale: How's that for strong words? Are you ASHAMED of how little you pray? Matt: Okay, well, I can see that you will not be polite. So, I politely now end our conversation. Please consider how you have done in this conversation. You can review it on my site shortly. Matt: Good bye. (At this point I terminated the dialogue, but she continued with the following to which I did not respond.) Gale: You don't pray because Calvinists are arrogant and conceited and see themselves ABOVE prayer .. admit it. Gale: No, I'm not polite.. but, I know what the Lord expects from us and it sure as HELL isn't your pompous, arrogant little conceit... the Lord expects us to FOLLOW HIM . .not Calvin... grow some B***s and talk to me .. I am waiting for you to act like A BELIEVER.

Unfortunately, this person was difficult to deal with and I tried to remain polite and focused during our conversation. She continued to be insulting so it was time to end the conversation. She accused me of many things which reminded me of Romans 2:1, "Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

317

An evolutionist says evolution is a fact

This dialogue between an evolutionist and myself was most profitable for me. It showed me some areas where I need to study. It is also a good example of the dangers of getting involved in an area that is not your expertise as becomes evident. Nevertheless, I am not afraid of failure and use it as an opportunity to learn. When dialoging with people who know more about something than you, dont let that stop you from trying. They can help you learn. Evolutionist: Do you have a Ph.D. too? Matt: No. M.Div. Evolutionist: Master of Divinity? Matt: Yes. Matt: I'm a theologian. So, I'm utterly qualified to disprove evolution. Evolutionist: No. You are not. Matt: Uh. Humor? Evolutionists have that don't they, or did it disappear through natural selection? Evolutionist: We have humor, more to the point we have education. Define empirical evidence please. Matt: Im a theologian. You'll have to define it for me. Evolutionist: Okay. That in and of itself tells me you know nothing of science. I can educate. But will you listen? Matt: Is your presupposition that my ignorance invalidates any of my arguments? Matt: I could presuppose that your ignorance of God negates your ability to rightly judge his existence, thereby forcing you to arrive at erring conclusions about evolution. Evolutionist: What is a phylogenetic relation? What is neotony, heterochrony? You cannot argue against something scientific without knowing science. It is moronic to try to do so. Matt: Who said I was arguing science? So far, your logic hasn't impressed me. Evolutionist: You are arguing against evolution, an empirical science, you must know something about it to argue against it, otherwise its called DOGMATIC PRESENTATION. Matt: That makes sense. Since I am a theologian, as I said earlier, I am not qualified to refute evolution. I am simply restating the truth I said earlier. Evolutionist: Agreed, but you are trying to disprove it yes? Or present alternate hypotheses with adequate evidence to support it. Ill listen to that if it is the case. But it has to be scientific evidence. Matt: Well, more or less, yes. I think evolution is a great deception. Matt: Is evolution falsifiable? Evolutionist: Evidence is. But in science there is the double blind test. Part of empirical evidence. That negates false proof. Matt: Is there any evidence at all that goes against evolution? Evolutionist: Not yet, as a scientist I must concede that there is always evidence coming in, but none in the last 200 years plus. Has there been any negative proof. We have had false claims. But they have been sought out through empirical means i.e. Piltdown man Matt: If you have studied it thoroughly, then undoubtedly, you should have encountered evidence contrary to your belief. Matt: So then, is evolution an absolute fact? Evolutionist: Absolute fact yes. Law no. Evolution happens, genetic change over time within a population but the how is theory, facts backing it. But theory, predictable at that Matt: Macro, or micro? Evolutionist: I have encountered many claims no evidence. Evolutionist: Define micro and macro please. I feel your definition may be different than sciences. Matt: Micro - change in allele frequency. Matt: Macro - one species to another: Radical DNA restructuring. Evolutionist: Okay, there you have it. How long does micro evolution take. How long does macro take? Evolutionist: We are getting somewhere here. Matt: Micro occurs. But I believe in the genetic 'lessening' of the gene pool through time, not its increase. Also, when I look at the eye, the heart, etc. The complexity is simply too vast. Matt: Abiogenesis is an absurdity, mathematically. I just can't buy the change of DNA info on such

318

levels it is too complex. Evolutionist: It is not. Look at an embryology book it is very explainable. Matt: Embryonic recapitulation? Evolutionist: No, more than phylogenetic recapitulation. Matt: What do you mean? Evolutionist: Okay. First how much paleo do you know for the evolution of life to modern. Matt: Very little. I know mathematics a bit. Evolutionist: You have to know the evolutionary trend of light reception? Ok, then we can start at the beginning. Matt: I know that the DNA molecule is extremely complex. Evolutionist: Yes and you are going to quote the probability against abiogenesis. Matt: Do you agree that abiogenesis is impossible mathematically? Evolutionist: No I dont. It is not impossible. See, the math is all wrong. For a thorough defense by someone that knows more than I, go to www.talkorigins.org. Matt: Ive seen stuff like that. Matt: Ive done my own calculations. Permutations on gene sequence is functionally zero when it comes to abiogenesis. Evolutionist: What is the highest level of math you have had? Matt: Some calculus. Evolutionist: This will end in no new light being shed. Ive heard and defended against these arguments. I am wasting my time. Sorry. Matt: Okay. Matt: Are all the missing links found? Evolutionist: No they arent. We will always be finding more. There is only negative evidence for a deity. Matt: You mean that the evidence of the eye and how it must have 'evolved' by chance all with concurrent development before the whole can work is NOT evidence against evolution? Matt: Youre not qualified as a theologian are you? Evolutionist: I am a reverend of the Universal Life Church. Matt: In other words, you're not qualified. Evolutionist: I am a scientist. I only deal in testable facts not opinion. I have little theological training but I have philosophical training. You have a blind argument requiring faith. Science does not require faith. Matt: I have evidence. Evolutionist: Then enter it but it must be testable, passing the double blind test. If it is scientific, publish it. Youll be famous and change the world forever. Matt: Oh, I see, any evidence I have must meet YOUR criteria? Okay, I can play that game too. Evolutionist: No it must meet scientific criteria to be entered. Not mine. Matt: When you stack the cards, you always win.or think you do. Matt: The scientific method is not flawless. It is only as good as those who are using it. You are a sinner. You're mind is affected by sin as is your will. Evolutionist: But science is self-correcting, theology is not. Prove sin. Prove will. Matt: What makes you think science is self-correcting? It has lead to survival of the fittest in society. It is not evolutionary theory that stops the man in the alley from bashing your brains and robbing you, it is God in his heart. Evolutionist: Dont even tell me that it is god. And why is he lurking in the ally anyway? Thats the monkey juic es flowing. Evolutionist: 79% of all inmates convicted of violent crime is of a Judeo-Christian orientation. Matt: Really? Wow. Does that also go for atheistic Russias political system as well as China's that have murdered millions? Matt: Don't you see? Presuppositions cause you and me to see things differently. You must believe in evolution . Your god is science. You have faith in it. My faith is in God. You have faith that it will answer all questions. Evolutionist: No. I know it wont answer all questions where you think that religion can. I dont have faith. Evolution stands with or without my beliefs. It is TESTABLE. Matt: So is my faith. Matt: Religion cannot answer all questions. Neither can Christianity. That is what happens when you encounter God. You encounter areas that you cannot fathom.

319

Evolutionist: Ok you believe in a god, a non-provable god. Science asks where did he come from. Your answer is that God is the only causeless cause. Matt: Yep. Time is a function of matter, correct? Time exists when matter exists. You know this, right? Evolutionist: We are at an impasse, good day sir. Matt: Hold on. Matt: God is outside of time. Therefore, he can be the uncaused cause. Matt: That is perfectly logical. Evolutionist: Im going. Evolution is a fact. It is empirical evidence. It is dialogues like this that help me understand the areas in which I need to improve. What the heck is neotony, heterochrony? What is the scientific definition of empirical evidence? Though Ive read books on evolution (pro and con), I still have a lot to learn.

320

Discussion with a Jehovah's Witness about a relationship with Jesus

This brief dialogue with a Jehovah's Witness is representative of a problem they have with a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. Since they believe that Jesus is a created thing, they are not allowed to pray to Him. This means they cannot talk to Him. The question I kept asking was how do you have a relationship with someone you never talk to? This Jehovah's Witness tried to explain it, but couldn't adequately explain how anyone can have a relationship with someone they don't talk to. Matt: I have a question. Do you have devotions, personal devotions? Ted: You mean prayer? Matt: Where you open the Bible, read just it, pray, read.... talk to God... pray... read... Ted: Sure, all the time. That is prayer, read, meditate get holy spirit to understand. Sometimes I get an answer to my questions that way. Matt: I feel for you Ted: Likewise. And if the end comes soon I will think about you. Matt: How so? if I am wrong, annihilation. So what? If you are wrong, eternal conscious torment. Ted: Death is an enemy as Paul says. Matt: Truth is the solution Ted: I know and I am glad I have it. Matt: Well, I have Jesus, a relationship with Him. I always have... from the first moment of my conversion when He came to me. I've always known Him... since then. Ted: I have a relationship with both the Father and the Son and am on a first name basis with both of them. Matt: And do you talk to Jesus? Ted: No, I call on the name of Jesus by praying to the Father through him. Matt: How do you have a relationship with someone you never talk to. Ted: Because he uses me. The Father instructs him how to use me. Matt: You didn't answer it. Matt: You and I have a relationship. We communicate with each other. Matt: I have a relationship with Jesus. I speak to him... I "hear" Him..... He speaks to me... Matt: relationship.... You don't have that with Jesus. Ted: Well, actually neither do you. Matt: I speak with him regularly. I am aware of his presence.... though I admit, I sometimes ignore it. Matt: I know the intimacy of communion with Him.... of speaking His name to Him, of praising the Lamb and saying Holy Holy Holy to him. Matt: You cannot do that. You cannot pray to Him and talk to Him. I can. You cannot come to Him and ask Him anything. I can...and I do. Matt: I have no one telling me to do it or not. I hear Him call me in my heart into His presence. Matt: Do you have that with Him? Ted: The Father is the one who gives all gifts. He is the one we need to ask. Matt: Jesus said "Come to me" (Matt. 11:27-28). Have you done that? Ted: Yup, he lead me the Father (John 14:6). Matt: Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:19-20). He forgives sin. Have you gone to Him and asked him to forgive you. Matt: The Father will honor us if we serve Jesus - John 12:26 Matt: The Father tells us to listen to Jesus - Luke 9:35; Matt. 17:5 Matt: The Father tells us to come to Jesus - John 6:45 Matt: The Father draws us to Jesus - John 6:44 Matt: If you have the Father, then you will come to Jesus, listen to Jesus, be drawn to Jesus, serve Jesus, etc. Matt: Is that what you do? Ted: Once one is drawn to the Father through Jesus then he prays to the Father in Jesus' name. That is what Jesus taught us to do. And that is what I do. Matt: And how do you have a relationship with someone you never talk to?

321

Ted: Because he is used by the Father to guide me with the Holy Spirit. So when I pray to the Father for assistance and I feel the Holy Spirit it is Jesus who is operating the spirit. Matt: But, how do you have a relationship with someone you never talk to? Ted: I understand that you feel you talk to Jesus and he answers you. But most Trinitarians do not hear Jesus literally. Matt: Please explain how you have a relationship with someone you never talk to.... Ted: Tell me how you have a relationship with someone who does not talk to you. Matt: You can't. Ted: Does the Father talk to you? Do you hear him audibly? Matt: Now, please tell me how do you have a relationship with someone you never talk to... Matt: Can you please answer my question? Ted: I asked you one. Matt: I answered. Ted: I want to know if the Father speaks audibly to you. Matt: The Father calls me into intimacy with the Son (1 Cor. 1:9). So, in order to do that, I must speak to the Lord Jesus. Matt: The focus is on Jesus and I think you are simply trying to avoid the issue. Ted: But you do not hear the voice of the Father. Ted: If you say you have a relationship with the Father (as I do) then how is that possible if he does not talk to you. Matt: I have asked you how you can have a relationship with someone you never talk to. Can you please explain how that is possible? Ted: The same way I have a relationship with the Father. I talk to him and he answers me with Jesus. Matt: You have a relationship with the Father... He speaks to you through the word, right? You pray to Him, right? Matt: But, how do you have a relationship with Jesus since you never talk to Him? Ted: I pray to the Father. He answers by having Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to me. Ted: I have a relationship with both of them in that way. Matt: But, how do you have a relationship with Jesus if you never talk to Him? Ted: One cannot have a relationship with the Father independent of the Son and vice versa. Matt: Correct. Without either, you have neither. Ted: Then one cannot pray to Jesus without the Father. Matt: But how do you have a relationship with Jesus, since you never talk to Him? Matt: it isn't a relationship with Jesus at all. You don't have one. Ted: I need to eat dinner Ted: talk to you later!

322

Can the Muslim do enough good works to go to paradise?

This dialogue is very typical of discussions with Muslims. Abdul (not his real name) would not stick to the topic. When he was faced with a difficult question, he tried to go on the attack by not answering the question. Instead, he attempted to prove Christianity is wrong. But, he failed to answer the main question I continued to ask him. When dialoguing with people, it is best to try and keep them on one subject instead of letting them lead you all around the place. Abdul: ...download a copy of Quran Matt: Are you going to paradise? Abdul: Going to paradise or hell is in the hands of God. But worshipping a false God, makes u that much closer to hell. Matt: I asked you a question and you did not answer. Abdul: I told you. I answered your question. I said, going to hell or heaven is in the hands of God Matt: I didn't ask you in whose hands it is. I asked if you were going to paradise. Abdul: I believe God has the answer for that. Matt: I asked YOU a question. Have you done enough good works? Is your scale tilting in your favor? Abdul: What scale ?? Where is the scale? Who has the scale? I don't have a scale, I don't see a scale, its God who is in control and who knows the unseen. It is God who knows where I will go, hell or heaven. Matt: "To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward" (Surah 5:9). (A Surah is a chapter in the Quran) Matt: "O you who believe! If you are careful of (your duty to) Allah, He will grant you a distinction and do away with your evils and forgive you; and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace," (8:29, online, trans. by M.H. Shakir). Abdul: Yea it is Allah who will forgive. It is not in our hands. Matt: "Then those whose balance (of good deeds ) is heavy, they will be successful. But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls; in hell will they abide," (23:102-103). Abdul: Where is the balance? Matt: "And We set a just balance for the Day of Resurrection so that no soul is wronged in aught. Though it be of the weight of a grain of mustard seed, We bring it. And We suffice for reckoners," (21:47). Abdul: The balance is with God. Matt: "They are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of Judgment, give them any weight," online Qur'an, 18:105 Abdul: He is the one who weighs our deeds. Matt: Is your scale tilting in your favor? Are you doing enough good or will you go to hell? Have you been good enough? Abdul: I will know that on the judgment day. Until then, we can just hope for the best> Matt: That is all you have? That's it? Abdul: I do good deeds, and leave the rest to God. I do bad deeds and seek Allah's forgiveness. Matt: 1 John 5:13, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life." Matt: In Christianity, we can NEVER do enough to please God. He is far too holy and perfect for that. Therefore HE arranges forgiveness for us, in Jesus. Abdul: Okay, go on. Matt: We trust in what JESUS did, NEVER in what we do. Abdul: I am listening. Matt: We can NEVER measure up to God. Abdul: So what Jesus did takes you to heaven, right? Matt: What Jesus did was pay for my sins so that I might trust in what HE did and not me. That by faith I am saved and I am saved NOW. Matt: Then...because I am saved... then.... I serve God with love Abdul: Is it ok to punish an innocent person in place of the culprit?

323

Matt: did God punish Jesus or did man do that? God did not punish Jesus. People, by their evil deeds killed Jesus. Abdul: I am asking u a question. Answer me. Matt: God simply let them do it so that we might be saved. Abdul: Is it OK to kill your neighbor, for your deeds? Matt: It is not right to punish an innocent person. Abdul: Do u agree Jesus was sinless? Matt: Yes, Jesus was sinless (1 Pet. 2:22). Abdul: Ok. Matt: Was Muhammad sinless? Abdul: Is it ok, for a innocent person like Jesus to be punished for all the evil persons in the world? Is that fair? Matt: Wrong question. Did God punish Jesus? Abdul: No. I am asking about your concepts. Matt: No. God did not punish Jesus. So your question does not apply to Jesus. Abdul: You believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins? Matt: It was the Pharisees and the Romans who worked together to kill Jesus. God knew what would happen to Jesus and allowed it. Abdul: Wrong again. It was the Jews who killed Jesus. Matt: If I am wrong, prove it. Abdul: God knows everything that happens, and still he lets it happen. Matt: The Romans nailed him to the cross. There were six trials. Three before the Romans and three before the Jews...and yes, God let it happen. And while Jesus was on the cross, somehow, someway, He then bore our sins (1 Pet. 2:24). Abdul: God also knew that Jews will be killed by Hitler, yet he let it be ?? Matt: Stick to the subject. Abdul: And Hitler goes to heaven, because his sins has been forgiven because Jesus died for him. Abdul: And the Jews go to hell, because they didn't believe in Jesus. That's not a fair God you know. Matt: Hitler denied God. Hitler was not a Christian. He denied God. He is not saved. Abdul: We Muslims believe that every individual is responsible to his/her own actions. Matt: Christians believe that too. Matt: But, how can you possibly believe you can ever do more good works than bad and please an infinite God? Abdul: We Muslims don't believe that someone died for our sins. Matt: Are you good enough to do that? Abdul: Did u know that the concept God's son dying for the sins of others is not of Christianity? Did u know that? It existed much before Christianity. In fact 1500 years before Christianity. Matt: You are not answering my question. Abdul: You answer me. Why should I believe in Jesus. Abdul: Prove to me that Jesus is God. Matt: Are you good enough to do more good works than bad and please an infinite God? Abdul: Have you heard about ADONIS? Matt: You do not stay on the subject. You jump around. I have asked you a question and you do not want to discuss it. Matt: It is your method simply to jump around and try different attacks. I have answered you and now request you to answer me. Matt: Are you good enough to do more good works than bad and please an infinite God? Matt: I am asking you this question: Are you good enough to do more good works than bad and please an infinite God? Abdul: As you say Jesus died for our sins 2000 years ago. What about the people before 2000 years ago? They didn't have the opportunity to get to know Jesus. Do they go to hell then? Matt: Are you good enough to do more good works than bad and please an infinite God? Abdul: What about people like Abraham, people like Moses? Matt: Are you good enough to do more good works than bad and please an infinite God? Abdul: What about them? Matt: Are you good enough to do more good works than bad and please an infinite God? Abdul: Think about it and read the Quran. Matt: If you cannot answer me, then tell me you cannot answer.

324

Abdul: You will get to know what is the truth. Matt: The truth is in Jesus (John 1:17). Matt: Are you good enough to do more good works than bad and please an infinite God? If you say yes, then you are arrogant. If you say no, then you are lost. Abdul: Millions across the world are learning the truth and reverting to Islam in hoards. Matt: Well, God did say that in the last days a great deception would come on the world. Matt: Now, I ask you again, Are you good enough to do more good works than bad and please an infinite God? Abdul: Well the deception is already exists. Matt: "Then those whose balance (of good deeds ) is heavy, they will be successful. But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls; in hell will they abide," (23:102-103). Abdul: Your believing Jesus as God, that deception is true. Matt: Why do you not answer my question? Matt: "Then those whose balance (of good deeds ) is heavy, they will be successful. But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls; in hell will they abide," (23:102-103). Matt: I ask you again, Are you good enough to do more good works than bad and please an infinite God? Abdul: I answered your question long back. Matt: No. You answered a question I did not ask. Matt: I ask you again, are you good enough to do more good works than bad and please an infinite God? Abdul: We as humans can do the best to please God, by doing good deeds, but its ultimately up to god whether he is pleased with us or not. Its all in Almighty God and we will find that out in the judgment day. Matt: I did not ask if you could please God by doing your best. I asked you if are you good enough to do more good works than bad and please an infinite God? Abdul: I told you, a human being can do his best to please his master. Matt: Can you please answer the question I ask instead of answering ones I do not ask? Matt: I ask you again, are you good enough to do more good works than bad and please an infinite God? Abdul: I believe in one God and worship him alone, that is the greatest act of good deed in the eyes of god Matt: I see you cannot answer my question. Abdul: On the other hand, If I worship a man, who I think as God, then that act is the worst in the eyes of God, and I will surely go to hell. Matt: Again, you did not answer me. Abdul: I have answered you again, sir. Abdul: Its you who has closed your eyes. Open them and seek the truth Matt: Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Matt: I believe what Jesus said. HE alone is the way. Not Muhammad, not your works. Matt: I have eternal life because of what Jesus did. Not because of what I do. Matt: You do not have eternal life because you must earn it. The dialogue simply ended here. Please notice how this Muslim did not really address the question I asked. He gave answers to questions that were close, but not to the one I kept asking. The truth is that he knows he is not good enough and as soon as he answers that I would then bring up the Quran which talks about the scale and then I'd simply ask him if he is doing enough good works? Is anyone doing enough good works to please an infinitely holy God? I don't see how that is possible. Instead, people need the free gift of salvation in Jesus Christ who is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9). Only in Jesus is their forgiveness of sins because it is impossible to please God by what we do.

325

Discussion on how God can be one person as flesh and spirit.

This dialogue began after I made a comment about the error of oneness theology in a chat room. Gary responded to me and we had the following dialogue. Please note that during the dialogue I attempted to get Gary to see how confusing his position on the Godhead really is. Also, oneness theology teaches that God is one person, not three as in the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I begin the dialogue here with diagnostic questions trying to determine exactly what this guy believes. I then continued by trying to hammer on his answers looking for any inconsistency.

Matt: Is Jesus a man right now? Gary: Yes, in the Form of the Holy Ghost, Jesus is man, Jesus is also at the same time, Sprit in heaven Matt: Does Jesus, right now, the person of Jesus, have holes in His wrists and feet? Gary: In Glorified form, in heaven, yes he does Gary: Have you never read about Thomas? Matt: Thomas in John 20:28? Yes. And Jesus is a man, right? Therefore, he is a person, right? Gary: Yes, Jesus is a person, a man and more. Matt: So, if Jesus is a person, then who is the Holy Spirit? Gary: Jesus Matt: So, the Holy Spirit has a body of flesh and bones with holes in his feet and hands? Gary: Holy Spirit is not a name. Holy Spirit describes an aspect of God. Matt: In the Bible, the Holy Spirit speaks, Acts 13:2; The Holy Spirit loves (Rom. 15:30); The Holy Spirit has a will (1 Cor. 12:11). Just like the Father. Matt: Jesus speaks to the Father. The Father speaks about the Son and to others, while Jesus is on earth! Gary: The Holy Spirit and the Father are one in the same Matt: Each person, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have a will. Gary: Yes, God was fully man, and fully God. Matt: Are the Father and the Son the same person? Gary: Yes absolutely Matt: Okay, now, let me ask you this. A person has a will, right? Matt: If the Son is actually the Father, then that means there is only one will, right? Gary: I would have to study the definition of person more to adequately answer that Matt: Faith enough. Gary: There is God in divine nature, and God in the Form of Christ, so yes they have one will Matt: A person has "personhood". That is, a person is self aware, speaks, says "you" "yours", "me," "mine," etc. Okay, if they have one will then why was the will of the Son different than that of the Father? Matt: "And he was withdrawn from them about a stones cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, 42 Saying, 'Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done,'" (Luke 22:42). Gary: Yes, absolutely. But it is like when you work out and your body screams at you, stop, I am tired, but in your heart of hearts, you go and drive against the nature of the flesh. Matt: You mean that Jesus' body was talking to God? It wasn't the person of Jesus that was speaking? Gary: Not at all, mind body spirit we can have more than one will Matt: If they are the same person, then they have one will, as you said. But, we see that the will of the Son was different than that of the Father, hence, two persons. Gary: I think you are confused Matt: No, I think you are confused. You are telling me that the body of Jesus was speaking to the Father. You are telling me that the Father who is the Son has two different wills on the same subject at the same time. Gary: Yes, as the son, he has the will of the flesh.

326

Matt: So, are you saying that the will of the flesh was talking to the Father? Matt: Then where was Jesus? Was He not a man? Matt: Did He not have flesh and blood? Matt: Or was the Spirit of God in heaven and the flesh- man called Jesus on earth? Gary: Yes, you make my point well Matt: I see. So then, it really wasn't an incarnation was it? Matt: It really wasn't God in flesh. It was flesh only. Gary: Yes it sure was Matt: If it was, how can this be since you divide Christ up into the Father in heaven and the flesh on earth. That is not an incarnation. Gary: NO, it was God putting on flesh, real flesh and blood. Matt: Then was Jesus God in flesh or not? Matt: If He was God in flesh, then who was He talking to in Heaven? Matt: If Jesus is the Father, than was the Father in heaven and in the body of Christ at the same time? Matt: Was it the Father that was incarnated in the Son? Gary: It was God in the limitations of the human form, crying out to the God in his unlimited divine nature. Matt: You aren't answering my question. Matt: Was it the Father that was incarnated in the Son? Gary: No, it, was GOD incarnated in the Son. Father, is just a hat he wears. Matt: Then is God the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Gary: I am a son, and I can be a father, and more, but I am only one. Matt: If Jesus is God, the totality of God, then who was the Father who was speaking to Jesus at the same time that Jesus was God? Matt: Can you answer that question? Gary: God is Father, Son, Spirit, and so much more Matt: But, Jesus spoke TO the Father. The Father spoke TO the Son. Matt: Who are they? Matt: The same? The same person? Gary: HE is God, the same person. Matt: The same person speaking to himself in different forms and different names? Gary: Yes, for our benefit. Matt: And the same person disagreeing with himself? Gary: Yes. Matt: So the Father who was the Son disagreed with the Son who is really the Father, right? Matt: And the Son did the will of the FATHER which is different than the will of the Son, who are really the same person, right? Gary: Yes they are. Matt: I see... So, the Father and the Son are the same person, but they have different wills? Gary: Yes they sure could at times. Matt: They could? So, what you are telling me is that God is really one person, who displays himself as Father and Son at the same time, who really has ONE will, but displays two that disagree with each other, right? Gary: Yes. Flesh disagrees with spirit. Matt: Wait. Was the Flesh the Father? Because you said that the Son and the Father are the same. If they are, then the Son was a man, then the Father was flesh, right? Gary: I think you are confused. God is the same. Matt: No, I think YOU are confused. I am just repeating back to you what you are teaching. Matt: You see the confusion in what is being said. That is good. Gary: I am not teaching anything. I see one mixed up puppy chatting at me. Matt: Yes you are teaching. You are trying to teach me that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all the same person. Matt: I am trying to get you to see that you aren't making any sense. Matt: You have the Father and the Son being the same person who disagree with each other, which really isn't "each other" it is really Himself.

327

Matt: You have God as flesh disagreeing with God as spirit. Gary: Timothy 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." Gary: I think you are getting titles mixed up with God. Matt: If Jesus was flesh disagreeing with the Father, then how can a single person have a disagreement with himself and have a conversation with himself at the same time? Matt: Also, appealing to mystery at this point only tells me that you can't logically explain your position and that you see it is confusing. Gary: I think you don't get it. I think you are trying to chop up God into the boxes you want to put him in. Matt: No. I am trying to get you to see that your view of God doesn't ma ke sense. Matt: I am not chopping God up, you are. Matt: You have him part flesh, part spirit, part father, part son who all are not really different, but all the same person who talk to themselves but it really isn't themselves, it is really ITSELF. Matt: You have the flesh of God incarnate disagreeing with the Spirit of God in heaven. Matt: But if that is true, then there is no incarnation and your view of Jesus' sacrifice is useless. Gary: How so? Please explain? Matt: You don't have a real incarnation. You don't have the person of God incarnating. Gary: My view of God makes perfect sense Matt: It makes perfect sense? hardly. Gary: God is one God, who holds many positions, yet remains one God. Matt: You cannot see that the Son speaks TO the Father. They have different wills, at the same time, on the same subject: the crucifixion ordeal I mentioned earlier in Luke 22:42 in the Garden. Gary: One person, with many hats, I do not see what is so confusing about that? Matt: The Father has a will. The Son has a will. Matt: They each have wills. Matt: Jesus isn't just flesh. He is God incarnate, the Word incarnate, the Word who was WITH God (John 1:1,14). Matt: The Son speaks TO the Father. They converse. Matt: They have identities Matt: But you mix them up. Matt: You have the Son be something that is or isn't God in flesh. Matt: He is somehow the flesh talking to the spirit as if the flesh has its own personality that can communicate. Matt: Is Jesus neither or both sprit and flesh? Matt: You divide him up into parts and have one part talk to another. Matt: Is this what it means to be a man? to have your flesh actually SPEAK out loud to your SPIRIT that is in a different location? Matt: That makes no sense at all. At this point, he stopped posting. It was probably because he was getting frustrated trying to explain the same thing to me. But, he could not see that he wasn't making any sense at all

328

A Satanist judges God

This conversation with a Satanist demonstrates the difficulty with dealing with someone whose mind is made up on an issue. All we can do attempt to answer questions and objections and pray that the Holy Spirit will open his heart and mind. Matt: Someone said you were interested in talking to me. No biggie. Are you a satanist? Len: I don't know if I am a Satanist per say. But, how about you start by explaining the book of Job to me. How is the God portrayed in Job, a merciful and just one? Matt: God wanted the angels, Lucifer included, to come before him. God pointed out Job. Lucifer complained, God gave him permission to afflict him. Lucifer did... Job didn't sin in rebellion....Lucifer was wrong. God is sovereign. He can do as He wishes. Len: Why would a merciful God give Satan permission to afflict a faithful servant? Matt: Why not? Isn't it merciful to even let Job live who is a sinner? Len: Is that "just" and "merciful?" Matt: Hasn't God been offended? Len: Job was not a sinner. Matt: Yes he was... Let's look at this for just a minute. Len: Job was a faithful servant. Matt: Yes... but he is human. Humans sin. Are you saying he never sinned? Len: As a matter of fact, if you read Job, then you know that he was one of the most faithful of God's servants. That is why he was chosen. So God could win his little bet with Satan. Matt: Okay. No problem there. Are you saying that Job never sinned? Len: No. But he was a FAITHFUL servant, was he not? Matt: Yes, but that does not mean he wasn't a sinner. Len: He was faithful, and a "merciful" God gave him into the hands of Satan? Are you kidding me? That is "just" and "merciful?" Matt: Okay, let's start from the beginning. God is holy, right? Len: Sure. Matt: Has God ever sinned, or can He sin? Len: Nope. Matt: God is just, right? Len: Nope. Matt: Then you are accusing him of sinning, right? If He is sinless, then He is just. If He is not just, He is a sinner. Which is it? Is He sinless and just or is He a sinner and not just? Len: No. Sin is an act against God. He can't sin, that would be a conundrum, would it not? Matt: Yes it would. God cannot do anything wrong, correct? Len: Don't even give me this "whatever God does is right" bull. No, he is not always just. Sinning and being "unjust" are two different things. Matt: If He is not just, then you are accusing him of doing wrong. Len: I am accusing him of wrong doing. Matt: So you are judging God then, correct? Len: Of course. Matt: So you, a mere person, a sinner, is telling me that you know that God does wrong. You are sitting there telling me that you are judging God, correct? Len: Yes. I am. Am I gonna go to hell now? Are you going to judge me? Matt: I'm not judging you. You are judging God. On what basis do you justify judging God? Len: I judge God on his actions. I judge him as I would judge anyone else. If he were a human, he would not be seen as "just and merciful." Damn right I am judging God. Matt: So, it is not okay for me to make a judgment on you, but it is okay for you to judge God Almighty? Well? I do not think that I did all that well in this conversation. My goal was to move him closer to the Lord, and it seems I failed to do that. All that we can do as Christians in situations like this is to do our best. It is easy to look back on something like this and find better things that could have been said. Nevertheless, even failures can be used to teach us

329

An Atheist Says There Is No Evidence for God

This short dialogue deals with evidence for God's existence. Though the discussion didn't really examine any proofs for God, it dealt more with Dan's presuppositions and what evidence he would accept as sufficient to show that God exists. Matt: Why is it that you do not believe in God? Dan: Because there is no evidence that he exists. Matt: You cant say that because you have not looked at all evidence in the world. That isnt possible. Dan: Lets just say I dont see sufficient evidence for gods existence. Matt: But, if a person asked you what kind of things youd accept, within reason, as evidence for God, what would you say? If you have nothing to offer, then you havent thought your position through... and if you havent done that, then can you honestly lay claim to the title atheist? Dan: Come up with a way that you would believe in unicorns, and Ill show you a way to fake it. You come up with an air tight way to believe in unicorns, then get back to me about the illogic of my position. Matt: The way to believe in unicorns is to find one, or have pictures of one, or a fossil of one, or a bunch of people who said they saw one, and they all described, basically the same thing: a unicorn. That would be a way. Dan: Well, how about, if he [God] could do something that was clearly illogical, like make a square circle, and show it to me. Then I would believe. Matt: A square circle is a non-sequitur. It is self contradictory by definition. God cannot violate his own nature. Besides how would you comprehend such a contradictory thing if it somehow were able to be done? You wouldnt know it and your proof would be useless since you couldnt understand it. Besides, it cant be done anyway. Dan: Why not? Matt: Can you violate your own nature? Can you will yourself to be bigger than the sun? Dan: No, but if there is a god, Id expect him to exist outside of logic. Matt: Perhaps, but not against logic since He created it. Dan: If he created logic, why cant He do things that run against it? Matt: If God created the universe and everything in it, then he created it out of his own nature. The design and natural laws had to originate in His mind. Therefore, it will have His characteristics woven into it: logic, physics, etc. These are all reflections of Gods awesome creative character. Also, since God is self-sufficient, He cannot be self contradictory. Otherwise, He could not sustain Himself. Therefore, He cannot violate His own nature. Dan: So? Is he limited to the things he built into the universe? Isnt he omnipotent? Matt: Yes.... Dan: Why cant he act against His own universe? Matt: He could. He could destroy the entire universe. But He chooses not to. Dan: What a crock. Just like I could stomp the earth and crush all armies with a wave of my hand. I just choose not to. Your argument isnt valid. Matt: Why? Just because God doesnt choose to do something He has the power to do, it does not mean He does not exist. After all, does it prove that you do not exist if you choose not to do something you could do? If you choose not to clap your hands right now, does that mean you do not exist? Of course not. Matt: Think about this. God choosing to not exercise His will in something is the same as you choosing not to exercise belief in a god. You could, you just dont. Both are a lack of action. So, how can you complain against God for not moving according to your criteria, when you choose to not move at all and believe in Him? At this point, the conversation ended.....I believe that Dan was incapable of finding God because he had a false method of verifying evidence for God. He seemed to require evidence that was naturally impossible. I attempted to show him the error in his logic.

330

An Atheist Says He Knows There Is No God

This atheist actually believed he knew for a fact that there was no God. I found that position to be interesting and, quite honestly, not possible. Also, he and I discussed faith a bit towards the end. Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism. Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one? Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist Matt: Ill explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort. Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist. Matt: Then you know there is no God? Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes.. Atheist: Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism... Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist... Matt: That is what I said...which are you? Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained... Matt: So, you know there is no god? Atheist: Yes. Matt: How can you know that? Atheist: It's a reasonable assumption Atheist: If you want a definitive answer. Atheist: Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it. Matt: Then you cannot KNOW there is no God. Your strong atheism is illogical. Atheist: Let's look at Christianity. It runs on faith. Faith is not logical. It gives credence to unicorns, goblins and thing s that go bump in the night. Matt: Nope. The subject is your atheism. Please don't try to change the subject. Atheist: The subject can jump where ever. Matt: Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God. Atheist: I will defend, but also place in attack. Try to defend faith Matt: One subject at a time.... Matt: You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical. Atheist: You can never see all evidences but that does not mean there is a god. Matt: Correct. Atheist: No, that means there is not enough information for a conclusion. So we make assumptions as best we can according to our knowledge... Matt: But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical. Atheist: My knowledge of the human brain leads me to believe there is no god... Matt: Then that means there MIGHT be a God, because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic. Atheist: And so must you... But you picked a side. Matt: Then it [your atheism] is not logical, but only assumptions you base your atheism on. Your atheism is untenable.... You must admit that agnosticism is more logically viable. Matt: If you admit that, we can discuss my faith. Atheist: I'm not ignorant to say I don't use faith. But only the usage of faith in a situation that remains provable Matt: So, are you agnostic or atheist? Which is it? Atheist: Atheist. Matt: You've lost the argument. Sorry... Atheist: Wrong. What your doing is a ploy. You bring me over.. but you stay the same. Either you

331

must mo ve over as well or the argument is mute in the first place. One can not keep faith and call his beliefs logical. Atheist: For a bit I will stray over to the agnostic side. But I am willing to state instances where I believe prove my contention that there is no god. Matt: You have been cornered.... It is not logical for you to claim strong atheism. You have not seen all the facts. Therefore, the possibility of God's existence is real. Therefore, you must admit that agnosticism is more logical in this situation. Matt: Alright, Let's talk faith. Atheist: Alright faith. you first. Matt: I believe God exists. I have faith that he exists. Atheist: Proof Matt: I have none. Atheist: No proof with faith. So, do you always believe in things that you can not prove? Matt: No... not at all... I have evidences, but they cannot lead to 100% proof or else all could be forced to believe. But, if there is enough evidence, I do believe. Atheist: So you must be agnostic in that sense as well. Matt: No... because I make choices. Though it is possible for my faith to be proven wrong, I still rest on the evidences and draw logical conclusions. Atheist: Evidence.... Matt: Yes.... Atheist: Then you disregard one of the most fundamental rules of the game... Matt: Which is? Atheist: "Where ever knowledge is incomplete, there is a place for "faith;" but where ever knowledge and "faith" conflict, it is "faith" which must be modified or abandoned." Matt: Or the understanding must be reevaluated.... 'Facts' have been found to be wrong before. Atheist: Facts are not Truths. They are reasonable assumptions. I will get a dictionary definition for that one... Matt: That's fine. So what about it? What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to conclude there is a god? Atheist: Fact - Reality or actuality as distinguished to from conjecture or fantasy; Something known by observation or experience to be true or real. Matt: That's good.... Now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence? Atheist: An instance of superiority... Something humans could not do.. OR not be able to explained through phenomena but event then... Matt: That's good... now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence? Atheist: A universal movement. A stoppage of the planet. Nothing earthly. Matt: If that were to happen, would you conclude there was a god? Couldn't it be explained in other ways? Atheist: I would of course doubt it at first. I would look for an explanation... And for something like that I would probably find no reasonable explanation.. Matt: If you had could not find one, what would you conclude? Would you conclude that there is a god? or that you simply don't have all the facts? Atheist: You never have all of the facts... Reasonable assumptions, remember? Matt: Then you could not safely conclude it was the hand of God, could you? Atheist: Nope. that would be the only explanation that I could think of that would have the three means, opportunity. (forget motive) [I did not understand him here...] Matt: Then you couldn't know anything for sure, right? That is, if you don't have all the facts, all of them. Atheist: Haven't we already agreed you can never have all the facts? Matt: What you are telling me is that you have no real way of proving or disproving God. Matt: So then, doesn't it come down to faith based upon evidence? I have evidence.... Atheist: I have to go. Friends just arrived. Can we finish this later? Matt: If you want.... I'm not sure how it went with this atheist. But I hope some seeds were planted.

332

Sickness as an argument against God's existence

We jump into this conversation after I entered an atheist chat room and joined a dialogue about God and sickness. Vic, Phil, and Judy were the main participants. Vic and Phil are atheists and Judy is supposed to be a Christian, though I have my doubts based on her comments. Nevertheless, this dialogue was an attempt by me to experiment. I wanted to ask more questions than I answered and thus avoid a defense posture in an antagonistic setting. I don't know if I succeeded. But at least I gave it a try. Too many times the Christian is left defending himself while the atheists gang up and demand explanations for difficult issues. With this dialogue I thought I'd see if I could get the atheists to explain and defend their positions by asking them to make judgments on various issues. Vic: God cannot be good if he allows people to get sick with cancer because cancer is bad and God is supposed to be good. Matt: So... why is it that God is NOT supposed to make us sick or something? I mean, why not? Maybe he has a good reason. Maybe there is a good in it. Matt: Then again, maybe this is just what the world is like with sin in it. Besides, God doesn't owe me or you anything. Vic: God, who is our father, should not do bad things to us, such as give us cancer. Matt: oh.... Exodus 4:11 is a problem for you then. It says in there that God makes the eye blind, the ear deaf, etc. Phil: Matt, do you really think anyone here accepts that moldy text created by smelly sheep herders? Matt: I don't know.... is it an a priori that the texts are not reliable? Vic: Matt, Then he is not a good God is he? Matt: Vic, why would he not be good if he makes someone blind? Phil: Matt, perhaps sadistic would be the right term. Phil: Matt, is it the opposite? Given the many varied versions of God, the world-spirit, etc., why would it be wise to take the Bible at face value? Matt: The Bible is historically accurate, powerful, prophetic, etc. Matt: You aren't answering my question.... I see God as good... I don't understand what he does sometimes. But it does not change his nature. He is infinitely above me and permits things to happen. I DO take some things on faith. Vic: Matt, if I were to make you blind, by hitting you in the back of the head with a wooden board, we could all agree that I had done a bad thing, right? Matt: You.? Yes. If it were God...? Who am I to question? Phil: Matt, that is at best a statement based on faith, and has little to do with any objective criteria. Matt: Not true... I can look at the Bible and see its textual reliability, its spiritual truth, its accuracy, its prophecy, its patterns, messages, and make an intelligent decision based on it. Some things within it, I must take on faith. That is perfectly rational. Phil: Vick: Since God is beyond any human judgment, it really doesn't matter to a Christian. God can hurt anyone he/she/it wants to, and well, that's tough. Matt: Phil. That is correct. Vic: Matt, then you believe everything God does is automatically good, righteous, just? That he can do no wrong? That if he hits someone in the nose, it is good thing, although if I were to do that, I would have done a bad thing? Matt: Vic, correct. God can do no wrong. Matt: If God hit somebody in the nose, why did he do it? Was it to get his attention so he would jump out of the way of a train? Phil: Vic, in essence, Christians are, well, sadists. Vic: If he cannot do wrong, he is not very omnipotent then is he. Matt: Of course he is omnipotent, but he cannot violate his nature. Your logic is flawed. Please try and think more clearly. Phil: Vic, they enjoy the idea of an all-powerful God messing with them from time to time, so they can feel special in God's eyes. Matt: Well, if you're going to speak of God, at least do it realistically. Phil: Suffice it to say, there is no objective criteria for proving the validity of the Bible's claims.

333

Matt: Perhaps, but does that mean that it is not true? or that God is not knowable? Besides, it is historically and archaeologically accurate. That is validation. Phil: Matt, no, but it does mean that I shall suspect individuals who tell me to believe it or else. Vic: Matt, if God gives someone cancer, and they die from it, what was the purpose of that? Or can we write that one off as another example of, God works in mysterious ways? Phil: You must either accept or reject the Bible's claims at face value. Matt: Vic, let me ask you, if there is a God and he encompasses the universe, is it possible that he would work in ways that are beyond us? Is that possible? Phil: Matt, if there was a world-spirit and it encompasses the universe... is it possible that it would work in ways that are beyond us? Matt: yes.... Matt: Vic? Well? Vic: Matt, of course it is possible, although I would say it is unlikely. I don't see any reason why a god would not reveal all to us, and not try to hide things from us. Matt: If it is possible, then doesn't that mean that faith is necessary and logical at this point? Phil: Matt, No. Matt: Phil, why not? Matt: Hypothetical situations is a tool of theory and learning. Phil: Matt, hmm, because possibilities don't create probabilities, or certainties. Matt: But logic is still logic and God, if he made logic, can be found in it... Matt: Faith becomes logical when there is enough evidence to support it. Phil: But logic is still logic and giant pink invisible elephants, if they made logic, can be found in it... Judy: Matt, you cannot prove God. If you could, then I would want nothing to do with whatever "god" you prove. Phil: Matt, Judy is a Christian, by the way. Judy: There you go blowing my cover again. Phil: Or she was the last time I chatted with her. Perhaps she has given herself to the dark one these days. Judy: No way...even more fundie and conservative than ever. Phil: Good, glad to see things never change. Matt: I don't intend to prove God.... Phil: Matt, you could have fooled this crowd. Judy: Matt, what do you intend? Matt: I am trying to learn how atheists think so I can refute them better. Phil: Judy, he's here to dazzle us with verbiage and interesting sentence structures. Vic: You should be able to prove god exists. If he does, it should be entirely possible to produce a picture of him, or setup some press conference with him Matt: I have noticed a lot of condescension among atheists when speaking to Christians. Phil: Matt, hmm, well, it's just good-humored banter. Judy: Ha ha. So that's why you came here with a challenge and you were attempting to prove God's existence by logic and hypothetical situations? Matt: Judy, no... to see how you guys argue.... to see your logic... style, insults even. Judy: You guys? Matt: Yeah, you seem to be siding with them. Are you going to convert to atheism? Judy: No. You're the Christian preaching your logic. Matt: Do you want me to preach to you? Phil: Matt, preaching is not allowed on this channel. Matt: Just kidding. Matt: You atheists reject a priori the miraculous. What can I provide that you would not, by necessity, interpret in humanistic naturalistic presuppositions. Matt: Your assumptions make it impossible for you to be objective and to accurate examine all the facts. Phil: Matt, we could say the same of you old boy. Matt: Phil, yes you could... but at least I do not rule out the miraculous.... therefore, I am open to it. You, however, are not. Which is more 'open' to truth then?

334

Vic: Matt, I do not, although I have yet to meet a Christian who has not rejected the claims of the miraculous by Hindus a priori. Phil: Matt, I don't think the subject of the miraculous has been brought up. Still, I am in total agreement with Hume when he writes that the idea of proving miracles in and of itself undermines the whole worth of miracles. Matt: Vic, please clarify. Matt: Phil, miracles simply are... they happen. Phil: Matt, for you, I'm sure they do. Matt: All knowledge cannot be ascertained by logic or experiment. Judy: Hmmm. Vic: Matt, are the miraculous events witnessed by Hindus the result of Aryan Gods, or the Hebrew Gods? Matt: They are demonic miracles. Jesus stated that the ungodly can perform miracles... but not by the power of God. Vic: Matt, the Hindu gods being demons then? Matt: Vic, yes. Phil: Vic, Well, any other god would be a demon, or a mere human creation, apparently. Matt: Phil. That is correct. At this point the conversation just died as often happens in chat rooms. I don't know if I accomplished anything in this dialogue, but it is at least another step in the right direction of trying to find ways to answer atheists.

335

Discussion with an obnoxious atheist

Nick is an atheist who sought me out for a dialogue. Not all atheists are as obnoxious as this one. I tried to be civil with him but he became quite rude. Such discussions rarely accomplish anything. I bleeped out a few of his "colorful" words. I failed to save the first few lines so it just jumps right in. Nick: I am an Atheist. Matt: It seems to me you already have you mind made up and trying to change it won't make any difference.... Nick: Nothing funnier than self-righteous indignation... Matt: You want me to be reasonable, but you have started off unreasonably. Nick: OK .. let me re-approach. Matt: Good idea. Nick: Matt. I love your dialogues with Atheist on carm.org. It's an extremely intelligent site. I Love it. Matt: Thanks. Nick: I may learn from it. Matt: Good. Nick: But I have questions. Matt: Okay, that was better, now go ahead and attack. I'm ready. Nick: Hope you log this one. Matt: You want me to? Nick: I wanna see it appear on carm.org Nick: ;-) Nick: Again let me repost: What makes you so sure that your Christian idea of the universe is better than all the other religions? Where's your evidence to disprove the validity of other religions? Matt: That is quite a question. Let me wade through it slowly. Nick: Just try it. I know your going to wimp out on this one. ;-) Matt: First of all, I don't begin with trying to disprove other religions. I begin with demonstrating the validity of Christianity. Matt: Once that is done, the other ones fall by the wayside. The Bible is quite reliable historically, archaeologically, prophetically, etc. Matt: It has Jesus' words and deeds in it, which are, to say the least, miraculous. In short (very short), I believe the eyewitness accounts of His miracles....of the fulfilled prophecies...of the accurate accounts, historically, of the Bible, etc. It is quite logically to conclude it is truthful. Nick: What, you think there haven't been thousands of gods invented throughout human history ??? Matt: In it, Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life. Matt: Therefore, Jesus said all other systems are false. I believe what Jesus said. Simple. Nick: Why do you twisted morons insist that these stupid rules your Christian masters made up from thin air actually apply to everybody? Matt: I think you missed the whole point. Matt: You ignored the reasoning... Nick: Allah created the universe. The Koran is the story (Islam) Matt: Ah, I see... you ask for reason and when I give it to you, you ignore it and make emotional accusations. Nick: Shiva created the universe....mahabharata is the story (Hinduism) Nick: Spirits created the universe...our ancestors tell the story Indians) Nick: God created the universe......The bible is the story (Christianity) Matt: yeah... ? so? Nick: Pink Turtles created the universe... Told by a friend at a party (drunkenness) Matt: Jesus said they were all wrong when He said He was the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). I believe Him. Nick: Now, which one of these is valid? If one is valid, then all others must be invalid. Or none are valid at all. Matt: Now, please, can you tell me why I shouldn't believe what Jesus said? Nick: For the world cannot be created more than once by different entities if it was not destroyed first. The Koran can't be the story of creation if the Bible is.

336

Matt: Jesus said they were all wrong when He said He was the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). I believe Him. Now, please, can you tell me why I shouldn't believe what Jesus said? Nick: Matt, I will tell you why this way, how can you reasonably reject every other religion in the world except yours? They've all got musty old books of myths. Matt: ... and please, one comment at a time..... Matt: Can you please tell me why I should reject the words of Jesus who claimed to be God in flesh, fulfilled the prophecies, rose from the dead, etc.? Nick: Maybe because he died, because he was a minor rabble rouser and pissed off the authorities. Then he whined like a ***** when they pinned him to a stick and left him to dry in the sun. You tell me. Matt: You wanted reasonable discussion. So, please give me a reasonable answer to my question. Matt: Okay, I see you don't really have a good reason. I have given you some quick, basic reasons for my faith and why I believe what I do and you've offered nothing of substance at all. So, please, try again. Nick: Matt ... it's text written by moronic peasants who believe any pie the sky is by and by. Matt: By the way, if you can't offer something, I think I'll just end this discussion and go do something else. Nick: Why do you theists insist on misusing the word "faith" when you really mean "confidence"? Matt: Come on, last chance for a reasoned comment from you with some evidence... if not, I'm going to leave you to your own thoughts. Nick: I just don't get it. It must be some huge mental problem where you have to project your baseless beliefs on those who are demonstrably free of them. Matt: Last chance.... Nick: It bothers you immensely, so you have to pretend that we are just as stupid as you. Nick: Faith means ungrounded belief *without* evidence or reason. Matt: You started it, please finish this.... Nick: You try and zap me with my illogic. Matt: Later.... Nick: Well, here you are becoming just another arrogant theist *#@^#@*. You think that real meaning only comes with god-belief. Piss off. Or try to understand. Matt: Is that your best come -back? You began this by stating you wanted facts and reason. Matt: I'm asking that of you and you don't give me any. Nick: If you want to call this Jesus assertion faith, then fine, all you are proving is that you are a solopsist. For me, the difference between this and *religious* faith, is that my sense data can be corroborated by others. If it cannot, then I think that is a reliable indication that I am deluded in some way. There's plenty of evidence that humans can be deluded in many different ways, so it would be foolish of me to think that I or anyone else are beyond delusion. Matt: Instead, you insult me. Matt: Okay, I'll see you round.... Matt: When you are ready for a serious discussion, contact me again. Matt: Signing off. Nick: Matt your faith in "his" words is clearly nothing more than a psychological delusion, which your mind has manufactured in order to give you a feeling of worth and purpose, that you should have developed as a child. I've noticed that a significant number of atheists who profess a desire for rational debate often degenerate their own arguments into accusations and insults. When this happens, it means they have nothing rational to offer. I point that out and if they don't calm down, I just leave. On the other hand, I have had some very good conversations with a few atheists who were polite and reasonable. We disagreed, but neither side ended up in name-calling. One more thing, he misspelled "solipsist" which is someone who believes in solipsism: "The theory or view that the self is the only reality."

337

Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God's existence.

We jump into this discussion with an atheist after a challenge to prove that God exists. But, I would like to note that sometimes in the atheist discussion rooms there are bystanders who will mock, insult, and say vile things about the Lord while the conversation between a Christian and an atheist goes on. Of course, the insults are hurled at the Christian. This was happening here. I have edited out all of the foul language by them. But, it did detract slightly from my ability to concentrate. This is one of the tactics I have seen atheists use in text based chat rooms on the Internet. So, be aware of it and be prepared. Nevertheless, here is the dialogue I had with "Bill" an atheist. Bill: Alright, try and prove God exists.. Matt: Okay.....Are there such things as logical absolutes? For example... A cannot be both A and not A at the same, time. Bill: I believe so. Matt: There are logical absolutes. Matt: Now, in an atheistic presuppositional platform, how do you account for the existence of logical absolutes? Matt: Do they reside in matter? Can they be quantified, tested, put in a jar? Bill: Well, that depends. According to Quine's holism there are no absolutes and any principle can be held eternally by changing any number of other principles Matt: But to say there are no absolutes is an absolute and is self-defeating. Bill: Not really. Matt: Yes. To say there are no absolutes is an absolute statement. It is either true or false. If it is true, then it is false...which is logically contradiction which proves my premise to begin with. Therefore, it can only be false and there are such things as logical absolutes. Bill: If one rejects the principle of non-contradiction. Of c ourse, most people wouldn't want to do that because things get messy quickly Matt: But on what basis do you reject the principle of non-contradiction? Bill: Because we can arbitrarily choose to accept any statement eternally if we make enough changes to other parts of our total system of knowledge. Matt: If you do so based on logic, then you are using logic to defeat itself which is not logical. Then you have nothing but relativism. Bill: well, according to Quine all knowledge is subjective. Matt: Is it subjective that all knowledge is subjective? If so, how can he say that since it is subjective? Bill: No, you just don't understand. It is perfectly acceptable to say that subjectively all knowledge is subjective. You're just dismissing the possibility because you don't like it. Matt: Not at all. I am using logic to address it. Logic is not subjective. Subjectivity is relativism. If all things were subjective, then nothing is true....except the notion that all things are subjective... which means the statement itself is subjective and not absolute. Bill: and the problem with that is? Matt: The problem is that it is self defeating. I'm not saying that some forms of knowledge cannot be subjective. I am saying that there ARE logical absolutes. That is the issue. Matt: Again... do logical absolutes exist? If you say no, then you are giving me an absolute; namely, that no logical absolutes exist. Matt: Here is the point. Logical absolutes exist. They are, by nature, conceptual absolutes. Matt: Conceptual absolutes exist in the mind. They do not reside in matter. Matt: These logical absolutes cannot be quantified or tested in a lab. Yet, they exist. Matt: In fact, scientists USE these logical absolutes as a basis for verifying their science. Matt: The problem for the atheist is accounting for their existence. Matt: Since the logical absolutes are conceptual, they transcend all people at all time and are absolute in all circumstances... since they are absolute. Matt: Conceptual Absolutes cannot be accounted for in an atheistic worldview. But they can be accounted for in a theistic one. Matt: The Absolute God with and absolute mind, has conceived of the logical absolutes. They are a reflection of His mind. Matt: At least I can offer an explanation for their existence where the atheist cannot.

338

Bill: The basis of science and scientific knowledge is exactly why Quine discussed the possibility of rejecting certain aspects of knowledge and logic including the law of non-contradiction. Matt: if the law of non-contradiction is dismissed, then it isn't a law is it? That would also mean that we could go around contradicting ourselves all the time and that'd be fine...right? Bill: I have not yet been convinced of the necessity for logical absolutes Matt: If there are not logical absolutes, then you have no logical basis for your statements. It would then be purely subjective and meaningless. Bill: The criterion of meaning is not necessarily based on logic. Matt: How do you know? Are you using logic to substantiate that or subjectivity? Bill: Quine specifically spoke of the relation of knowledge to observation. If an observation conflicted with a statement of theory or knowledge, than that statement could be held in spit of this 'contradiction' with observation by making modification to knowledge systems elsewhere, such as modifying or even rejecting laws of knowledge if necessary. Matt: What logic is he using to say that? Bill: Matt: you have yet to justify the necessity of logical absolutes Matt: Without them, you cannot prove anything. Bill: Matt: you have yet to justify that statement. Matt: Unless you can refute that statement, it is true. Bill: You can say they exist all you want, but that doesn't mean anything. Matt: Alright.... well, I guess, I'll see you later.... In this dialogue, I had to filter out all the insults and foul language from the other atheists that were interjected in our conversation. Their foul behavior combined with Bill's unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of logical absolutes, made continuing the discussion very difficult and it became fruitless. I suspect Bill saw the logical problem of his system; namely, that to say there are no logical absolutes, leads to relativism. With a relativistic system, there can be no real truths. This is a philosophically dangerous slope to rest on. Nevertheless, I suspect that with him the alternative of not being able to account for logical absolutes as an atheist and my assertion that they reflect God's thinking, therefore, God exists, was something he could not and would not allow to occur. Therefore, I suspect he tried to keep the argument away from absolutes and into subjectivity. Nevertheless, this is a good example of the need to define terms and establish the necessity of absolutes. You see, without them, no truth can really be known.

339

Two Catholics say baptism is necessary for salvation .

In this dialogue, I had entered a catholic discussion room on the Internet. There were only these two people in there and we quickly got into a nice discussion. I do not know if I accomplished anything with this, but at least you can see how difficult it can be discussion this issue with people. Kate: Welcome. Are you Catholic? Matt: No. I'm Christian. Kate: Catholics are Christian! :-) Matt: Some are. Kate: I could agree with that statement. Not all who claim to be Christian are Christian either... Matt: That is very true. Will: Hmmm Matt: I have problems with catholic theology and never assume a catholic is saved. No offense meant. Will: No offense taken, why though? Matt: I find many of the Catholic additions to be troublesome. Will: Like? Matt: Particularly the idea that we must be baptized to be saved, and take the sacraments, etc., in order to "keep" our salvation -- if it is possessed at all. Kate: Well, Jesus Himself commanded Baptism. Matt: Jesus also commanded that we love God and love our neighbors, but not doing them properly does not mean we are unsaved. Matt: But, Catholic doctrine, from what I understand, teaches that grace is infused into a believer. The believer is then enabled to do good works by which God then judges his merit as to salvation. Kate: Not quite. Salvation is a free gift of God. Let's take it one at a time. Matt: I believe it is a free gift. But, I see the Catholic theologians teach that it is maintained by obedience to Catholic rules and regulations, etc. Matt: On top of that, there is prayer to Mary, purgatory, etc. I find these to be unbiblical. Will: Acts 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Matt: The thing that washes away our sins is calling on Jesus, not the water. It is the blood that brings forgiveness (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22), not water. Matt: Baptism is a covenant sign. Kate: You must be overlooking the verse that say "baptism now saves us." Kate: 1 Pet. 3:21, "Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Matt: The context is important. It says "and corresponding to that baptism now saves us." Corresponding to that" in the Greek word, "antitupon." [The KJV says "like figure] Matt: It means a "type" or a "representation." Now, baptism corresponds to something. The question is what does it correspond to? Matt: The verse before it speaks about Noah being saved in the Ark and the floods destroying the wicked. Matt: So, does baptism correspond to the flood or to the ark? Which saved Noah? Will: And you have to be in the ark to be saved :) Matt: Yep, and they entered the ark by faith. And notice, Peter goes on to say that it is not the water that saves, but an appeal.... faith! Kate: But it is baptism. It is the outward sign, instituted by Christ to gain Grace. Matt: They went into the ark by faith. The same faith that justified Abraham (Rom. 4:3). Matt: We are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1), not faith AND something else. Matt: Otherwise we have the admonition of Gal. 3:1-3 invoked where Paul says that the Galatians were foolish to think that they could perfect in the flesh what God had begun in the spirit. Will: Except a man be born of WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Matt: That verse is in John 3 and the "water" there can easily mean the water of the womb. Matt: Note that Nicodemus refers to entering back into his mother's womb and Jesus responds by saying that that which is of the flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit.

340

Will: Yes but you must be born again of water and of the Holy Spirit. Matt: Born of the water can mean natural birth. Read the context in John 3. Matt: That is why Jesus said you must be "born AGAIN" Kate: If the water in John 3 means the water of the womb... that still doesn't release one from "baptism of the spirit" which, through the outward sign, in obedience to Our Lord, we accomplish through Water Baptism Will: However, it DOESN'T mean the water of the womb Matt: You mean your opinion is that it doesn't refer to the water of the womb? Will: And you mean that YOUR opinion is that it does Matt: Correct. Opinions are only opinions. But the Bible says we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1 "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" NASB). That settles it. Matt: The promise is the promise given to Abraham by God to justify people by faith. Covenant! Kate: I do not deny that baptism is a covenant sign, (read that "outward sign"), instituted by Christ, to gain Grace. Matt: Gal. 3:8-9 speaks of this: "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations shall be blessed in you." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer" (NASB). Matt: We don't gain grace by something we do!!!! Otherwise it isn't grace! Rom. 11:6 says, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." Will: What does it mean to arise and be baptized and wash away your sins John? Matt: That is Acts 22:16. Again, calling upon His name is what forgives us of our sins. Will: Matt, give the quote not just the reference. Matt: "And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name" (Acts 22:16). Matt: What forgives us? What washes our sins away? Water or Christ's blood? Will: Be baptized and wash away your sins? You tell me. Kate: To deny the requirement of baptism is to rip pages from the Bible. Matt: Water doesn't wash our sins away. Christ's shed blood does that. Will: But, baptism is the method Christ used to wash away the sins. Matt: I didn't say baptism isn't important. Matt: Did Jesus baptize anyone? No. Matt: In 1 Cor. 1:14-17, Paul stated he came to preach the gospel (which saves according to 1 Cor. 15:1-4), NOT to baptize. Will: Does he say that no one was baptizing? Matt: No. But, in Acts 10:44-47, after Peter was preaching, people we speaking in tongues, and glorifying God. THEN, they were baptized. They were already saved. Will: Where does it say that they were already saved Matt? Matt: Think about this. They are speaking in tongues and glorifying God after hearing the preaching of Peter. Tongues was a gift from God to the church not to those unsaved! Kate: Jesus didn't baptize, but He commanded the Apostles to "go forth into all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost." Matt: Paul wrote what the gospel was in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 and he stated that it is what saves. He did not include baptism. In 1 Cor. 1, Paul said he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize. Will: Can you please quote the verse here? Matt: 1 Cor. 15:1-4, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." Will: Part of the Gospel that they had to believe is being baptized. Believe AND BE BAPTIZED AND WASH AWAY YOUR SINS

341

Matt: 1 Cor. 1:14-17, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 that no man should say you were baptized in my name. 16Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," Will: So, others baptized. He preached the Gospel to those who had to believe and be baptized Matt: Do you read Paul's words there? Matt: The gospel is what saves (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Will: Yes. Did you read my re ply? Matt: Yes. Matt: Paul came to preach the gospel, not to baptize (1 Cor. 1:14-17). Will: Yes and part of that gospel is to believe and be baptized Matt: No. If it were, then he would have included baptism in the gospel. He didn't. Will: He preached baptism. Others baptized. Matt: Baptism is an outward sign, a public declaration of unity and purpose and acceptance of/with God. I think you need to study 1 Cor. 1:14-17 more thoroughly. Matt: Baptism isn't what saves us. Faith in Jesus does that (Rom. 5:1). Will: Matt, does Rom 5:1 say that baptism does NOT save us? Matt: No, but it tells us what does!

The conversation ended here and nothing of importance was said afterward. They were courteous people.

342

Discussion with a Catholic on interpreting the Bible

The following dialogue is a good representation of the importance of presuppositions. In other words, you will interpret things according to your presuppositions. Dan raised an excellent question regarding how do we know who has the right interpretation for something. I really didn't focus on the standard answer to that question dealing with interpretive methods. Instead, I tried to demonstrate that we are right in so far as we agree with the Bible. Dan: Hi. I am a Catholic and I know that I am in the true church because it was started by Jesus, expanded by the Apostles who gave the power of leadership to the bishops. My question is how do you know that your beliefs are right when other Protestants claim to do everything that you do but still come with different believes? Matt: I base it on the Bible. Dan: But Luther said the same thing and he believe in the real presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. Other Protestants do not Matt: That's nice. Dan: That is my question. All Protestants say they base it on the Bible, but each church comes with something different Matt: Purgatory? Praying to Mary? Penance? Indulgences? Are these in the Bible? No. Dan: Is it in the Bible is not the right question. Because each church claims that different things are in the Bible. Luther and Catholics claim Eucharist is in the Bible other churches do not. My question is how do you know who is right? Matt: Is it in the Bible or not? That is the issue... Dan: Yes, but different people interpret the Bible differently. Who is right? Matt: The Bible is right. Stick to it. Dan: Yes. But who has the right interpretation of it? Matt: God. Read the Bible and stick to it. Dan: To whom does God reveal his interpretation? Matt: To Christians Dan: That is my problem. You read it and you say that this fragment means this. I say that it does not mean this. Someone one else reads the same thing and he says that both of us are wrong because it means this. Matt: Stick to the Bible. Listen..... Matt: Jesus said that His sheep hear HIS voice and follow HIM, right? Dan: Yes Matt: The Bible is God's (Jesus') word, right? Dan: Yes Matt: Christians will follow Jesus, right? Dan: I cannot answer this one Matt: Christians DON'T follow Jesus? Dan: Yes they do Matt: Jesus said Christians hear his voice and follow HIM, right? Matt: Where is Jesus' voice found? Is it in sacred tradition? Is it in my words? Where is Jesus' voice found? Dan: In the Bible and in those who are filled with Holy Spirit. Matt: The Holy Spirit bears witness of Jesus. Dan: Yes Matt: Jesus said His sheep follow HIM and listen to HIS voice... none other. Dan: Yes Matt: Whose voice have you been listening too? Dan: God's. Matt: Jesus points to Himself, right? Dan: Yes. Matt: Then you must study the Bible to find His voice, right? It IS His word, right? Dan: Yes, I read it almost everyday for 4 years.

343

Matt: Good... now, which dominates your interpretation? The Catholic Church over it or IT over the Catholic Church? Who's voice do you listen to? Dan: None, I do not find any disagreement between the Bible and the church. And that is my problem. You find it. I do not. You read the Bible I read the Bible. Who is right? Matt: None? Then you are not listening to Jesus are you? Dan: According to you, but not to me and other people. How can we decide? Matt: First, get on your knees. Pray to Jesus. Ask him to reveal the truth to you... Read HIS word. Subject yourself to IT. Because it is His voice. Matt: Look.... I am pointing you to HIM, not a church.... A church doesn't save. Jesus does. Dan: Most days I pray over an hour. I read the Bible then I think about it. Many times I did not understand something. I kept on reading. Within few day or months I read something that cleared up the thing I did not understand Matt: That's good. Matt: Do you pray to Mary? Dan: No I pray through her, but I do not want to get into any of these beliefs because we will not get anywhere. Matt: The Bible says there is ONE mediator, not two. Praying THRU her is just a way of saying you pray TO her...but without the obvious difficulties involved. Dan: Do you ask other people to pray for you? Matt: They are here with me. They are not dead. Jesus is risen, the one mediator. Others are not my mediator. Neither is Mary. Your praying through Mary is praying TO her. Matt: Where is this found in the Bible? Dan: Do you ask others to pray for you. Matt: Yes. I do. Matt: Are they my mediator between God and me? No. Matt: Where does it say we can pray to or through Mary? Dan: I ask my spiritual mother to pray for m e. That is all: I say Mary pray for me. Not Mary grant me this or that. Matt: Okay, we're done..... Dan: You see i told you I do not want to go into that because this will happen. Dan: But you showed one thing. That you are not open minded. When you hear something you do not want to hear you just cover your ears. Matt: What happened is that you deny God's word.... We cannot go further... we're done. You don't get it. Matt: I am trying to get you to trust God's word in totality and sufficiently. Matt: You do not want to do that. Matt: You want to hold on to what you have been taught by the RC church. Matt: I do not doubt my salvation or my assurance that Mary is not my mediator. Matt: Why? Because the Bible does not teach it. Simple. Matt: If you deviate from the Bible, you WILL end up in error. I tried to get you to see it. You do not want to.... You want to excuse the unbiblical practice you have. Therefore, how can I get you to see? Matt: I cannot. It is your choice. Therefore, we are done. Dan: So ok. You are not close-minded but you believe that you are right and every one else is wrong. And that is my question. How come you are so sure that you are right? Matt: I am not sure I am right about everything. Matt: I am only right in so far as I agree with the Bible. Dan: that what i meant Dan: I and other Protestants who have different beliefs then you are also sure that they agree with the Bible. How do you know that we are wrong? Matt: Read Rom. 14:1-12. I'll wait. Dan: Ok [nothing for a couple minutes] Dan: and Matt: Did you read it? Dan: Yes Matt: What is the point in it? Dan: Not to judge others. Matt: How about allow differencing opinions...? on non essentials? right?

344

Dan: Yes. Matt: Good Dan: And? Matt: So, according to God, there is room for variation in non-essential beliefs, right? Matt: Therefore, it is not essential that we Protestants agree on every detail, correct? Matt: But, we ARE to agree on the essentials of the faith. Matt: Do you know what those essentials are? Matt: http://www.carm.org/doctrine/3essentials.htm Dan: Yes, but for example Eucharist is not something small. If it is false I am worshiping bread Matt: True. But you start with the basics, and then work up. Dan: Also salvation Matt: Yes... But, the Bible is the standard of truth isn't it? Dan: Yes and we should disregard all teachings that do not agree with it. Matt: If the Bible is the standard of truth, then you should make sure you agree with it as much as possible, right? Matt: Correct.... as much as is possible. Dan: but you see I do not see disagreement between it and the teachings of the Catholic church. Dan: How we can decide that I am wrong and you are right? How can we prove it? Matt: Easy. Where in the Bible does it state we are to use Mary as a mediator, someone to pray to, or even through? Dan: Nowhere. But we Catholics see things pointing to it like we and you see things pointing to the Trinity Matt: If the teaching of prayer thru/to Mary is nowhere in the Bible, then is it safe to do it? Dan: That is why I cannot prove to you that we can pray thru Mary because you see the same thing differently. Matt: But... I see that the Bible teaches me to pray to God, that there is ONE mediator, etc. Therefore, I only have Jesus as my mediator. Dan: So that is why I am trying to find out how we can find out who sees it as it is. Matt: Then go to the Bible. Read it. Don't go beyond it. Matt: We have a tendency to make it into what it isn't. I'm guilty of that too sometimes, but... if I try and stick to it alone, I have far less chance of error. Dan: But it is not that simple, I do not think I go beyond it. You think I do. That depends on how we view it. Matt: Perhaps, but the Bible does not teach prayer to or through Mary, does it? Dan: But to me the Bible teaches that there is something like tradition and that I should listen to it. The Bible points and tradition says that I can ask Mary for prayer. But you will disagree because you do not see the Bible saying that we should listen to apostolic tradition Matt: Then your tradition supercedes the Bible? Matt: Where does it say in the voice of Jesus, that you are to pray to or through Mary? Dan: No, as I said the Bible points to it like the Bible points to Trinity. But lets get off this because we will get nowhere. Matt: You see, the Bible does teach the Trinity. http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinity.htm. It does not teach that you can pray to or through Mary. Matt: This is simply an example of how you know if you are being biblical or not. Matt: Does the Bible teach the Trinity? Yes. Matt: Does the Bible teach prayer to or through Mary? No. Dan: To you, bec ause you see it differently. Who sees it like it is? Matt: You admitted the Bible didn't teach it. Matt: So, you know that God has not approved it. Matt: Why do you want to hold on to this? Dan: To me, Jesus says my body is real food and my blood is real drink. I do not see other way to take it, but you take it other way. Matt: I'd be glad to talk to you another time on this... but I am trying to get you to see a principle dealing with what the Bible does and doesn't say. Matt: Why don't you think about it and let's talk again another time? Dan: So we will never convince each other because I see a 4 and you see a 3.

345

Matt: Dan: Dan: Matt:

Sorry, I want to listen to the voice of Jesus, not man's tradition. Okay, but can you think about a way to find out is it a 3 or a 4. Thanks for the talk You're welcome and thank you as well.

I thought this conversation went well. The place where I said "We are done" was an attempt by me to get this person to see that we were at an roadblock, that he did not want to see beyond his own preset ideas even if the Bible contradicted it. I firmly believe that the Bible is where we should be looking for spiritual truth and not the traditions of men.

346

Two Mormons state that 3 Gods is really 1 God.

This chat began by "Mormon" contacting me on ICQ. I responded, asked him what he believed. He said he was a Mormon and asked me what I like to do. "Debate," I said. He asked me what I liked to debate. I said theology and we were off. I began with a comment on how Mormonism contradicts the Bible. The conversation progressed and later he enlisted the help of a Mormon missionary. In my opinion, this dialogue is a good example of how Mormons cannot accept what the Bible plainly teaches. Instead, they must reinterpret the scriptures and change word meanings to get the Bible to agree with their theology. In this dialogue, I was a bit direct and tried to stay on one subject attempting to get them to really understand the difference between the Bible and Mormonism. Whether or not I accomplished that, I do not know. I tried to remain polite and hope that I was. Matt: As I was saying, the Bible teaches that there is only one God in all existence. Therefore, there can be no other god or goddess as Mormonism teaches. Mormon: You are taking things out of context...another example of what so many other people do. You start at the end, not bothering to know what comes before Matt: The issue is whether or not Mormonism teaches the true god. It does not. The Bible says there are no gods created after God and none created before him. Therefore, you cannot become a god. Mormon: Give m scripture and verse for this. e Note: I have the advantage of a computer Bible program, so I simply pasted the verses into our conversation. Matt: Isaiah 44:6 says, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me." Matt: Also, in Isaiah 44:8, it says, "Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none." Matt: God says He does not even know of any other god, therefore, there is no goddess wife. He says there is no God besides Him... Period. Mormon: Okay, what does it say in the KJV Bible? That is what I study by. I find with all the other versions, there is much bias. Matt: Okay, here it is. Isaiah 44:6: "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Matt: Isaiah 44:8 says, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." Matt: Also, Isaiah 43:10 says, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Mormon: The thing is, there are so many things that people just don't understand because of the fact that they don't start at the beginning. I mean when you think about it, would you go into a grade one class and teach them grade 12 algebra? Matt: I understand. But what does the Bible say? Does it say there are no other gods? If so, then there aren't any other gods. Mormon: There are certain precepts that you have to understand before that...and I get this all the time from people. They just come in and try to start bashing the church, not taking into consideration what the person thinks, of his feelings. It is just unfair to treat a person's beliefs like that. Matt: You asked and I quoted scripture to you that says there is no other God. So how do you answer the challenge of God's word saying there is no other God? Mormon: I commend you on the fact that you have studied this out.. I know that I don't have all the answers. I have only been in the church for ten months, and am still learning more everyday. I will get answers, maybe not tonight, but within the next day or so. I am sure of that. May I ask you a question? Matt: shoot. Mormon: You told me when I asked you what was up that you were looking for a debate...why do that? Why come in just to debate and try to tear down what others believe?

347

Matt: I debate both to learn and to teach. If you believe in a false god, then you are in trouble. I am simply trying to help you find the real one. Mormon: But is it RIGHT to come in and try to tear them down like that? Matt: Yes. It is right to warn people about the danger they are in. Mormon: Okay, well, what church do you belong to? Matt: I go to a non-denominational church. Matt: By the way, you still havent answered my question about there being only one God. Mormonism teaches that there are many many gods, that people can become gods... Mormon: Can you give me a standard of belief? Matt: The standard is the Bible. Mormon: Like I said, could you give me a couple of days to get answers, I haven't studied this topic a lot. Mormon: Ok, well, how about the method of baptism, how is it done? Matt: Baptism is really immaterial when it comes to the importance of knowing who is the true God. But I'll answer it. Could you be more specific? Mormon: What is the method of baptism? Some do it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, others do it in the name of Jesus Christ. Here is a question: Do you believe baptism is necessary? Matt: Those who baptize "in Jesus name" are the United Pentecostal and the United Apostolic churches and they are both cults. Mormon: WHAT!? Matt: Yes... The proper mode is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mormon: Hold on.I am bringing a friend into this chat Matt: Okay, [LDS Missionary enters the chat] Matt: Hi Mormon: Hi LDS Missionary. Meet Matt. LDS served a mission, and has been in the church longer then I and should therefore be able to help. Matt: Fine, let's talk then... Mormon: Ask LDS some questions. LDS Missionary: Hello Matt. Have you two been talking a while? Mormon: Yes, for a little while. Matt: Ill restate my assertion: The Bible says that there is only one God. Period. Therefore, Mormonism is wrong. LDS Missionary: Yes there is only one god. Matt: in all existence in all places in all time? LDS Missionary: We believe there is only one God Matt: LDS, do you believe that there is only one God in all the universe? in all times? in all places? Mormon: We believe in God the eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, that is the first article of faith. LDS Missionary: Yes. He is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting Matt: Is Jesus a god? LDS Missionary: Yes. He is divine. He is the son of God the Eternal Father. Matt: So then, the Father is a god, and the Son is a god. That is two gods, right? Mormon: Jesus is a part of the Godhead, they together make up one eternal God.... inseparable so to speak Matt: I thought you said there was only one? Matt: Mormon. Your church teaches that the godhead is three separate gods. Mormon: Okay. He is a member of the Godhead.... TOGETHER they make up "God". Matt: Your church also teaches that there is a wife to God, a goddess wife. LDS Missionary: As Mormon said, there's the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. They are one in purpose. We know very little about that doctrine or the goddess mother. But yes we believe there is a heavenly mother. Matt: LDS, I thought you said there was only one god in all the universe. Now you just admitted there is more than one god. So, you have God the Father, a god the Son, a god the Holy Ghost, and a goddess mother. Thats four gods. LDS Missionary: Three separate personages, but one in spirit and purpose.

348

Matt: In Isaiah 43:10, it says, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Isaiah 44:8 says, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." LDS Missionary: As a godhead, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are eternal. Matt: How do you explain your theology in light of the Bible's teaching that there is only one God, period, none other than God, none before, and none after? LDS Missionary: I wouldnt be able to believe the way I did unless I believed in modern revelation. We have modern prophets to reveal God's word to us. Matt: Was God, whom you call elohim, once a man? LDS Missionary: Again, a doctrine we know very little about. Mormon: Amos 3:7 here! "Surely, the Lord God doeth nothing, save it shall be through his servants, his prophets." Matt: Luke 16:16 says, "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." Matt: Prophets were the Old Testament way. Now we have Jesus and no longer need prophets (Heb. 1:1-3). Matt: Now please, back to the issue of God. LDS Missionary: We don't teach these doctrines to everyone. Matt: The Bible says there are no other gods, that God doesn't even know of any other (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6 - 8). Now, if Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and god's wife are all gods, thats three others. How do you explain God saying he doesn't even know of any others? Matt: Don't you see? The Bible contradicts your theology. Which should I trust? LDS Missionary: Have you ever read the book of Mormon? Matt: Most of it.... LDS Missionary: What was your intent in reading it? Matt: To study. Mormonism teaches us to read it and pray about it to get a testimony that its true. Were to pray about it with a sincere heart, etc., But it doesn't matter what I feel. The Bible says there is only one God, not more than one. How do you reconcile your beliefs with that? Mormon: Like we said, Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost make up ONE eternal God! Matt: Mormon? Can I ask you something? Mormon: Go ahead Matt: How many gods are there in all places, all times, etc.? Mormon: There is only God. We believe that with all our hearts. But what you are not comprehending is that we believe that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost is ONE eternal God, they are separate personages, but they are one in purpose Matt: Is the Father a god? Mormon: It says in the BIBLE, that God is the same YESTERDAY, TODAY, and FOREVER, Matt: Yes I know. Heb. 13:8, yes. Psalm 90:2 is good also. LDS Missionary: We actually can't answer that for you. You need to start with the basics. Matt: This is the basics! How many gods are there? This is quite basic. LDS Missionary: Well, the question is basic. But the understanding of that doctrine is probably beyond what any of us are ready for. Do you really believe that god has finished speaking to us, that the Bible is all there is now? So if he talked to the people then, why wouldn't he do it now? Matt: Yes, because he said in Heb. 1:1-3 that now He speaks to use through Jesus, not prophets. Heb. 1:1-3 (incidentally), God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Matt: Mormon, is the Father A god? Mormon: Yes, they are all members of the Godhead. They combine to make up one eternal God Matt: Is Jesus a god? Mormon: Okay...let me go through this one more time, they are all members of the Godhead, and the three combined make up one eternal God

349

Matt: You are stating that God is an office. The Bible states there is one God, only one. Mormon: What do you mean by that? Matt: You are stating that the Father is a god, that the Son is a god, and that that Holy Ghost is a god. That is 3 gods. Matt: Now, how many gods ARE there? Matt: I've already shown you where the Bible says there is only one, period, that's it. Matt: Now you have to jump around trying to explain yourselves... it isn't working. There is either more than one god or there isn't. Mormon: ok...They are all members of the Godhead.... Together they make up one eternal God!!! Matt: So, three gods, make up one eternal god? How is that possible? Mormon: No...They are members of the Godhead. They each play a vital role in God. They each have a specific purpose. They together make one eternal God. Note: The Mormon has redefined the word "god" to mean two different things: god as an individual and god as an office held by three individual gods. So, when I ask how many gods there are, Mormon says 'one.' In this he is using the term 'god' as referring to the office held by three gods. When I ask if the Father is a god, and he says yes, he is using the word 'god' in the individual sense. This is double-talk and he does not see what he is doing. I am repeating this different ways with them both in an attempt to get them to see their inconsistency. Matt: The three separate gods make one god? LDS Missionary: You know our beliefs. We've explained them. We believe the Bible coincides with our beliefs perfectly. Matt: But that's like saying that the 3 person of Frank, Joe, and Mike, make up one person, not three. It doesn't make sense. Mormon: I not only believe that it does, but I KNOW it does...I have a firm testimony of the truthfulness of this church, and nobody, NOBODY will ever take that away from me! Matt: But the Bible does not teach that. Mormon: Okay...let me use an analogy. You have a family, right? Matt: That is plain and simple. So, how can you state that you can become a god, or that god used to be a man, or that there is a goddess mother in heaven? Mormon: Will you answer my question. Do you have a family? Matt: Yes, I have a family Mormon: Okay, Well, each member of your family is a separate individual right? Matt: Yes Mormon: Well...together they make up ONE FAMILY. That is how it is with the Godhead. Matt: I understand. But I'm trying to get YOU to see the problem. Mormon: What problem!? Matt: In Mormonism, the Godhead is like an office held by three gods. Each god is not the other god. They are three gods. You say the three separate gods make up on godhead. Matt: But the Bible doesn't say there is only one Godhead. It says there is only ONE GOD! Mormon: Ok, I am about to give up here... You aren't willing to start with the basics, you aren't willing to LISTEN so there is nothing that I can do. LDS Missionary: We may as well give up for now. What church do you go to Matt? Matt: I go to a non-denominational church. Matt: Mormon? Mormon: I am here Matt: Does the Bible say there is only one God? Mormon: Yes...and together...the Father, Son and Holy Spirit makeup that one God! Matt: Amazing.... is the Father a god? Is the Son a god? Is the Holy Ghost a god? How many gods is that? Mormon: Okay...together they are God! Matt: One plus one plus one equals three. Mormon: Key word: TOGETHER!! Matt: So three separate gods equals one god? Mormon: TOGETHER they make up ONE ETERNAL GOD! Matt: So then, the three separate gods is really only one god? Mormon: This isn't working. You aren't really listening to what we are saying!!!

350

Matt: Yes I am listening. I am listening carefully. Matt: You are telling me there are three gods and that the three gods make up one god. Mormon: With your ears you are, but not with your heart. Right now your heart is too full of contention and the desire to argue... Well, the things of God are holy, and sacred, and I REFUSE to argue about them Matt: That is not logical. You are playing with words... you should be saying that the 3 separate gods equals one godhead (according to Mormon definitions). Matt: Don't you see? The Bible says there is only one God, not three gods. Not three gods... just one.... Not one godhead consisting of three gods, but only ONE God. Matt: Mormonism disagrees with the Bible. Mormon: No, Mormonism does agree with the Bible. You are making it disagree! Matt: You mean, that by quoting the Bible plainly, I am making it disagree with Mormonism? Interesting. Want me to quote the verses again, and you please tell me where it is wrong? Matt: Isaiah 43:10, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Mormon: No, that isn't what I mean. You are coming in with the attitude that we are wrong, that there is no way we could be right, and therefore you are not really listening, or even thinking about what we are saying. Matt: How could I not be right when I agree with the Bible when it says, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:8)? Matt: If the Father is a god, and the Son is a god, and the Holy Ghost is a god, and there is a goddess mother, then what is God saying here in Isaiah 44:8? LDS Missionary: These scriptures must be understood in the context they're meant for. The Lord had something to teach at that particular time Matt: God will not contradict himself later, will he? Will he teach Israel there is only one God when there really is more than one? Matt: Will he have Mormon prophets tells us later that we can become gods, when so long ago God said there would be no Gods formed after Him? Mormon: Matt will you be online tomorrow? Matt: depends... I have a meeting to go to? Mormon: I will get some answers and will chat again with you soon Mormon: What time can you make it in. Matt: Maybe around 9 p.m. Mormon: I will have tome to study my scriptures and get some answers. Matt: Okay... Let me help you out with some standard verses the Mormons use: 1 Cor. 8:5-6; John 10:30-34 and Psalm 82:6. Mormons like those But dont forget to check out Gal. 4:8; Eph. 4:5; Deut. 6:4. Mormon: Okay...until tomorrow then Matt: This will help you get your answers... but, context is everything, and I'll be ready.... Matt: I'll try tomorrow at 9. Okay? Mormon: Okay .bye Matt: Cya This was a very interesting dialogue for me because it is so typical of how Mormons redefine words in order to retain their theological views. Because of their testimony of the truth of Mormonism and that God is an exalted man and has a goddess wife, etc., it is absolutely essential that the Bible be reinterpreted and words redefined. It is difficult to get them to see this is happening, especially when they think I am the one who has done the redefining. Nevertheless, I hope that they come to a full and complete saving and personal relationship with Jesus.

351

Discussion with a Mormon on God's Nature

This dialogue is interesting because it was a pre-arranged debate between John and myself. Other Mormons are interested in the transcripts so I will make no comments on this dialogue. I have, however, edited out the typos, miscapitalizations, etc. to make it more readable. This is the complete dialogue. Matt: Hi John Hello Matt: How's it going? John: It is going pretty well. I've been up a little longer than normal. You might have to forgive me if I nod off at the keyboard. Matt: Just so you know, my computer has been crashing spontaneously this week. If I suddenly disappear, wait and I'll come back on line. John: Do you want to open up with a statement or question? Matt: You could. What are you interested in? Let's discuss subjects. John: Would you be so kind as to refresh me on your definition of the trinity (or Godhead as I usually refer to it)? Matt: The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is that there is only one single God in all the universe, in all places, in all times. He exists in three persons. Each is not the other, but each is, in essence, God. They all three are the ONE true and living God. They are not three separate gods. Matt: It can be compared to time: past, present, future. Each is not the other, but each is, in essence, time. All three make up one time. John: I'm a little lost on the time analogy... give me a second to digest it. Let me see if I understand your view right. John: In the Old testament God spoke to us through prophets, men who he inspired..... that would be "past". Matt: No.... We can understand trinities in nature. Time is past, present, and future. Why can't we understand God as a Trinity? John: Then when Christ came.... God was here in person. Matt: That is correct. The Word (John 1:1) became flesh (John 1:14), and added human nature to himself (Phil. 2:5-8; Col. 2:9). John: I guess when you used your analogy my mind went to Heb. 1:1-3. Matt: Good. Jesus is the representation of the nature of the Father. John: I think I got that. John: Wait maybe I don't? What does it mean for him to be "the nature of the Father".... the word "nature".... I'm not quite following. Matt: Everything has a nature. A cat has 'cat' nature. A human has 'human' nature. God's nature, if I might dare to proclaim, is divine, holy, pure, perfect, etc. Jesus represented that perfectly. John: I like that, I don't know if I have ever heard it put that simply before, thanks. John: I have just one question concerning the Holy Ghost. Matt: okay. John: Back to the analogy (hope I'm not pounding that to death) does the Holy Ghost more or less represent the "future". Matt: No.... Matt: That isn't what I was getting at. Matt: The Trinity is three distinct 'parts' or persons. Yet there is only ONE being. John: Maybe I'll drop the analogy for now. Matt: Time (as the analogy goes) is three distinct 'parts', yet there is only ONE time. Matt: The point is that the Trinity is the doctrine that there is only one God in all existence. Mormonism states that there is more than one God in existence. They both cannot be true. John: I understand the One being. John: Agreed. Matt: Okay.... but as a Mormon do you believe there is only ONE God in all the universe?

352

John: No. Matt: Okay. That is a great starting point. We Christians believe the Bible teaches that there is only one God in all existence. Therefore, we conclude that Mormonism is not true.....in a nutshell. John: I believe that there are three, at least with whom [incomplete sentence] John: But what if the Bible .... The Bible teaches that they (the Godhead) are separate. Matt: If it taught that, I'd believe it. But it doesn't. It teaches that there is only one God. John: Go with me to Revelations 4 and 5 and glance over them quickly... if you will? Matt: Okay. John: In verses 2 and 3 of chapter 4, who is sitting on the throne? Matt: That's Jesus. John: Who is then represented in verse 6 of chapter 5? Matt: Jesus. John: Talk to me about verse 7 of chapter 5. Matt: In this vision, it appears the Father and the Son are there.... Matt: okay..... ? John: Why would God represent himself as been two beings, one sitting on a throne, and one standing, receiving a book form the other? Matt: He is not representing Himself as two beings. Revelation is a highly symbolic book. You must at least take that into consideration when quoting it. Matt: Nevertheless, the Trinity is three separate persons, not three separate beings. Matt: Therefore, to see Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father in a vision (Acts 7:55-60) is perfectly consistent with the theological definition. Matt: Also, you must take all of the Bible as a whole. In Isaiah chapters 43-45 the doctrine of Monotheism (one God in existence) is clearly taught. John: I'm an artist, not that that is important, but as such I spend much time visualizing things, I can't picture anything but two separate beings. Sorry, I just can't. Matt: So? Must you visualize something before it can be proven to be true? John: Slow down a bit.... I can't keep up. Matt: No problem. Matt: When we encounter God, we will encounter areas of intellectual difficulty. After all, He is infinite and NOT like us. John: Let me just back up a second. I understand that Revelations and other such scriptures are highly symbolic.... But, to me anyhow, the symbolism of two sends a clear message to me that there is a distinction. Matt: good... there is a distinction. That is part of the doctrine of the Trinity. Now add to that distinction the doctrine from the Bible that there are not two or three gods, but only one. Then you'd almost be there. John: I interpret that distinction to be that they are separate.... you don't.... where does that leave us? Matt: Then you would conclude that they are each 'a' god. right? John: Yes. Matt: Okay... But when you encounter biblical passages that teach that there is only one God, what do you do? John: The Godhead is one in purpose, one in authority, one in power.... When one of the members of the Godhead speaks, either the father, the Son, or the Spirit, they speak for all, as one. In fact, even the Angels, when sent, they speak even as though they are one with the God head. In a second, I'll generate some passages for you. John: Pardon me a minute... sleep deprivation. John: I'm still here. Matt: Okay. John: Here is one example anyhow: Gen. 31:11-13 "And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob... I am the God of Beth-el, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me..." see Gen. 28:16-22 Matt: Angels often speak for the Lord (Gen. 17:1ff) is a good example. But, if the Bible teaches there is only one God, then is there only one God?

353

John: Unfortunately I am using a brand new Bible that I received a few months ago and have very little marked in it... If I had had my older one I could have found some of the other quotes.... but I'm a bit lost at the moment.... and tired. Matt: I can help you post them... don't worry. John: Thank you. Matt: But, take a look at Isaiah 43:10: "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769. Matt: LORD there is the Hebrew word of Jehovah. The word 'God' there in the Hebrew is the word 'elohim.' So, Jehovah is saying there is no elohim besides him. In other words, God is saying there is no God besides Him. John: When the Bible speaks of there being One God I'm hesitant right now to start throwing out a lot of scriptures... I'm really not up for a long debate. I do not wish to dodge any scriptures either. Matt: I understand. But let me post some quick verses that we use to show there is only one God: We can comment on them as a whole. Matt: Isaiah 44:6, "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Matt: Isaiah 44:8, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." Matt: These are typical verses we monotheists use to show there is only one God. Therefore, the Trinity cannot be more than one god. It is that simple. John: I believe in the Bible. I believe it when it teaches that God is one. I believe it when the Book of Mormon teaches that God is one or where the Doctrine and Covenants teach that God is one..... and...... I hope you are getting my message. Matt: I understand. Deut. 6:4 says that God is one. But the Bible also teaches that there is only one God, not three. John: God is not divided. The Godhead is not divided. Matt: The verses quoted above show that. But, in Mormonism the godhead is three separate gods. That is divided. In the doctrine of the Trinity, there is only one God, not three. That is unity. John: How many Apostles did Christ call? Matt: 12. Matt: How many God's does the Bible say exist? John: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" John 17:20-21. Matt: Yes... that context is one in purpose. But John, you haven't addressed the verses I've quoted that show there is only one God. What about those? John: Simply put, I believe that when God says that he is One he means so in purpose. The Godhead is not divided, they are one in purpose. Even as we have been commanded to be one in purpose. That is what I believe, that is what I believe the Bible teaches. I do not know any other way of stating this. John: I would like to give you some verses proving that the Godhead is separate in purpose.... but not now.... I am slowly loosing it....Correction... quickly loosing it. Matt: Then what do you do with the verses where God says that there are no other gods besides Him? Isaiah 44:8, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." John: What do you say, five more minutes and then we hang it up for now? Matt: Okay John: In that particular verse, as in the others.... When God, Jehovah, is talking he is talking for the Godhead as a whole, as one..... and beside him, them...... there is no other God. Matt: So, then, when He says that there are no other gods, he really means there ARE other gods, right?

354

John: He is speaking for all three, speaking as one, for they are one, beside them there are no other. They are the only ones to whom we must list to follow and obey. They are the only ones, Christ most specifically, by whom we can be save. Salvation comes from no others. Matt: That isn't what it says. It says there are no other gods. He doesn't even know of any. None created before and none created after. I believe it. John: I don't believe that that is what it says. Matt: But, I just quoted exactly what it says and you disagreed with it. Don't you see what just happened? All I did was quote different parts of the verses already place in this chat and you disagreed with them. That means you understood them plainly and rejected them outright. John: I disagree only with your (and most of Christendom's) interpretation of those verses. John: I don not reject them. Matt: But, I simply quoted them to you and you disagreed with them..... John: Do you have any parting thoughts or statements? Matt: I didn't interpret the verses. I quoted them. You disagreed with them. That isn't good. Matt: Until next time. John: Take care of yourself..... better still.... may God take care of you and bless you. A Friend.... John.

355

What is salvation and who is God?

This dialogue with two Mormons is a good illustration of the necessity of knowing not only what they believe, but also what the Bible teaches, where it says it, and what it means. This takes some practice, but practice makes perfect. Gary: In your info on CARM, do you preach mostly against the Mormons, or is there anything we teach you believe is good? Matt: I teach against what goes against the Bible. The Mormons do many good things. But, they teach a false god, therefore, they are leading people to hell. Simple.... Gary: So all our good works count for nothing? Matt: That's right. They count for nothing in getting your sins forgiven. Matt: The Bible says that if we could be forgiven by what we do, then Jesus died needlessly (Gal. 2:21). It says in Romans 3 that we are made right in God's eyes apart from the works of the law. Gary: I agree with you. We can't save ourselves. Matt: The Bible says we are saved (justified -- cleansed from all sin), by Faith (Rom. 5:1). You can do NOTHING at ALL to contribute ANYTHING to God forgiving you. It is NOT dependent upon any of your works. Gary: We're saved by grace. Right, God forgives us because of what his son Jesus Christ did for us. Matt: In Mormonism, salvation is universal resurrection. Is that what you are referring to? Sue: We don't think that just because we do a lot of good things that we will get to heaven. It is by grace yes, but we as Christians should do things to show our willingness, our faithfulness, etc. Gary: He's asked us to be obedient though. That's part of it. But to be forgiven of our sins we must repent. Do you believe that? Matt: Yes, we are to be obedient, but the point I am trying to make is that obedience FOLLOWS salvation. We are freely forgiven of our sins, by God, if we trust in Jesus ALONE. We cant add anything to what He did and we cant add anything that contributes to our salvation in any way. We are not saved by "grace through faith after all we can do." We are forgiven of our sins, completely, and solely, by faith alone in Christ alone. THEN we go and do good works. Gary: I believe that we must show God our good works so he knows we are sincere. Then we can be saved. Matt: But Gary, that isnt what the Bible teaches. You should study Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 6:23, Gal. 2:2021; and Romans chapters 3-5. Gary: Maybe Ill take a look sometime. Matt: I hope so. Let me ask you something else. Do you believe that God used to be a man on another world and that he became a god and brought one of his wives to this world? Gary: I don't know about all that. As far as the Bible says, God is infinite and eternal. We believe that. Matt: Gary, let's work with that.... Do you believe God has a body of flesh and bones and that he used to be a man on another world? Gary: Yes. But he is still infinite and eternal. Matt: So, how can god be eternal if he had a beginning? How can he be everywhere if he has a body of flesh and bones.... Gary: Do you have a reference to these teachings of ours you like to bring up? or did you just hear them from someone? Matt: Hold on. Ill copy it from my website into here. Matt: There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. Matt: There is a mother god, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443. Matt: God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333. Matt: After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354. Matt: God the Father had a Father, Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105.

356

Matt: God resides nearest a planet called Kolob, Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428. Matt: God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22. Matt: God is in the form of a man, Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3. Matt: God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, Mormon Doctrine p. 516. Sue: CARM, read Romans 8:16, you can too Todd, I think it will help out in the issue of whether or not we are children of god Matt: Rom. 8:16 says, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Matt: That is true. The verse is speaking to those who are already Christians. Sue: Yes, it says right there that we are children of God!! Matt: The children there in Romans 8 is referring to adoption. Matt: Rom. 8:16, For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" Matt: Rom. 8:23, And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. Matt: The problem with the Mormons is that they do not teach the Bible. They teach 'parts' of the Bible and when they do, they take it out of context. Matt: The children of God stuff is dealing with adoption. That is what Romans 8 is talking about. If we are LITERALLY children of God, why do we need to be adopted? Matt: Hhave you read John 1:12? "It says, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." Matt: The word power there in the KJV is also the word for authority. Matt: Either way, being a child of God is not natural. It must be by divine action based upon the work of Christ; hence, receiving Christ. Gary: We need to be adopted into the family of Christ. But we are already God's children. Matt: The Bible states that we are children by adoption, not because god had relations with his goddess wife and had children who came down and inhabited human bodies. There is no preexistence. Matt: 1 Cor. 15:46 says that the natural is first, THEN the spiritual. In other words, the natural, physical, is what comes first as far as bodies go, and then the spiritual body follows. Mormonism has it reversed. Gary: In one way we must be adopted. But first, we are already His literal children Matt: So, does God literally produce children? He has a body of flesh and bones, and he has a wife, right. Does he have genitalia? Gary: That's very disrespectful to speak of those doctrines you know nothing about. if only your heart were to change and be willing to really seek the truth, maybe you could find out the truth. you mock sacred things, and the spirit cannot reside in you. you could not recognize the voice of God with your attitude Gary: Do you hold anything sacred? Matt: Honestly, I mean no offense. I just dont any other way to say it. I am curious. Gary: I doubt that. Matt: Im trying to make a point. Romans 1:22-23 says, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man." Matt: Don't you see? Your god is in the form of a man.... completely! That is NOT the God of the Bible. Gary: He's an incorruptible perfected Man. Matt: Your god is the image of a man. He was corruptible because he sinned. Gary: More like we are in His image.

357

Matt: But isnt it more than that? He has a goddess wife. They have children. They both have bodies of flesh and bones. Matt: Your god is merely an ex-sinner who became a god of a particular world and he has a goddess wife. Matt: That is NOT in the Bible. The Bible contradicts such teachings. Matt: Because you cannot see it, you are unregenerate. You are not a Christian. Gary: He is perfect. We are His children. Gary: You havent answered my question from before. Matt: Which question? Gary: Do you hold anything sacred? Matt: Yes I do... that is why I defend the truth. God is not an exalted man. He does not have a goddess wife. I hold the truth sacred and defend it. Gary: Does it bother you if people tear down what you believe is true? Matt: Yes. That is why I defend Christianity. Gary: Well, I can see that this is getting no where. Matt: Sorry, I do not mean to be difficult. But I am just trying to get you to see. Gary: I think it is you who cannot see. Matt: That is always a possibility. But, at least I am trusting Gods word. Gary: I do too. Matt: Well, that is debatable given our conversation. Gary: Alright, I have to go. Matt: Okay, I hope to see you again sometime Gary: Bye. Matt: Bye. Sue: Bye.

358

Did Joseph Smith see God the Father?

We jump right into this conversation where a Mormon stated there was an apostasy and that Joseph Smith saw God the Father. Of course, this is a serious problem because the Bible teaches that no one can see God the Father. Matt: You state that there was an apostasy. Smith's vision states that God said all churches were wrong. Matt: The Book of Mormon says that my church is a false church. Alex: God appeared to Joseph and told him all churches draw near with their lips but their hearts are far from Him. None of them had the complete truth. Matt: God the Father appeared to Joseph? Alex: Yes. and His son Jesus Christ Matt: Well, then we have a problem. The Bible says in 1 Tim. 6:15-17, "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen." Matt: So who do I believe? The apostle Paul or Joseph Smith? Paul states that no man can see God (the Father). Smith, therefore, did not. Alex: He proceeded to restore the fullness of His gospel once again to us. But many have seen him. Moses, Paul himself saw God the Father and the Son side by side, or that might have been Timothy. Matt: No. No one has seen God the Father. Matt: John 6:46 Jesus says, "Not that any man hat h seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." Matt: The people in the Old Testament were seeing Jesus, not the Father because the Father cannot be seen. Alex: Acts 7:55. Stephen, I believe. Matt: Yes, he had a vision.... He had a vision of Jesus standing on the right hand of the Father. The 'right hand" means position of authority. Matt: Jesus was in heaven, next to God's throne, probably, and Stephen was allowed to see this vision. Alex: Do you believe the Adam and Eve story? He spoke with God. They both did. Yes, Id say it was a vision. Just like Joseph smith had a vision, and many others before and after. Matt: Adam and eve saw Jesus, the preincarnate Christ. Matt: Jesus said that no one has ever seen the father, John 6:46, therefore, no one has. Why cant you believe it? Also, 1 Tim. 6:15-17 says no one can see or has seen him... Why can't you simply believe what it says? Alex: The Bible seems to contradict itself if it is read without the help of interpretation. Matt: Yes, if read without the Spirit of God. Do you have the Spirit of God? Alex: The bottom line is you can't find all the truth just by reading the Bible on your own. God has more to help us now. And you can't say someone else's church is a cult because they choose to interpret the Bible differently. That's not what Jesus Christ did. Matt: Mormonism is a cult because it teaches a false god. THAT is why it is wrong and Jesus corrected all sorts of people. He nailed the Pharisees. He stomped on the Sadducees. Matt: Paul did the same thing later. It is perfectly biblical to tackle error and expose it. That is what I am doing with Mormonism. Alex: you may not choose to believe what we do, but you can leave us alone with our beliefs. let us keep sacred the things we hold sacred Matt: It is in error. If you die a Mormon, believing Mormon doctrine, you will go to hell. I don't want that. Alex: Christ denounced the Sadducees for their evil works Matt: And their evil teachings as he did with the Pharisees also. Alex: He called them to repentance. Matt: yes... And God is calling you to repentance. Turn from the sin of having a false god.

359

Matt: Exodus 20 is where God warns people to not have false gods. Mormonism has several false gods: a god the father, a god the son, a god the holy ghost, a goddess mother, becoming gods, etc. Matt: There is only one God, not lots of them. Alex: We believe in Christ and what He taught and what he's taught his witnesses, his prophets. Anyone who accepts Christ and follows him can be saved to inherit a degree of glory. Matt: No... you break the Commandments of God in Exodus 20 by having a false god. Matt: God is not an exalted man from another planet who has a goddess wife. Matt: There are not many many gods. There is only ONE God, period. Not just "of this world" but only one in all the universe. Alex: There's only one God in all the universe, in all eternity. Matt: Let me ask again. You mean that there is no goddess mother? Alex: yes there is. Matt: btw, do you believe that Jesus is the god of this world? Alex: Yes. Matt: There is a mother goddess? Then how can there be only one god in all the universe and yet there be two of them? Alex: God is God from eternity to eternity. Matt: Is Jesus a god too? Does Elohim have a 'dad', a father who was HIS God on the other world? Alex: I know nothing about that. It's definitely not easily explained, or understood. Matt: It is contradictory. In Mormonism. Jesus is A god. The Holy Ghost is A god. The Father is A god. That is three gods. The goddess mother makes four. Alex: By mans wisdom alone many things of spiritual nature seem contradictory Matt: So you admit it is contradictory? Matt: Then you do not believe based on the Bible. You believe based on feelings, your testimony... that contradicts the Bible. Alex: I admit what I just said: by our wisdom alone, it seems so. Matt: Now... why in heaven should I believe your testimony when what you are telling me is selfcontradictory? Also, your belief contradicts the Bible! Matt: Why should I believe you? Alex: You don't have to. It'd be great if you did, but you probably won't. I know I lack a lot of wisdom and understanding but i have faith and a testimony of the true church Matt: You don't get it... the Bible states there is only one God, period. You state otherwise. Matt: Your faith is in a false god and your testimony contradicts the Bible. You are on pretty shaky ground. Alex: Do you feel what you believe is true or do you believe against your feelings? Matt: I don't "feel" anything is true when it comes to this. I trust the Bible. But, I often believe against my feelings. The Bible says not to trust your feelings (Jer. 17:9). Matt: I trust God's word. That is why I am not a Mormon and never will be one. Alex: Ah thats a fun scripture. Don't be led away by your natural passions Matt: No, it says the heart is desperately deceitful, no one can trust it. Matt: So, God says do NOT trust your heart. Yet you do. Alex: The Spirit of God works with us to help us know the truth. We interpret it differently Matt: He wants you to trust His word. If you don't, you WILL be led astray Alex: I understand what you are saying but I dont agree. Matt: I know you dont. If you did, you wouldnt be a Mormon. Alex: Im sure well talk again sometime. Matt: I hope so. With that the c onversation ended. As you can see, the Mormons have a difficult time reconciling the teaching of multiple Gods and the biblical teaching that there is only one. This type of conversation happens too many times with Mormons.

360

Feelings, gods, and Joseph Smith

This dialogue demonstrates a major problem with witnessing to those in Mormonism. They think that their feelings are as valid, if not more so, than biblical revelation. In fact, they often subordinate the Bible to their "testimony", their feelings. Mormons contend that they received a confirmation from God in their hearts that Mormonism is true. The problem with this is, that their testimony contradicts the Bible. But, when you put feelings above scripture, it doesn't matter.

Greg: Hi. I visited your site the other day and I just had some questions. Matt: Okay. Greg: I was just wondering what the purpose of the site is. Matt: To glorify God, get people out of cults, and equip Christians. Greg: So it's not actually to teach people true beliefs about different churches? Matt: Of course it is. What church do you go to? Greg: Well, I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about a year ago Matt: Thought so... and you believe it? Greg: Before either of us say anything more, I really don't want this to be any sort of argument and I don't want anything said that would offend either of us Matt: No problem. Greg: Ok. Thanks. I really have no problem with anybody disagreeing with what I believe, but I would hope that it's for the right reasons and I really don't think that the web site explains my church's beliefs fully and truthfully. Matt: I understand... Greg: like, when I was reading the page about what Mormons believe, a lot of the things were not explained or taken out of context. Matt: It was intended to be brief.... but... it is accurate.... Greg: And I mean, the KKK uses passages from the Bible to support their beliefs, but everybody understands that they're taking them out of context Greg: All I really wanted to say was that if you want something even shorter about what Mormons believe, here's the 13 Articles of Faith. You should go to the LDS web site and read them. And I hope that you would take the opportunity to better understand other's beliefs Matt: I'm sorry... but there is a lot you do not understand about this issue... Greg: Like what Matt: Like God, for example.... When your articles say you believe in one God, that isn't true. Greg: In what way? Matt: There is a goddess mother in Mormonism, Jesus is a god as well. The Holy Spirit is another god...that's four if you include God the Father himself. So what you are doing is misrepresenting yourselves. You use the right words, but have the wrong meaning. Greg: As far as the trinity, many Christians believe in that. Matt: Nope. Not so. Matt: Mormonism does not teach the Trinity. Mormonism teaches a triad... quite different. The Trinity is ONE God. A triad is three gods. Matt: There is only one god in the universe according to the Bible. But, Mormonism contradicts that. Greg: Actually the Old Testament talks of others. Matt: It speaks of false gods. Greg: It's not until later in the Old Testament that God is not just the best god but the only one Matt: No. That is not true. Matt: Isaiah 44:6 says, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I m the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." Matt: Isaiah 44:8 says, Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none." Matt: God says there is no other God... that he doesn't even know of any others. Therefore, there is only one God.

361

Greg: Well, I really don't see this going anywhere now, but all I want is you to not misrepresent the church. Matt: Could it be that your church is misrepresenting Christianity? Greg: Well, I wouldn't be a member if that were any type of issue with me. I took a lot of time in deciding. Matt: You decided based upon what they told you and the way they told you. Sure, they are nice. But, are they true? Can you really become a god? Is there really a goddess mother in heaven? Was God really a man on another world at one time? Matt: Do you believe these things? Greg: And you know? Whatever arguments you have, there's nothing you can say that would contradict the feeling it gives me when I read scriptures. And everything about it feels amazing to me. Matt: But, the Bible says not to trust your feelings. Greg: Where? And it what context? Matt: Jer. 17:9 says, "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" Matt: Mormonis m wants you to trust feelings. But God wants you to trust His word. Greg: But what about faith? Matt: Faith is only as good as who you place it in. Faith in something false is powerless to save. Matt: God says to trust His word... Matt: Acts 17:11, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Greg: But how do you get his word -- you don't get it written in the sky. It's a feeling. Matt: The Word is the Bible. The Mormons have told you it is a feeling. God has told you to compare truth to His word, the Bible. Who are you going to listen to? Greg: I read the Bible, and I agree with it, but what is really amazing is how I feel when I read it. I believe it is a feeling. Matt: You are using feelings to judge that feelings are true. Matt: God's word says that there are no other gods, that you cannot become a god... etc. Therefore, Mormonism is wrong. Greg: You said that Mormons have told me it is a feeling and I'm saying it's me who thinks that, even before I had any clue what Mormons taught. Matt: Mormons very often use the "feeling" thing as a way to get you to agree with them. They often say, "How do you feel about this"... at least the missionaries I've spoken to have said this countless times over the years. Greg: Well, I don't think that religion should be totally intellectual. Is it wrong to feel love from God? Matt: Not at all. Is it wrong to believe what God has said in the Bible? Greg: No not at all. But how can you say it's right to feel love from God when you say it's wrong to trust feelings. Matt: Feeling love and trusting feelings are different. Matt: It is good to feel love. But is it wise to trust a feeling about spiritual truth when God says the heart is deceitful (Jer. 17:9)? Greg: But the whole thing about other gods and everything you disagree with is so much bigger than what God tells us about this world. In this world, right he is the only god. Matt: Other gods? Then read this... Gal. 4:8, "However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods." Matt: 1 Cor. 8:5-6, "For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." Matt: Notice how Paul says they are "so-called" gods and that they are not really gods by nature. Greg: I really believe that God gives us what we can handle. First there were the beliefs in the Old Testament for those people. Then Jesus came along and perfected that. And so why is it so outrageous for Joseph Smith to perfect it even more? Matt: Really? And you trust Joseph Smith? Greg: Yes Matt: Would you trust someone who said he'd done more to keep a church together than even Jesus? Greg: Well, I would like to see where that was actually said and in what context.

362

Matt: Joseph Smith said, "God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . " (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409). Matt: Joseph Smith said this. He boasted mightily. This is the man you are trusting to tell you spiritual truth. Matt: Joseph Smith also said, "A question may be asked, Will mothers have their children in eternity?' Yes! Yes! Mothers, you shall have your children." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 10). "Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 10). Matt: and he said, "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods." (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith p. 370). Greg: Well, I would like to see that in the book first of all, but even if that's what he said, why is it so horrible if Latter-day Saints have believed him more than people did in Jesus' time. What is wrong about that? Matt: But the Bible says in Isaiah 45:5, "I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God...." Greg: You know, I really don't see this getting anywhere. Matt: But Smith boasted he did more than Jesus to keep a church together. Doesn't that bother you? Greg: You don't know with what inflection of voice he said that. Matt: It doesn't matter, God says that pride goes before a fall. Joseph died one month later. Greg: You definitely haven't convinced me of anything, I haven't you, so I don't see any point in this. All I wanted was to show you a site where the beliefs are explained more Matt: I understand. But I think you need to examine God's word more completely. Greg: Well I think the same about you Matt: Eternity is a long time to be wrong. Greg: And I agree Matt: Please, check the references and get back with me. Okay? Greg: Ok, but I would hope that you would look through the site I gave you Matt: I already have..

363

Mormon and salvation and works

This dialogue was a friendly one. There weren't any "victories" on either side. I took over a conversation that a friend of mine was having with this person. My goal was to point him to Jesus and true forgiveness. Salvation isn't attained through intellectual competition but through the work of the Holy Spirit. The question is, does the Mormon have the Holy Spirit, the true Holy Spirit? Are they saved by their own works, by God's sacrifice alone, by faith, etc.? Can our works save us in any way? These kinds of issues are what I was thinking while going through this dialogue. Also, I made a mistake in the dialogue and had to correct myself in it. We all make mistakes.

Matt: Hi. What is your name? Ken: Howdy Matt: My friend tells me you are a Mormon apologist, true? Ken: I try to be. I am only an amateur. Matt: I was just telling him that it is useless to talk to you.... Ken: Why is that? Matt: Because you believe what you believe. You wont' be converted. You can't be. Ken: Like I told your friend when we started this exchange, I am only trying to correct his error of LDS theology. I trust the Lord to covert his heart. Matt: Which Lord? The LDS one is different than the one I believe in. Ken: You believe in a nature of God that I do not. Matt: Correct. I believe there is only one God in all existence. You do not. Ken: The argument stands that I believe that there are three Gods who act as ONE, you believe there are ONE God in three essences. Matt: Not three essences, but close enough. Matt: You are a polytheist. I am a monotheist. Ken: Not three essences? How not? Matt: You believe that God has a body of flesh and bones. I do not. Ken: That is true. Matt: Three persons, distinct persons, not flesh and bones, yet only one God. To continue.... You believe that Jesus is the brother of us all, correct? and that there is a goddess mother in heaven.... correct? You believe this all because you think the Holy Spirit bears witness of this, right? Ken: I believe he is our Spirit Brother. Yes, I would also accept the statement of Heavenly Mother. Sure. Matt: Well, that isn't what the Bible teaches..... So, you are wrong. But, I cannot convince you of that. It is a spiritual issue. You must have the True Holy Spirit in order to know the truth. You must first be born again or you will not have the Spirit of Truth. That is the issue. Jesus said you must be born again. Jesus sends the Holy Spirit who bears witness of truth. But, he will not inhabit unholy vessels. You must be cleansed of your sins. Are you cleansed? Are you cleansed of your sins? Ken: Of course. One must be converted of the spirit. Amen. Thank the atonement of Jesus. Matt: Remember, the Spirit of God cannot inhabit the Temple until after it had been cleansed and sanctified. Ken: Amen Matt: Now I have a question for you. Do you now have eternal life, the eternal life is given by Jesus? Ken: Eternal life is Jesus. Amen to that. If I endure to the end. Matt: Jesus said that he gives eternal life (John 10:28). Ken: Amen Matt: And 1 John 5:13 says that we can know right now that we have eternal life. I ask because the true Jesus of the Bible, who reveals the truth and gives eternal life is the true savior. Ken: If I endure to the end. Matt: It does not say that eternal life is dependent on whether or not you endure. 1 John 5:13 says, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life." It says that you may know, present tense, that you have eternal life. Does your Jesus gives you this eternal life right now? Let me ask you, are you telling me that all of your sins are forgiven and that you possess eternal life right now?

364

Ken: Give eternal life. Yes. Right now, Yes. Matt: How do you receive this eternal life? What do you do to get it? Ken: There are many steps, though I already know how you will respond. Like I said, I get this everyday. Thanks for enlightening me. Matt: I do not enlighten you. Only God can do that. Matt: Then do you disagree with the eighth article of your Church which states that you are saved by Grace after all you can do? Ken: The 8th article of faith says nothing about what you just said. Matt: That you are saved by Grace after all you can do? Ken: But that is a good tactic anyways. Matt: This is not a tactic. This is not a game. This is life and death. Ken: Dum dum dum. Matt: I cannot convince you through logic, intellectual traps, or proof texts. I am only trying to get you to see who the real Jesus is. Ken: Thanks for trying to scare me into believing. Matt: I do not believe that anything I said was "scary." I was not intending to scare you into anything. The real Jesus does not require your good works in order to make you a Christian. Ken: Thanks. I do say though that you are a much more interesting dialogue than with your friend. Ken: Maybe you and I should have a dialogue. Matt: We are having a dialogue, right now. Ken: I believe Grace, Faith and Works are an eternal principle. Matt: I need to stand corrected. I just checked. The eighth article of your Church does not state what I thought. It has been a long time since I looked at them. Ken: No problem. Matt: However, the third article says this: "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." Ken: Amen to that. "If you love me keep my commandments." Can I get an amen? Matt: You see, one of the basic differences between Christianity and Mormonism aside from the dealings with God and His nature, in his how we are forgiven of our sins. Yes, we are to keep his Commandments, but we are not saved by keeping those Commandments. Ken: Amen to that also. Matt: This is clearly taught in the book of Romans chapters 4 and 5. Ken: Amen to that also. Of course you would have to stand corrected if you think that we are saved by our good works. Matt: In fact, the third artic le of your Church contradicts the book of Romans and Ephesians and Galatians which all teach justification by faith alone. Matt: Mormon 3rd article says "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. Which laws and ordinances must you obey in order to be forgiven of your sins? Ken: Obey, of course. Do you argue that we may sin and be saved in our sins? Matt: I am asking which laws and ordinances on the Mormon Church you must obey in order to have your sins forgiven. Can you please tell me? Ken: There are two. And I believe you already know them. Matt: You are confusing the difference between justification and sanctification. Ken: No. Matt: Justification is our legal declaration by God upon on us, sinners, that we are declared righteous in His sight. Sanctification is the process we go through and our lives where the Holy Spirit makes us more like Jesus. Ken: I must go to bed. It is almost 11:00 here and I must go to bed. It was very good talking to you. Matt: The question, then, in his how are you justified? how are you made righteous in God's site? Ken: Please email me and we will continue to exchange. Keep the same questions and we will continue this. Matt: I lovingly request that you read Romans chapters 3-5 and Galatians 3-5 Ken: I am sorry. I would like to keep this up to but I have to go to bed. Plus, I need to spend some time with my wife.

365

Matt: It is these chapters that speak of this issue. I hope that if you read them you will see that the third article on your Church is in contradiction to God's word. Ken: Ok, I will do that for tomorrow. Matt: I understand you need to sleep. Matt: Please understand that I am not here to bash on you. I believe you are lost and I do not want you to go to hell. Ken: You are a breath of fresh air, with sound logic. Matt: What ever I am I am by the Grace of God. I want you to find the real and loving Jesus who can fill your heart with His salvation. Ken: Thanks for your concern. Of course I would say ditto. Ken: Amen to that. Ken: Good night. Matt: I will be praying, to Jesus, for you and your salvation. Goodnight. I can't say this was the greatest dialogue. I only hope the Holy Spirit opens his mind and heart to understand the truth so He can come to a real relationship with Jesus.

366

40 Objections with Answers

Introduction

Most every unbeliever has a reason or reasons for not being Christian. They range from excuses to misinformation. In an attempt to help you have some ideas for answering some of the basic objections, the following answers are offered. This list could be much longer, but these forty basic objections and responses will help get you started.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

What is sin? p. 368 What is salvation? p. 368 What must a person do to be saved? p. 368 Is sincerity good enough to be saved? p. 369 What can you say to someone who says they aren't that bad a person? p. 370 What are some things you can say to an atheist who denies God's existence? p. 371 What might you say to someone who is already religious? p. 372 Is believing in God enough to be saved? p. 372 Why did God make us? p. 373 Is Jesus just like any other great man of history? p. 373 What makes Jesus so special? p. 374 Why did Jesus need to die so we can go to heaven? p. 375 What could you say to someone who trusts in his feelings? p. 376 Do all religions lead to the same place? p. 377

367

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

I am not a sinner. A. Are you saying you are perfect? If you are, then you're the first perfect person I've ever met. B. Are you saying you've never broken the Law of God? Have you ever lied, cheated, or stolen? If you have, then you are a sinner whether you think so or not. The laws of God have punishments (a law without a punishment is only a slogan). As a sinner, you are separated from God (Isaiah 59:2). However, God loves you enough not to want you to be separated from Him. He sent Jesus (1 John 4:10) to pay for sins on the cross. So, the only way to have your sins forgiven is to put your trust in Jesus and the sacrifice He made. C. The Bible says that everyone has sinned (Rom. 5:12). That means you, too. What is sin? A. Sin is doing what is wrong as well as not doing what is right. It is breaking the Law of God (1 John 3:4). In other words, it is doing what is against God's will. If He says do not lie and you lie, then you have sinned. If He says do not steal and you steal then you have sinned. And, according to God, sin separates you from Him (Isaiah 59:2). B. Sin is an offense to God's character. Because God cannot lie, it is wrong for you to lie. Because God cannot steal, it is wrong for you to steal. Right and wrong, then, is a manifestation of the character of God. God is holy; He cannot sin. Sin offends Him personally because it is His laws of right and wrong you are breaking. If you have offended Him then you must find a way to "unoffend" Him. The problem is that you can't, but He can and has, by offering His Son, Jesus Christ, on the cross as a sacrifice for sin. I am too big a sinner. A. Nobody is too big a sinner. The love of God and the sacrifice of Jesus is capable of cleansing the worst of all sin. Even Hitler could have been saved if he would have turned to Christ. You have sinned the same as anyone else. It is just that your s3ins are yours. They aren't too big for God to wipe away. Sin has no power over God, only over you. B. Let me ask you something. Do you think murder and adultery are serious sins? Yes? Well, David, a man in the Bible who was called by God a man after His own heart (Acts 13:22), was a murderer and an adulterer. He even tried to hide his sin from everyone. But God knew his sins and exposed them. David repented and threw himself on the mercy of the Lord. God forgave him and loved him. God loves you and He will forgive you if you put your trust in Jesus and ask Him to forgive you of your sins (Rom. 10:9-10). What is salvation? A. Salvation is the forgiveness of sins. It is only accomplished through faith in Jesus as Savior. He died on the cross for sins. If you want salvation, you need to trust in what Jesus did on the cross. Only then can you have eternal life and be with God. B. Salvation is saving a person from damnation. Damnation is judgment upon the sinner. This judgment consists of God condemning the sinner to eternal punishment in hell. This is the destination of all who reject God's provision for the forgiveness of sins. If you want salvation, then you need to recognize that you are a sinner and ask Jesus to forgive you. He will. What do I do to get saved? A. Salvation is a free gift of God (Rom. 6:23). Jesus bore sin in His body (1 Pet. 2:24) and paid the penalty for breaking the Law of God, which is spiritual death (eternal separation from God). If you want salvation, you need to admit that you are a sinner and that you want Jesus to forgive you of your sins. You must acknowledge that there is nothing you can do to earn forgiveness. Pray and ask Him to forgive you. You need to trust in Jesus. Seek Him; He will save you. B. Repentance is part of salvation. Once saved, you should stop doing those things that are displeasing to God. He will live in you and give you the ability and desire to resist sin (1 Cor. 10:13). When you are saved, expect to change -- for the better. Is baptism necessary for salvation? A. No. Faith in Jesus is sufficient for salvation. You don't have to do anything. Christ has done it all. However, baptism is very important and all believers should be baptized. If you refuse baptism after salvation, I would doubt your conversion. B. There are Christian denominations that believe baptism is necessary for salvation. The arguments used, on the surface, seem to be powerful. However, upon examination baptism is found to occur after conversion and is not in anyway a cause or part of it. Take, for example, Acts 10:44-47. While Peter was witnessing, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message...and they were hearing them speaking in tongues and

368

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" i. This passage shows that baptism happens after salvation. How do we know they were saved? They were speaking in tongues -- which is a gift from God (1 Cor. 14) to believers and they were exalting God. Non-believers do not exalt God. Also, Peter said they had received the Holy Spirit. That is only for Christians and it happened before baptism. (Note: speaking in tongues is simply a sign of salvation. It is not necessary that a Christian speak in tongues as a proof of salvation. Not all speak in tongues (1 Cor. 12:30). ii. Another set of verses applicable to this issue is 1 Cor. 1:17. Paul says, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." The gospel is what saves and it is explained in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Baptism is not part of the gospel; it is something that the believer does after salvation. C. Baptism is only a symbol of that which saves and symbols don't save. I am already good enough. A. How good do you have to be to get to heaven? God is holy and requires holiness. Holiness is purity. Even though you may think you are good enough, even one sin disqualifies you from being in the presence of God. You could never be good enough. That is why you need Jesus. B. The Bible says that there is none good enough. "There is none who does good, there is not even one," (Rom. 3:12). Goodness is measured by God's standard not yours. C. To say that you are good enough means that Christ did not have to die. But He did die to save sinners. The Bible says if righteousness can come by good deeds then Christ didn't need to die (Gal. 2:21), but He did, so being good isn't enough. I am doing the best I can and I'm sincere. A. Even if you could do far better than you are doing now you still can't do well enough because you don't please God by being good (Gal. 2:21), but by accepting Jesus (John 1:12). B. Sincerity is not the way to heaven. What if you are sincerely wrong? (Remember John 14;6?) C. If you are relying on your sincerity, then are you saying that because you are sincere, therefore you are good enough on your own to be with God." Don't you see, to appeal to your sincerity is to appeal to pride, because you are appealing to something that is in you and not God for your reason to go to heaven. I am sorry, sincerity is not enough. You must have faith, in Jesus. D. How long have you been doing your best? Has it worked so far? Has it given you eternal life? I am skeptical. A. Are you honestly looking for answers? If you are, I would be very willing to talk with you more about Jesus, the Bible, or whatever else you want to talk about. B. What are you skeptical about? Perhaps we can talk about some of the things that you feel keeps you from a saving knowledge of Jesus. I tried Christianity once. A. The Bible says that once you are saved, you are never the same again, you are a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). If you have gone back to your old ways, then most probably you were never saved. If, however, you were saved, then God won't let you stay in rebellion for long. He will deal with you in whatever way is necessary to bring you back into fellowship with Him. B. Did you become a Christian by going to church or by asking Jesus to forgive you of your sins? The latter makes you a Christian, the former doesn't. I knew some Christians once and they wronged me. A. Christians aren't perfect. They make mistakes like anyone else. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive them. I think that is what they would do for you. B. Maybe they didn't know they wronged you. Was it something really bad or was it just a mistake? Have you gone to them and spoken to them about it? Maybe if you were to forgive them you would begin to understand the forgiveness God has for you. We all need to be forgiven, don't you agree?

369

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

I'll take my chances. A. With what, eternity? Eternity is a long time to be wrong. Why would you want to take a gamble on something as important as your eternal destiny? It takes only a moment to trust Christ for your salvation. There will be an eternity of pain and regret if you don't. B. You don't take chances with guns do you? You don't take chances and run red lights do you? Why would you take a chance on something that is far more important than these? Don't take a chance on something eternal. It isn't worth it. C. Jesus said He was the only way to God. He forgave sins, walked on water, calmed a storm with a command, raised people from the dead, and rose from the dead Himself. No one else in all of history has done that. If He can do all that, don't you think you should listen to Him. I am not that bad a person. A. Whether or not you feel you are bad or good is not the real issue. The Bible says that all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). If all have sinned, good or bad, then all will suffer the judgment of God. God does not require someone to be pretty good; He requires that he not sin at all. But He knows that you cannot be sinless. That is why He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). B. The Bible says that our good works are filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6). It isn't saying that we might not try to be good, it is saying that whatever good we do, it is not good enough. It also says that there is none who does good (Rom. 3:12). The standard God seeks is perfection. We cannot please God on our own. That is why Jesus died on behalf of sinners. If you want to be good enough, then you must let God see you through the righteousness of Jesus Christ. That is the only goodness that counts to God. I am too old or t oo young. A. You are never to old to trust in Jesus as your Savior. As long as you are alive you can call on Him to forgive you of your sins. He is as close as the call of your heart. B. (Granted there may be some who are too young to understand the gospel message, but here we will address those who simply use that as an excuse.) Youth is a blessing from God. Don't use it as an excuse to stay away from Him. If you can understand what sin is and your need for deliverance from it, then you are not too young to receive Jesus as your Savior. He saves everyone, young and old. I can't believe in a God who would send people to hell. A. Hell was originally created for Satan and his angels. In the future it will contain those who join Satan in rejecting God. If you reject God's provision for the forgiveness of your sins then you will join the Devil who rejected God from the beginning. Is that what you want? B. Could you believe in a God who would become a human, suffer at the hands of humans, and be killed by them, all so that His death could be the payment for their sins? That is extremely loving. God is saving people who deserve to go to hell -- and we all deserve that. Remember that the same God that sends people to hell also died for them. If they reject what God has provided then what is God left to do? He would have to judge them. C. Whether you believe in something or not does not change the fact of its existence. Jesus spoke often of hell (Matt. 25:41-46; Mark 9:47-48; Luke 16:19-31) and warned us so we would not go there. Would you say Jesus didn't know what He was talking about? D. Are you implying that it is unjust for God to send people to hell? If so, then you accuse God of injustice. Sin is wrong and it must be punished. What would you have God do to those who oppose Him and do evil? Do you want Him to ignore that which is wrong? Do you want Him to turn His head and not be holy and righteous? I will worry about it in the next life. A. That you may very well do, forever. Eternity is a long time to be wrong, especially about Jesus. B. God has warned us in the Bible that it is appointed for men to die once, then judgment (Heb. 9:27). After death you will be judged. Do you want to face eternity without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ accounted to you? God hates sin and you have sinned. God will punish sinners if they reject Jesus. However, He loves you. That is why He sent His Son to die for sins. If you want eternal life, then you need to worry about it now. Eternity is a long time to be wrong, especially about Jesus. C. There is no next life. Reincarnation isn't true. The Bible says after death you face God (Heb. 9:27).

370

17.

I don't want to give up what I like doing. A. If you become a Christian, are you saying you must stop doing what you're doing now. That means you know it is wrong. Let me ask you something. If you were to become a Christian and God were to live in your heart and you looked back upon your life now, would you say to yourself, "I did a lot of things I wish I hadn't done."? Probably so. The Bible speaks about just such a thing. In Rom. 6:21 it says, "What benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed, for the outcome of those things is death," (NASB). What you are saying is that God will require you to give up certain things that you like to do. Since God only wants what is good and right, and you say you don't want to give up what your are doing, then you are saying you want what is wrong. B. Will you let your pleasures get in the way of salvation? Is your life of sin worth an eternity of pain? Jesus said, "What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?" (Mark 8:36). 18. Christianity is boring. A. Then you haven't experienced it. No one who is a Christian will ever say that it is boring. B. How do you know? Have you tried it? There are millions of Christians who have a lot of fun being Christian. We just do it with a lot less sin, and therefore, a lot less problems. Maybe its only your problems that keep you from getting bored. C. What do you think we do all day, sit around fireplaces and read Bibles? We ski, swim, play sports, read, have friends and problems like anybody else. Christianity is not boring. It is an adventure. 19. I am an atheist. I don't believe in God. A. An atheist is defined in two senses: Someone who says he believes there is no God and someone who simply lacks belief in God. An atheist cannot say he knows there is no God because he would have to know all things in order to know if there is or isn't a God. If he says he believes there is no God ask him why he believes that way and begin there. If he says he lacks belief in God, then ask what he does believe in and start there. I always get around to the question of, "How did we get here?" Since creation and evolution are the only options, I have something further to work with. i. Evolution has a lot of problems with it. It seems to me that it takes a lot of faith to believe that you developed out of ocean slime, simply by chance. At least as a Christian I have the evidence of the resurrection of Christ from eye witnesses as recorded by them in the gospels. Evolution or not, Jesus rose from the dead, said He was God, and forgave sins. I'll put my faith in Him instead of evolution. B. An agnostic says he doesn't know if there is or isn't a God. (Usually after saying this I challenge them to explain the prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled in the New. I state how the Bible is unique that way and that only God can make prophecies that are 100% accurate. Then I ask him to explain how that could be done if there is no God.) C. If there is no God as you say, then in the end I lose nothing. But if there is a God like I say, in the end you lose everything. D. Why don't you believe in God? Is there any reason for you to intelligently reject His existence? Or, do you simply desire not to believe in Him? E. The Bible doesn't attempt to prove that God exists. It simply speaks as though He does. Maybe I can't prove to you there is a God, but I can introduce Him to you through His Son Jesus Christ and you can judge for yourself if the Words of Christ in the Bible convince you of His existence. a. (Note: We exist. How did we get here? An atheist's only option would be to say evolution. If you study evolution, by reading Christian books that reveal and document its many serious problems, then you will be able to weaken the atheist's belief in it. The logic is simple: If evolution and creation are the only options, to remove one is to support the other. Therefore, learn as much as you can about evolution. Your witness will be greatly strengthened. However, evolution does not explain the origin of life, only its development. Discussions on origins of life are interesting in themselves.)

371

20. I am trying to be a Christian. A. You become a Christian by simply putting your trust in Jesus and His sacrifice for you on the cross. There is no trying involved. If you trust Jesus, if you ask Him to forgive you of your sins and be your Savior, then you are a Christian. It is living like a Christian after you've become one that is difficult. B. If you believe that in order to become a Christian you must be good, then you misunderstand or don't have a good understanding of salvation. A Christian is a Christian by the gift of God (Rom. 6:23), not the work of man (Eph. 2:8-9). There is nothing you can do to earn salvation or keep salvation. It is simply something God freely gives you. If you want it, confess your sins, repent, turn to God, and trust Jesus as your only Savior. Then, and only then, will you become a Christian. 21. I am already religious. A. Who said God wants you to be religious? He wants a relationship with you. Religion is man's attempt to reach God. Christianity is God reaching man. 1 Cor. 1:9 says that God wants you to have fellowship with Jesus. He is talking about a relationship, someone you can talk to. He doesn't want to weigh you down with a bunch of do's and don't's. He wants to extend a loving hand to you and help you live a good clean life. But that cannot be done until the real problem in you is done away with, and that is sin. Sin separates you from God (Isaiah 59:2). If you want salvation instead of "religion," then go to Jesus. Seek Him. He will never let you down. B. I see. Where do you attend church? 22. I don't need God. A. If you say you don't need Him, then you believe He exists. If you do, why would you say you don't need Him. Isn't He the One who determines your destiny? Doesn't He have the authority and power to do as He pleases and to send you to heaven or hell? It is foolish to say you don't need the One who is your Creator, who loves you and has provided the way for forgiveness of sin. You need God because only He can cleanse you from your sins. B. What do you need? Are you really doing that well without God? Are you happy with the way things are in your life? If you aren't, then you need Jesus. And even if you are happy, you still need Him, because you can't take what makes you happy with you when you die. 23. I have things I need to do before I become a Christian. A. Like what? Why do you need to do these things before you come to God? Are they bad things or good? If they are bad, then you shouldn't do them. If they are good, why can't you become a Christian and then do them? B. Nothing you can do could be more important than your relationship with God. To put Him off is unwise. What if you die before you become a Christian? Then you would be eternally without hope. C. Your statement implies you believe following God will mean you won't be able to do the things you want to do. If that is true, then that means the things you intend to do would displease God? Are you saying you prefer to do something God wouldn't want you to do? If that is so, you are willfully sinning against God and putting yourself in a dangerous situation. That is all the more reason you need His forgiveness. 24. I prefer to remain open minded. A. Open mindedness means looking at everything honestly. Are you willing to do that with Christianity? Do you want to see what Jesus has said and learn about what He can offer you? B. If you say you are going to remain open minded and not accept Christianity, then in reality you are being very closed minded. Maybe Christianity is true. Your open- mindedness could keep you from discovering it. 25. I already believe in God. A. Are you living your life as if that were true? Does your belief in God affect the way you live or do you still do entirely as you please? B. If you say you believe in God, then how do you know what He wants for you? Are you in contact with Him? Do you just trust whatever you feel is right? C. The Bible says the Devil believes in God (James 2:19) and he is lost. If all you do is simply believe that God exists, then you are no better off than he is. It is not intellectual acknowledgment of God's existence that God wants, but your accepting the sacrifice Jesus made on behalf of sinners that pleases God. Simply believing is not enough. You must choose to follow Him.

372

It is not that you believe; it is who you put your faith in. Who is this God you believe in? Is He the Christian one? Is he Allah? Is he from another planet? Is he whatever you feel is right? Is he loving? Believing in God is fine unless your god is false. The important things is that you must believe in the true God, not a false one, and the true one is found in the Bible. 26. I'll choose God later. A. If you won't choose Him now, what makes you think you'll choose Him later? The longer you go without God, the harder it will be for you to come to Him. The longer you sin, the harder your heart will become and the further from God you will be (Heb. 3:13). To wait is to invite damnation. God calls you to repent from sin now, not later. Which will you choose? B. If you say you will choose Him later, do you admit then that you need Him now? If so, then why do you wait? You might die soon and then it would be too late. 27. There are too many hypocrites in the church. A. Church is a good place for hypocrites, as well as liars and thieves. It is there where they will be exposed to the Word of God and learn that hypocrisy is wrong. For you to judge those in the church is to condemn yourself, because we are all hypocrites in one form or another. Your recognition and condemnation of it tells me you know it is wrong. Is it hypocrisy to point a finger at the church full of sinners when you yourself are one as well? B. It has been said that you must be smaller than the thing you hide behind. Are you hiding behind the hypocrisy of others to keep yourself out of church? You must realize that you are responsible for yourself and God won't ask others about you on judgment day. He will come to you and ask you to give an account for your life. The hypocrites in the church will also stand before God, with or without you there. C. People don't counterfeit pennies. Why do you think there are hypocrites? Because Christianity is valuable. 28. Why are we here? Or, Why did God make us? A. God made us so we could glorify Him and have fellowship with Him (1 John 1:1-3). He made Adam and Eve and put them in the garden and then He walked in fellowship with them. He gave them the greatest thing they could have, His love and presence. After they sinned, God said, "Adam, where are you?" God sought Adam. In Exodus 25:8 God said to Moses while Israel was in the wilderness, "And let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them." In the New Testament in John 1:14 it says, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us..."(1) God seeks our presence. He wants to have fellowship with us. He made us to give us His love and enjoy His presence. But, man sinned and separated Himself from God. That is why Christ died for sins, that our fellowship with God would be restored. 29. What about those who have never heard the Gospel? A. That is a good question. The Bible says that God is a just God. We know that whatever He does is right. When it comes to those who have never heard the Gospel, He will do what is right, whatever that is. But as for you, you have heard the gospel and He will judge you according to how you respond. He is calling you to repentance, to turn from sin and come to Him. B. In Romans 2:11-16 it speaks about those who have never heard the Law of God and how they will be judged according to the law that is written in their hearts. The Law written in their hearts is the knowledge of right and wrong. Perhaps God's judgment of those without a proper knowledge of Him is included there where it says that they will be judged according to their own consciences that "bear witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." All I know is that God will do what is right and the only way to have your sins forgiven is through Jesus. 30. Jesus is only one of many great men of history. A. Granted, Jesus was a great man of history. That is a fact. But, He is different from all the other great men of history. How many great men of history rose from the dead, calmed a sea, walked on water, raised others from the dead, healed sickness, and forgave sins? There aren't any others that I know of. Do you know of any? These things make Him more than great. They make Him special and unique. B. You are right, Jesus was a great man. But let me ask you. If He were great, would He lie? Of course not. If He were great, would He be insane? No. You see, Jesus said He was God (John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8). If He were lying, we shouldn't listen to Him and we couldn't call Him great. If He were insane then we shouldn't listen to

D.

373

31.

Him and again we couldn't call Him great. If He is great, then He must be telling the truth. And He was great, right? C. John 1:1 says, John 1:1 Verse 14 says, "and the Word became flesh..." The Word is Jesus. Why is there evil and suffering in the world? A. The question implies that if a good God exists, then evil shouldn't, because God being all powerful, should stop it. B. We need to ask and answer two questions. First, what is evil? It is that which is against God. It is anything morally bad or wrong. It is injurious, depraved, wicked. Some acceptable examples might be murder, rape, stealing, lying, and cheating. Second, if we want God to stop evil do we want Him to stop all evil or just some of it? In other words, if just some of it then why? If He were to stop only part of the evil, then we would still be asking the question, "Why is there evil in the world?". Let's suppose that someone was about to commit murder. God would have to stop him, maybe whisper in his ear, or if that didn't work do something a little more drastic like have something fall on him, or stop his heart, or make his hands suddenly fall off. Anyway, God would have to do something. What if somebody wanted to steal? God would have to stop him too, right? Undoubtedly, God's imagination would permit a more practical method than I have suggested, but the end results would be the same. What about lying? If someone were to tell a lie, then to be consistent wouldn't you want God right there to stop that person from lying? After all, He couldn't let any evil occur could He? Let's take it a step further. Suppose someone thought something evil. Then, of course, God would have to step in and prevent him from thinking anything bad at all, right? The end result would be that God could not allow anyone to think freely. Since everyone thinks and no one thinks only pure thoughts, God would be pretty busy and we wouldn't be able to think. Anyway, at what point do we stop, at the murder level, stealing level, lying level, or thinking level? As your questions implies, if you want God to stop evil, you would have to be consistent and want Him to do it everywhere all the time, not just pick and choose. It wouldn't work. Evil is in this world partly because we give it its place but ultimately because God, in His sovereignty, permits it and keeps it under His control. Then you might say, "Couldn't He just make us perfect and that way we wouldn't sin?" He already did that. He made a perfect angel, Satan, but he sinned. He made a perfect man, Adam, and he sinned. He made a perfect woman, Eve, and she sinned. God knows what He is doing. He made us the way we are for a purpose. We don't fully understand that purpose, but He does. C. God is sovereign; He has the right to do as He wishes. He has the right to permit evil for accomplishing His ultimate will. How can He do that? Simple, look at the cross. It was by evil means that men lied and crucified Jesus. Yet God in His infinite wisdom, used this evil for good. It was on the cross that Jesus bore our sins in His body (1 Peter. 2:24) and it is because of the cross that we can have forgiveness of sins. D. Consider the biblical example of Joseph in the Old Testament. He was sold into slavery by his brothers. Though they meant it for evil, God meant it for good (Gen. 50:20). God is so great that nothing happens without His permission, and in that permission His ultimate plan unfolds. In His plan He is able to use for good what man intends for evil. God is in control. What makes Jesus so special? A. Who He said He was. He said He was God. In John 8:58, Jesus said, "Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." When He said, "I AM," He was quoting from the Old Testament in Exodus 3:14. That is where Moses was talking to God and asked Him His name. God answered and said, "I AM." When Jesus said "I AM" He was claiming the name of God for Himself and thereby claiming to be God. Other great men of history point to a philosophy and teach good ideas. Only Jesus pointed to Himself, claimed to be God, and spoke with authority that matched His claim.

32.

374

B.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

What He did. Jesus forgave sins (Luke 5:20). He rose from the dead (Luke 24; John 2:1921), raised others from the dead (John 11:43-44), and He walked on water (John 6:19). No one on earth has ever done the things Jesus did. There is no way around it. Jesus is special, about that there can be no doubt. Why did Jesus have to die in order for me to go to heaven? A. Because the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Though Jesus never sinned (1 Peter. 2:22), He bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Peter. 2:24) and died. He died in our place. Instead of God making us pay for our sins, He did it Himself by becoming one of us. B. Two things happen when we sin: one to God and one to ourselves. When we sin, God is offended. Why? Because it is His Law that we are breaking. Also, when we sin we are killed. We don't die right there on the spot, we will face a death that is far more severe. Sin kills us (Rom. 9:12) by causing eternal separation from God (Isaiah 59:2). God hates sin (Hab. 1:13) and sin must be punished. Since we are unable to please God because we are all sinners, He made an offering that is pleasing to Him. That offering was the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. There was no other way. If there were, God would have done it. What makes you think the Bible is the word of God? A. Prophecy. The Old Testament was written before Jesus was ever born. The New Testament was written by the men who knew Jesus, who walked with Him, ate with Him, and learned from Him. In the O.T. there are prophecies concerning His birthplace (Micah 5:1-2), that He would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), that He would be rejected by His own people (Isaiah 53:3), that He would be betrayed by a close friend (Isaiah 41:9), that He would die by having His hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16-18), and that He would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10, 49:15). In the N.T. all these prophecies, and many more, are fulfilled by Jesus. Now, this is the question you must answer: "If the Bible is not inspired from God, then why does it have so many fulfilled prophecies?" How is that possible if the Bible were not from God? Only God knows the future, has power over it, and can look into it to tell us exactly what will happen. In the Bible we have the finger prints of God: fulfilled prophecy! B. Wisdom. The Bible is full of the greatest truths about man and God, sin, and salvation. The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) is beautiful in its wisdom, humility, and love. The Psalms are incredible poetry of great depth and beauty. The N.T. epistles are great descriptions of love, forgiveness, longsuffering, kindness, etc. Even if you don't want to become a Christian, studying the truth God has revealed in the Bible will greatly help you in your life. (The aim is not to merely to get the person to use the Bible as a guide to good living, but to encourage him to read it. This way, he will at least be reading the Word of God and be that much closer to conversion because God's Word will accomplish what He wants it to (Isaiah 55:11). The New Testament was written so that it would only look like Jesus fulfilled prophecy. A. Then what you are saying is that the N.T. writers lied about Jesus. He really didn't rise from the dead and all those miracles about Him are really false, right? B. I could see your point, but there is just one problem. How do you account for the writers of the N.T. teaching about truth, love, honesty, giving, etc. all based on lies? Why would they suffer hardships like beatings, starvation, shipwreck, imprisonments, and finally execution for nothing but lies? What you are saying doesn't make any sense and raises more questions than it answers. The only logical explanation is that the fulfilled prophecies really did happen. Jesus actually rose from the dead. He performed miracles and He forgave sins. He forgave sins then and He can still do it now. My sins are forgiven, are yours? The Bible is full of contradictions. A. Really. Do you know of any? Could you quote me one or two? B. (Just in case someone actually does quote what he thinks is a contradiction, it is up to you to give a competent answer (1 Peter. 3:15). If you can't, don't worry. Simply tell him that you will research it and get back with him, and make sure you do. C. There are areas of Scripture that are difficult to understand. This does not mean the Bible is untrustworthy. A very good book to have is the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Archer, Zondervan Publishing House, (Grand Rapids Michigan). How do I know which religion is right? A. (This is a difficult question to answer because it involves discussing some principles that the person you are witnessing to may or may not agree with. For example, does he or she agree

375

38.

39.

40.

with you that truth is knowable, that God would attempt to communicate with His people, or that only one religion may be right? Usually, I start by acknowledging the difficulty of coming to an easy answer. However, I tell them that I do have an answer; I am sure it is the right one, because it is an answer based on evidence. What kind of evidence? Prophecy and its fulfillment (see question # 34), Jesus and His miracles, the resurrection of Christ, etc. Then I ask that person if he or she knows of these things happening in other religions. 3 1 The answer is invariably, "No." Then I point out that they have only happened in Christianity. If any religion were true, Christianity fits the bill. Religion is whatever you feel is right. A. How do you know what you feel is right? Haven't your feelings ever turned out to be wrong? Are you are saying that what you feel determines truth? If so, then you are putting yourself in the place of God and looking to yourself for what you "feel" is right. B. If religion is whatever you feel is right then that could lead to chaos. What if some people had a religion where they felt stealing was acceptable? And what about lying and cheating? Would you trust someone who believed in a religion that felt it was alright to steal, lie, and cheat? C. Hitler felt killing Jews was right. He was wrong. The Bible says that the heart is deceitful and untrustworthy (Jer. 17:9). If you could come to know truth by what you felt, then the Bible, which is the revelation of God, didn't need to be written. But, it has been written and it has revealed that only God is the Source of truth, not your feelings. D. I've never known truth to contradict itself. What if someone felt that something was right and another person felt it was wrong? Would they both be right? If your statement is true, then how can there be a contradiction like that if feelings determined truth? All religions are different paths to the same place. A. If all religions are different paths to the same place then why do the paths contradict each other? Does truth contradict itself? Let's review the teachings of just three religions: B. Buddhism is pantheistic and says there is no personal God and everyone can reach Godlikeness on his own. Islam says that Jesus was just a prophet and not the only way to God. Christianity says that there is a personal God and that the only way to Him is through Jesus (John 14:6). If these three religions are, as you say, different paths to the same place, then why do they contradict each other? Does truth contradict itself? What about dinosaurs and evolution? A. Also, you could read a couple of books: Evolution The Fossils Say No! by Duane T. Gish (Creation Life Publishers, San Diego), and Man's Origin, Man's Destiny by A. E. Wilder-Smith. Bethany House Publishers, (Minneapolis, Minn.). Both books will help you greatly. B. Even if evolution were true (it isn't -- but just for the sake of argument), does that mean there is no God? How do you know God didn't use it to get us here? (I am not teaching that evolution is true, nor that God used it, which is called theistic evolution, I am simply reasoning with them.) If you believe in evolution does that mean you aren't a sinner? God won't accept the excuse that you believed in evolution and not Him. C. Have you examined evolution to see if it is true? Evolution is not all that you are led to believe. There are all kinds of problems in the fossil record. New theories are being raised all the time to account for why there aren't any undisputed transitional forms found between any species of any kind, anywhere, anytime in all the fossil record. But, you wouldn't know these things because you haven't studied. You need to know the facts about evolution and you need to know the facts about Jesus.

Note: Be careful. Just because someone does not know if there has been any similar occurrences in other religions doesn't mean that there aren't. You should point that out. However, no other religion in the world has ever made the claims that Christianity has, and lived up to them.
31

376

Evidence and Answers

Introduction
Without a doubt, Christianity is under attack. It has always been under attack ever since its inception when unbelievers killed Jesus and persecuted the church. In fact, the truth of God has been under attack since the creation of the world when the evil one entered the Garden of Eden and contradicted God's word bringing death. In the 20th century alone, more Christians were killed for their faith than in all other centuries combined In this pluralistic society where cults abound (i.e., Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses), where relativism has taken deep root, where the universities teach liberalism, and where evolution theory and atheism are growing, the absolute claims of Christianity are being met with increasing hostility. Unfortunately, the average Christian is very ill prepared to meet the present battle, let alone the more difficult future ones. Therefore, it is necessary, not recommended, but absolutely necessary that the Christian learn how to defend the truth of God's revelation and carry that truth into society and into politics. If he doesn't, he will eventually lose the freedoms granted to him and become the prey of the secular lions. This section "Evidence and Answers" is intended to help the Christian with documentation and answers to difficult questions so that he/she can more adequately and easily defend the truth. Remember, we have the truth and we cannot hide it under a bushel. Christianity is not something that we do on Sundays. It is a way of life. It is the truth that the world needs in order to obtain forgiveness of sins and escape the coming judgment. Therefore, Christians should be determined to know how to defend it better and how to carry it out into the world in order to "make disciples of all nations..." (Matt. 28:19). The goal of this section, and all of CARM, is to help you do just that. I hope that this information is helpful to you and is an encouragement to you as well. Do not let the lies of the secular overwhelm the truth of the sacred. Stand up and fight for the truth. Be loving and kind, but be strong and unyielding in your fight against sin and in your proclamation of the truth of Jesus. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Are there textual variations in biblical manuscripts? pp. 378-379 What do the miracles of Christ attest to? p. 380 Why is the manuscript evidence for the New Testament superior to anything else of ancient times? pp. 381-383 Who are some ancient historians who mention New Testament accounts? pp. 384-386 What kind of archaeological evidence is there supporting the Bible? pp. 387-389 What is a key element in determining the dates of the writings of the gospel? p. 392 What is some evidence of the inspiration of the Bible? pp. 395-397 What is the gospel of Q and why is it potentially important? pp. 407-408 If a non biblical book is mentioned in the Bible does is that book inspired or lost? p. 412 Does the Bible provide extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims? pp. 421-422 What is Occam's Rasor and why is it important? p. 427 What is the swoon theory and why does it not work? pp. 429-430 Was Jesus just a myth? pp. 437-438 Who is Apollonius of Tyana? p. 450 Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false? p. 451 Is it intolerant to say that Christianity is the only true religion? 461 Why would God have to die to save people from Himself? p. 463

377

Inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible

The Christian Church as a whole claims that the Bible is inspired and inerrant. This means that God is the one who moved through the writers to communicate to us the words which God wanted us to hear. This inspiration, however, is not a dictation, but a movement of God's spirit through the writer, utilizing the personality and style of the writer. Inerrancy means that all that is written in the inspired documents is without error. Now, there is a comment worth mentioning here. Inspiration and inerrancy applies to the original writings, not to the copies. In other words, it is the original writings that are without error. The copies, sadly, have copyist errors in them. Therefore, when critics of the Bible point out apparent contradictions, what they are doing is either failing to understand the context of the passages they are examining, or they have encountered a scribal copying error. The fact is that there are indeed copyist errors on the biblical documents and they account for many alleged contradictions. Remember, it is the autographs (original writings) that are inspired and inerrant, not the copies. The copies we have now are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired"; that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. Does this then mean that we can't trust the Bible? Not at all. The copies are so accurate that all of the biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions like the words "the", "but", etc. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5%. Nevertheless, nothing affects doctrinal truths. In fact, nothing in ancient history even comes close to the accuracy of the New Testament documents. If the New Testament is disallowed, then all other documents of ancient history (Plato, Aristotle, Homer, etc.), must also be disallowed because the biblical documents are far superior in their copying accuracy than any other ancient literature in existence. See the chart below for further information on this. Nevertheless, following is a list of the types of errors that have crept into the Bible: Dittography - Writing twice what should have been written once. A good example would be writing "latter" instead of "later." "Latter" means nearest the end. "Later" means after something else. Fission - Improperly dividing one word into to words. Example: "nowhere" into "now here." Fusion - Combining the last letter of one word with the first letter of the next word. "Look it is there in the cabinet... or Look it is therein the cabinet." Haplography - Writing once what should have been written twice. A good example would be "later" instead of "latter." "Later" means after something else. "Latter" means nearest the end. Homophony - Writing a word with a different meaning for another word when both words have the exact same pronunciation. Meat and meet have the exact same sound but different meanings. Also, there and their and they're are another exa mple. Metathesis - An improper exchange in the order of letters. Instead of writing "mast," someone writes "mats," or "cast" and cats."

Does this mean that the Bible we hold in our hand is not inspired? Not at all. Inspiration comes from God and when He inspired the Bible, it was perfect. Our copies of the original documents are not perfect, but they are very close to being so. The critics often mistakenly assume that even the copies are supposed to be perfect. But when I point out that God never said the copies would be perfect, they then ask how can the Bible be trusted at all? Quite simply, it is redundant in its facts and information sufficiently to guarantee accuracy. Compared to other ancient documents, the New Testament, for example, has far more textual evidence in its favor than any other ancient writing. Please consider the chart below.

378

Author Homer (Iliad) Ceasar (The Gallic Wars) Plato (Tetralogies) Aristotle Herodotus (History) Euripedes New Testament

When Written 900 BC 100 - 44 BC 427 - 347 BC 384 - 322 BC 480 - 425 BC 480 - 406 BC 50 - 90 A.D.

Earliest Copy 400 BC 900 AD 900 AD 1,100 AD 900 AD 1,100 AD 130 AD

Time Span 500 years 1,000 years 1,200 years 1,400 years 1,300 years 1,500 years 30 years

No. of Copies 643 10 7 49 8 9 24,000

This chart was adapted from charts in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell, 1979, pages 42 and 43. If the Bible cannot be trusted as being reliable because it has only a small percentage of copyist errors, then neither can the above documents be trusted that have far less textual support. Therefore, we can see that the Bible is an ancient document that has withstood thousands of years of transmission with remarka ble accuracy and clarity. We can trust it to be what it says it is: the word of God.

379

The Miracles of Jesus

The miracles of Jesus attest to who Jesus was, God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9). Jesus used the Divine Name for Himself (John 8:58), the same Divine Name used by God when Moses asked God what His name was in Exodus 3:14. However, a person claiming to be God is not that uncommon in the world. Mental institutions are filled with those who claim to be divine. But, Jesus doesn't fit the category of a crazy person. If anything, Jesus deserves the utmost respect and admiration for His humility, love, teaching, and self-sacrifice. But, even though there are other great teachers in history who have exhibited extraordinary love and compassion, none have also claimed to be God in flesh -and then demonstrated it by performing miracles. This is why the miracles of Jesus are what verify the claims of Jesus about Himself and about Him being the only way to salvation (John 14:6). The critics of Christianity must either deny Jesus' existence, the biblical documents, say that the accounts were borrowed or made up, or deny that miracles occur at all. If their objections cannot be reasonably maintained, then they would be forced to make decisions about Jesus' claims to be divine, His miracles, and His physical resurrection with all the implications that they entail. This means that people must decide what they are going to do with Jesus. Will they believe Him for who He claimed to be or reject Him? That is what it comes down to. In Christianity, Jesus is the creator (John 1:1-3,14; Col. 1:16-17), the Lord to whom we call (1 Cor. 1:2), the one who bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), and the one who enables all who call upon His name (Rom. 10:13) to be saved by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9). He is a remarkable figure whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Following is a partial list of some of the miracles of Jesus. It is these miracles that attest to who Jesus is because His remarkable deeds confirm His incredible claim to be God in flesh, the only way to salvation. Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus was born of a virgin (Matt. 1:25). changed water into wine (John 2:6-10). caused the disciples to catch a large load of fish (Luke 5:4-6). cast out demons (Matt. 8:28-32; 15:22-28). healed lepers (Matt. 8:3; Luke 17:14). healed diseases (Matt. 4:23,24; Luke 6:17-19) healed the paralytic (Mark 2:3-12). raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44). restored sight to the blind (Matt. 9:27-30; John 9:1-7). cured deafness (Mark 7:32-35). fed the multitude (Matt. 14:15-21; Matt. 15:32-38). walked on water (Matt. 8:26-27). healed the sick (Matt. 8:5-13; 9:22). forgave sins (Mark 2:5). calmed a storm with a command (Matt. 8:22-27; Mark 4:39). was transfigured (Matt. 17:1-8). rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27). appeared to disciples after resurrection (John 20:19). ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9).

What is so important here is that Jesus claimed to be God (John 5:18; 8:24; 8:58 -- see Exodus 3:14) and the only way to salvation (John 14:6). If He really did rise from the dead and perform those miracles, then what He said about Himself -- and who He claimed to be -- become vitally important. Either the list above is a fabrication or it is not. Your presuppositions will determine which category they fall into. You must ask yourself it the evidence for the Bible's reliability and the eyewitness accounts recorded there is sufficient to warrant a serious consideration that what is written is true.

380

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate. There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.3 2 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

Author33

Date Written died 55 or 53 B.C. 61-113 A.D. 427-347 B.C. 4th Cent. B.C. 480-425 B.C. 75-160 A.D. 460-400 B.C. 480-406 B.C. 450-385 B.C. 100-44 B.C. 59 BC-AD 17 circa 100 A.D. 384-322 B.C. 496-406 B.C. 900 B.C. 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.

Earliest Copy

Approximate Time Span between original & copy 1100 yrs

Number of Copies 2 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 10 10 20 20 49 193 643 5600

Accuracy of Copies ------------------------------------------95% 99.5%

Lucretius Pliny Plato Demosthenes Herodotus Suetonius Thucydides Euripides Aristophanes Caesar Livy Tacitus Aristotle Sophocles Homer (Iliad) New Testament

850 A.D. 900 A.D. 1100 A.D. 900 A.D. 950 A.D. 900 A.D. 1100 A.D. 900 A.D. 900 A.D. ---1100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 A.D. 400 B.C. 2nd Cent. A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.)

750 yrs 1200 yrs 800 yrs 1300 yrs 800 yrs 1300 yrs 1300 yrs 1200 1000 ??? 1000 yrs 1400 1400 yrs 500 yrs less than 100 years

As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001) p. 256. 33 This chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.
32

381

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the first century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testame nt documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts. Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first century document. Below is a chart with some of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts compared to when they were originally penned. Compare these time spans with the next closest which is Homer's Iliad where the closest copy from the original is 500 years later. Undoubtedly, that period of time allows for more textual corruption in its transmission. How much less so for the New Testament documents? Important Manuscript Papyri p52 (John Rylands Fragment)3 4 Date Original Written circa 96 A.D. MSS Date circa 125 A.D. Approx. Time Span

Contents

Location

John 18:31-33,37-38 Rom. 5:17-6:3,5-14; 8:1525, 27-35, 37-9:32; 10:111, 22, 24-33, 35-14:8,915:9, 11-33; 16:1-23, 2527; Heb.; 1 & 2 Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 Thess. 1:1,9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 2328 John 1:1-6:11,35-14:26; fragment of 14:29-21:9 Matt. 3:9,15; 5:20-22, 2528

29 yrs

John Rylands Library, Manchester, England

P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus)

50's-70's

circa 200 A.D.

Approx. 150 yrs

Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin & Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan library

P66 (Bodmer Papyrus) P67

70's

circa 200 A.D. circa 200 A.D.

Approx. 130 yrs Approx. 130 yrs

Cologne, Geneva Barcelona, Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, P. Barc.1

If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.

"Deissmann was convinced that p52 was written well within the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-38) and perhaps even during the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117)" (Footnote #2 found on pg. 39 of The Text of the New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger, 2nd Ed. 1968, Oxford University Press, NY, NY). Bruce Metzger has authored more than 50 books. He holds two Masters Degrees, a Ph.D. and has been awarded several honorary doctorates. "He is past president of the Society of Biblical Literature, the International Society fo New Testament Studies, an the North American Patristic Society." -- From, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, Zondervan Publishers, 1998, Grand Rapids, MI: pg. 57.
34

382

Illustration of Bible text manuscript tree and variant readings

The following diagram illustrates manuscript corruptions in the biblical texts that are produced, for whatever reason, and copied down to later manuscripts. The purpose of the illustration is to show how errors are copied down from one manuscript to another, how they are counted, and how we can determine which is the correct reading. In this example, of the 26 existing manuscripts (represented by solid black and red sheets) nine of them have a textual problem where a phrase was incorrectly copied. Therefore, in this illustration, we would have a total of nine variants in 26 manuscripts. But, it is really only one. However, manuscripts can be categorized in family trees by analyzing their location of discovery, jars found in, type of papyri written on, type of ink used, style of writing, etc. Therefore, daughter manuscripts can be matched very accurately to father manuscripts. In this example we see that the word "only" was omitted from a 3rd century document and copied in subsequent, daughter documents. All we need to do is to take a look at the manuscripts and even though we see nine variants here, actually we can tell that there is only one which has been copied. Also, we can accurately determine which is the correct reading by looking at the father document from the 2nd century. With this type of method, the New Testament documents can be reconstructed with an incredible accuracy. Furthermore, the New Testament is approximately 99.5% textually pure. This means that of all the manuscripts in existence they agree completely 99.5% of the time. Of the variants that occur, mostly are easily explainable and very few have any effect on the meaning of passages. In all, no New Testament doctrine is affected by any variant reading.

383

Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people

1.

2.

3.

4.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2 A. "Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness." B. Note: There is dispute as to the reliability of the Josephus accounts. However, there is no textual/manuscript reason for doubting them since the extant Greek manuscripts all agree with the texts in question; namely, the quotes shown on this page. However, the reason the quotes are in doubt is because of the text in italics in the various quotes; they seem a little too favorable regarding Christ. Also, it appears that the writings of Josephus were transmitted to us through the Christian community. Flavius Josephus (AD 37-101?) mentions Jesus Ant., Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3. A. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. i. There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For an examination of this please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus. Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19. A. "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the mo st uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done." Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2 A. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money B. Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."

384

5.

6.

7.

8.

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus Annals A. "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." i. Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun. A. "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." i. Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two." ii. The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been. iii. Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the AnteNicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996. Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112. A. "They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of foodbut food of an ordinary and innocent kind." i. Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996. The Talmud A. "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!" i. Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." ii. Luke 22:1, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people." iii. This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

385

9.

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician. A. "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this daythe distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." i. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996. ii. Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

___________________ Sources McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, San Bernardino, CA, Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1979. Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996. Encarta on the Web at http://encarta.msn.com .

386

Archaeological Evidence verifying biblical cities

There is very little doubt in anyone's mind about the reality of so many of the Old and New Testament cities mentioned in the Bible. Therefore it is hardly necessary to document their existence. Nevertheless, following is a partial list of some of the cities mentioned in the Bible that have been found and excavated by archaeologists. This is simply more evidence that the Bible describes actual locations that can be verified. This means that at the very least, the Bible accurately reflects the locations and cities of ancient times. Remember, this is only a partial list. There are hundreds of biblical cities that have been verified in archaeological digs. 1. Arad A. Num. 21:1, "When the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atharim, then he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive." B. Num. 33:40, "Now the Canaanite, the king of Arad who lived in the Negev in the land of Canaan, heard of the coming of the sons of Israel." i. "Arad 30 km NE of Beersheba, excavated from 1962 to 1974 by Y. Aharoni and R. B. K. Amiran." (The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1962.) ii. "The site consists of an upper mound or acropolis, where excavation has revealed an Iron Age (post thirteenth century b.c." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985. iii. The remains of a Hebrew temple were uncovered at Arad, (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p.45-46.) Bethel A. Amos 7:12-13, "Then Amaziah said to Amos, "Go, you seer, flee away to the land of Judah, and there eat bread and there do your prophesying! 13 "But no longer prophesy at Bethel, for it is a sanctuary of the king and a royal residence." i. "W. F. Albright made a trial excavation at Bethel in 1927. Albright then mounted a full excavation in 1934. His assistant that year, J. L. Kelso, continued the excavation in 1954, 1957, and 1960." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Capernaum A. Matt. 17:24, "And when they had come to Capernaum, those who collected the twodrachma tax came to Peter, and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?" i. "Identified since 1856 with Tell Hum, Capernaum has been sporadically excavated for the past 130 years." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Chorazin A. Matt. 11:21, "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." i. "Excavations of the now deserted town indicate that it once covered an area of twelve acres and was built on a series of terraces with the basalt stone local to this mountainous region." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Dan A. Judges 18:29, "And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father who was born in Israel; however, the name of the city formerly was Laish." i. "The excavation of Dan began in 1966 under the direction of Avraham Biran." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 42) ii. "Formerly called Laish, it is mentioned in the execration texts, the eighteenth-century b.c. Mari tablets, and the records of the Egyptian pharaoh Thutmose III. It is identified

2.

3.

4.

5.

387

with Tel Dan (modern Tell el-Qadi) covering about 50 acres in the center of a fertile valley near one of the principal springs feeding the Jordan River...Tel Dan has been excavated by A. Biran since 1966. The earliest occupation, probably the full extent of the tell, goes back to about the middle of the third mille nnium b.c." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary; San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) 6. Ephesus A. Eph. 1:1, "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus, and who are faithful in Christ Jesus." i. "Austrian archaeologists in this century [2oth] have excavated the 24,000-seat theater and the commercial agora, as well as many other public buildings and streets of the first and second centuries a.d., so that the modern visitor can gain some impression of the city as known by Paul. (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Gaza A. Acts 8:26, "But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, "Arise and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza." i. Gaza was was excavated by W. J. Phythian-Adams in 1922. (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Gezer A. Joshua 16:10, "But they did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer..." i. R.A.S. MacAlister "directed the Palestine Exploration Fund for many years and conducted extensive excavations at Gezer (19021909). (Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Whos Who in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.) Hazor A. Joshua 11:1, "Then it came about, when Jabin king of Hazor heard of it, that he sent to Jobab king of Madon and to the king of Shimron and to the king of Achshaph." B. Jer. 49:48, "Concerning Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor, which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated. Thus says the Lord, "Arise, go up to Kedar and devastate the men of the east." i. "This large Canaanite and Israelite city in upper Galilee was excavated under Yigael Yadin's direction from 1955 to 1958 and from 1968 to 1970." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 40.) Hesbon A. Josh. 12:2, "Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived in Heshbon, and ruled from Aroer, which is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon..." i. Excavations were undertaken by Andrews University from 1968 to 1976. (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Jericho A. Num. 22:1, "Then the sons of Israel journeyed, and camped in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan opposite Jericho." i. "Jericho was the oldest inhabited and fortified city ever excavated." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 37) ii. "The city of OT times is represented today by a mound 70 feet high and 10 acres in area...The ancient city was excavated by C. Warren (1867), E. Sellin and C. Watzinger (1907-09), J. Garstang (1930-36), and K. Kenyon (1952-58)." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary; San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) iii. "The first scientific excavation there (1907-9) was by Sellin and Watzinger (Jericho, 1913)." (The New Bible Dictionary; Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1962.).

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

388

12.

13.

14.

15.

Joppa A. Acts 9:38, "And since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, having heard that Peter was there, sent two men to him, entreating him, "Do not delay to come to us." i. "During excavations of the site of ancient Joppa a thirteenth-century b.c. citadel gate was uncovered..." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Nineveh A. 2 Kings 19:36, "So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and returned home, and lived at Nineveh." B. Jonah 1:1-2, "The word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying, 2 "Arise, go to Nineveh the great city, and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me." i. Excavated in from 1845 to 1857 by Austen H. Layard. (Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Whos Who in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.) Shechem A. Gen. 12:6, "And Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. Now the Canaanite was then in the land." B. Gen. 33:18, "Now Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Paddan-aram, and camped before the city." i. "Excavations were carried out at Shechem, first by Austrian-German expeditions in 1913 and 1914, and again from 1926 to 1934, under several directors, and then by an American expedition from 1956 to 1972....Excavation of the sacred area revealed a courtyard sanctuary and a later fortress temple dedicated to El-berith "the god of the covenant." This temple, which was destroyed by Abimelech, the son of the judge Gideon (Judges 9) has provided us with a date of the judges period." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 40) ii. Most recently a structure identified as an Israelite altar has been excavated on the northeastern slope of Mt. Ebal. Dating to the 13th to 12th centuries B.C., considered to be the time of Joshua, the altar suggest the possibility that it may be the altar built by Joshua and described in Deuteronomy 27, 28." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 40) Susa A. Neh. 1:1, "The words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah. Now it happened in the month Chislev, in the twentieth year, while I was in Susa the capitol, B. Esther 1:2, "Now it took place in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces, 2 in those days as King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne which was in Susa the capital, i. Escavations were conducted by Marcel Dieulafoy from 1884 to 1886 (Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Whos Who in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.)

389

The writings of Josephus mention many biblical people and places

Flavius Josephus (37-101 A.D.) was a Jewish priest at the time of the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66. He was captured by the Romans, imprisoned, set free and then retired to Rome where he wrote a history of the Revolt called the "Jewish War." Later he wrote "Antiquities" as a history of the Jews. Following is a brief listing of some people and places mentioned by Josephus that correspond to biblical references. They demonstrate that the Bible is not alone in its description of people, events, and places. 1. Antipas mentioned A. 17:8:1, "And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Berea, and granted the kingdom to Archelaus." i. Rev. 2:13, "I know where you dwell, where Satans throne is; and you hold fast My name, and did not deny My faith, even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells." Herod is mentioned numerous times A. 17:8:1, "And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind..." B. 18.5.3, "Whereupon he ordered the army to march along the Great Plain, while he himself, with Herod the tetrarch, and his friends, went up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice to God, an ancient festival of the Jews being then just approaching." C. See also, 18:2:1,2,3; 18:4:3,5,6; 18:5:1,2,3; 18:7:2, etc. i. Luke 3:1, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene." The Galatians are mentioned A. 17:8:3, "First of all went his guards, then the band of Thracians, and after them the Germans; and next the band of Galatians, every one in their habiliments of war." B. 12:10:6, "And when he was dead, the people bestowed the high priesthood on Judas; who, hearing of the power of the Romans, d and that they had conquered in war Galatia, and Iberia, and Carthage, and Lybia." i. Gal. 1:2, "and all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia." Jericho mentioned A. 17:8:2, "...when Salome and Alexas gathered the soldiery together in the amphitheater at Jericho..." i. Num. 22:1, "And the children of Israel journeyed, and encamped in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan at Jericho." Jerusalem is mentioned A. 20:9:2, "Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem..." i. Matt. 21:10-11, "And when He had entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, "Who is this?" 11And the multitudes were saying, "This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee." Jesus is mentioned A. 18:3:3, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeare d to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." B. 20:9:1, "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

390

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done;" i. For information on the Testimonium Flavanium (the quotes of Josephus about Jesus) please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus Judea is mentioned A. 20:9:1, "AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator." B. See also, 20:1:1; 20:5:1,2,3; 20:6:1,2; 20:7:1,2; 20:8:5,10; 20:11:1; etc. i. Matt. 2:1, "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem..." John the Baptist is mentioned A. 18.5.2 Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Baptist [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards i. Matt. 3:1-2, "Now in those days John the Baptist *came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Pontius Pilate is mentioned A. 18:3:1, "But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws." B. See also, 18:3:1,2,3; 18:4:1,2,5, etc. i. Luke 3:1, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene." Sadducees mentioned A. 20:9:1, "But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees." i. Matt. 16:1, "And the Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Him asked Him to show them a sign from heaven." The Samaritans are mentioned A. 18:4:1, "But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults." i. Luke 10:33, ""But a certain Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion." Tiberius Ceasar is mentioned A. 18.6.4, "And now Agrippa was come to Puteoli, whence he wrote a letter to Tiberius Caesar, who then lived at Capreae, and told him that he was come so far in order to wait on him, and to pay him a visit; and desired that he would give him leave to come over to Caprein." i. Luke 3:1, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene."

There are many other such references. But what they do is help to establish that the Bible was not written in isolation. It was written in the context of ancient Israel when and where it claims to have been written. This is important when authenticating the Bible and this is why external references are sometimes useful. In this case, Josephus who was a contemporary of the disciples, is referenced in support of biblical accuracy.

391

When were the gospels written and by whom?

Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical. Destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., Luke and Acts None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D. Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that acts does not include the accounts of "Nero 's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65),"3 5 and we have further evidence that it was written early If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Lukes patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."3 6 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts. "At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the bookFestuss appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."3 7 "It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."3 8 For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity
McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, Tenn., 1993, p. 80. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985. 37 Mays, James Luther, Ph.D., Editor, Harpers Bible Commentary, (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1988. 38 Robertson, A.T., A Harmony of the Gospels, Harper & Row; New York` 1950. pp. 255-256.
35 36

392

and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death. Matthew The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over. The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.3 9 "Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papiass views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."4 0 This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure. The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50. Mark Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."4 1 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70. Luke Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts. "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).

Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Whos Who in Christian History, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992. 40 Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985 41 Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Whos Who in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.
39

393

Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate. As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."4 2 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."4 3 John The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 125-135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's. Most scholars say it was written in the early 90's. This means that the time span between the original writing of John and its earliest copy (fragment) is approximately 35-45 years. Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.

42

43

McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, Tenn., 1993, p. 80. Robertson, A.T., A Harmony of the Gospels, Harper & Row; New York` 1950. pp. 255-256.

394

Evidence of biblical inspiration

Is the Bible inspired? Christians claim it is. If that is so, then where is the evidence for its inspiration? Simp ly saying it is inspired isn't enough. Let's see some facts. First of all, we must understand the inspiration of the Bible is in reference to the original documents, not the copies. Christianity holds that the original writings, the autographs, were without error in everything they address. It is not the copies that are inspired. What we have are copies of inspired documents and the truth is, some copying errors have woven themselves into some of the biblical copies. However, this does not mean that the Bible is not trustworthy. Textually speaking only 1/1000th of the Bible has any textual variation in the copies. That means that the Bible as a whole is around 98.5% textually pure. The New Testament is about 99.5% textually pure. Furthermore, there is enough redundancy in the copies that have been unearthed via archaeology, that we can reconstruct the Bible to almost 100% accuracy. It is a remarkably well preserved series of different books. For more information on this, please see Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability. In practical terms, this means that because of various copying errors, usually numbers, word order, spelling, and punctuation, we have Bible Difficulties; hence, the section on CARM dealing with many of them. Therefore, even though we can see some surface issues, we can still very easily see evidence of its inspiration. Prophecy One of the greatest proofs of the Bible's inspiration is prophecy. Following are some of the prophecies of both secular and religious fulfillment. In other words, the first section deals with prophecies of the secular world. The second part deals with prophecies about Jesus. 1. Secular Prophecies A. In Daniel 2 four kingdoms are described in the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar who was the king of Babylon. The four were the Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek and the Roman empire (Dan. 2:39-43). These four kingdoms occurred just as prophesied. B. The following cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never rebuilt which has come true since they have not yet been rebuilt. Nineveh (Nah. 1:10; 3:7,15; Zeph. 2:13-14), Babylon (Isaiah 13:1-22), and Tyre (Ezek. 26:). C. Daniel 12:4 prophesied that knowledge would increase as well as the ability to travel great distances. Of course, this has occurred given our present rise in technology. Messianic Prophecies A. Jesus would be born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." i. Fulfilled in Matt. 1:18,25, "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary...was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit... But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." B. Jesus' place of birth in Bethlehem Micah 5:2, "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." i. Fulfilled in Matt. 2:1, "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem." C. Jesus would be preceded by a messenger Isaiah 40:3, "A voice of one calling: 'In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.'" i. Fulfilled in Matt. 3:1-2, "In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.'" D. Rejected by His own people Isaiah 53:3, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not." i. Fulfilled in John 7:5, "For even his own brothers did not believe in him," and John 7:48, "Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him?"

2.

395

E.

F.

Jesus' side pierced Zech. 12:10, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one mourns for an only son." i. Fulfilled in John 19:34, "Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water." Jesus would be crucified Psalm 22:1; 22:11-18, "For the director of music. To the tune of "The Doe of the Morning." A psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?...Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help. Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan. Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." i. Fulfilled in John 19:23-24, "When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. Let's not tear it, they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it." This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, "They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." So this is what the soldiers did." Other information

The Bible also contains information about physical phenomena that is particularly unusual. 1. The Shape of the Earth A. "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in," (Isaiah 40:22, NIV). i. This may or may not be construed to support the spherical shape of the earth. The horizon is a circle and a circle is flat. The Earth is suspended in nothing A. "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing," (Job. 26:7, NIV). i. This is particularly interesting considering that the cosmology of other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals. The Existence of Valleys in the Seas A. "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils," (2 Sam. 22:16, NIV). The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas A. "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened," (Genesis 7:11, NIV). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28. The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas A. "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!...When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,...You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas," (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8, NIV). The Hydrologic Cycle A. "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV). B. "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job. 36:27-28, NIV) C. "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again, (Ecc. 1:6-7, NIV).

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

396

Though nothing in the above lists "prove" biblical inspiration, they are strong evidence that it is indeed inspired. Add to them that millions of people all over the world testify to having an encounter with the God of the Bible, the seemingly powerful nature of the words of the Bible, the changed lives of countless people and you have further, though more subjective, evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

397

Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document?

Many people do not believe that the Bible is a reliable document of history. To choose this, however, the Bible is very trustworthy as a historical document. If we were to look at a chart that compared the biblical documents with other ancient documents, we would see that the Bible is in a class by itself regarding the number of ancient copies and their reliability. Please consider the chart below Date Written died 55 or 53 B.C. 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 427347 B.C. 4th Cent. B.C. 480-425 B.C. 460-400 B.C. 480-406 B.C. 450-385 B.C. 59 BC-AD 17 circa 100 A.D. 384-322 B.C. 496-406 B.C. 900 B.C. 1st Cent. A.D. (50100 A.D. 900 A.D. 1100 A.D. 900 A.D. Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy 1100 yrs 750 yrs 1200 yrs 800 yrs 1300 yrs 800 yrs 1300 yrs 1300 yrs 1200 1000 ??? 1000 yrs 1400 1400 yrs 500 yrs Number of Copies 2 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 10 10 20 20 49 193 643 Accuracy of Copies ------------------------------------------95%

Author44 Lucretius Pliny Plato Demosthenes Herodotus Suetonius Thucydides Euripides Aristophanes Caesar Livy Tacitus Aristotle Sophocles Homer (Iliad) New Testament

75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 900 A.D. 1100 A.D. 900 A.D.

100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. ---1100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 A.D 400 B.C. 2nd Cent. A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.)

less than 100 years

5600

99.5%

44

This chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.

398

It should be obvious that the biblical docume nts, especially the New Testament documents, are superior in their quantity, time span from original writing, and textual reliability. The question is not whether or not they have been reliably transmitted to us. The question is whether or not the biblic al documents record actual historical accounts. They do. The Bible is a book of History It could be said that the Bible is a book of history -- and it is. The bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail. It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years. If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology. Though archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it has the ability to prove whether or not if some events and locations described therein are true or false. So far, however, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way. Nevertheless, many used to think that the Bible had numerous historical errors in it such as Luke's account of Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abiline in about 27 AD (Luke 3:1). For years scholars used this "factual error" proved Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch, but the ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. But, an archaeological inscription was found that said Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time that Luke said. It turns out that there had been two people named Lysanias and Luke had accurately recorded the facts. Also, the walls of Jericho have been found, destroyed just as the Bible says. Many critics doubted that Nazareth ever existed, yet archaeologists have found a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea verified its existence. Finds have verified Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas. The remains of the Apostle Peter's house have been found at Capernaum. Bones with nail scars through the wrists and feet have been uncovered as well demonstrating the actuality of crucifixion. The High Priest Caiaphas' bones have been discovered in an ossuary (a box used to store bones). There is, of course, a host of archaeological digs that corroborate biblical records such as Bethsaida, Bethany, Caesarea Philippi, Capernaum, Cyprus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc. For more on this see, Archaeological Evidence verifying biblical events and places.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

An inscribed stone was found that refers to Pontius Pilate, named as Prefect of Judaea. (The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1962.) A. Luke 3:1, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea..." "A decree of Claudius found at Delphi (Greece) describes Gallio as proconsul of Achaia in ad 51, thus giving a correlation with the ministry of Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:12)." (The New Bible Dictionary) A. Acts 18:12, "But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat." Excavations have revealed a text naming a benefactor Erastus which may be a reference relating to the city-treasurer of Rom. 16:23. (The New Bible Dictionary) A. Rom. 16:23, "Gaius, host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer greets you, and Quartus, the brother." At Ephesus parts of the temple of Artemis have been uncovered as is mentioned in Acts 19:2841. (The New Bible Dictionary) A. Acts 19:28, "And when they heard this and were filled with rage, they began crying out, saying, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians." "It is known that Quirinius was made governor of Syria by Augustus in AD 6. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay discovered several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to this date...archaeology has provided some unexpected and supportive answers. Additionally, while supplying the background behind these events, archaeology also assists us in establishing several facts. (1) A taxation-census was a

399

6.

fairly common procedure in the Roman Empire and it did occur in Judea, in particular. (2) Persons were required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the requirements of the process. (3) These procedures were apparently employed during the reign of Augustus (37 BC AD 14), placing it well within the general time frame of Jesus birth."4 5 "The historical trustworthiness of Luke has been attested by a number of inscriptions. The politarchs of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6,8) were magistrates and are named in five inscriptions from the city in the 1st century ad. Similarly Publius is correctly designated protos (first man) or Governor of Malta (Acts 28:7). Near Lystra inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by some Lycaonians, and near by was a stone altar for the Hearer of Prayer (Zeus) and Hermes. This explains the local identification of Barnabas and Paul with Zeus (Jupiter) and Hermes (Mercury) respectively (Acts 14:11). Derbe, Pauls next stopping-place, was identified by Ballance in 1956 with Kaerti Hyk near Karaman (AS 7, 1957, pp. 147ff.). Lukes earlier references to *Quirinius as governor of Syria before the death of Herod I (Luke 2:2) and to *Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3:1) have likewise received inscriptional support." (The New Bible Dictionary.)

There are many such archaeological verifications of biblical events and places. Is the Bible trustworthy? Absolutely! Remember, no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible. Therefore, since it has been verified over and over again throughout the centuries, we can continue to trust it as an accurate historical document.

45

(Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.)

400

Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ?

Though some say that the New Testament was written 100-300 years after Christ died, the truth is that it was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples. In the article When were the gospels written and by whom?, I demonstrated that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 79. A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D. The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of a first hand witness of the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's. Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John does not mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. He was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. This makes perfect sense since he already knew of the previously written gospels. Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's. Paul's Writings: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon Paul the Apostle was a convert to Christianity. The book of Acts speaks of his conversion in Acts 9. Since Acts was written before 70 A.D. and Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles and we know that Paul died in 64 A.D., the Pauline Epistles were all written before that date. Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions that Jesus had died and risen. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Notice that he says he received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them. This means that Paul received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses. They were, of course contemporaries and since they all died before the turn of the century. Therefore, their writings were completed within the lifetime of the apostles of Jesus. Hebrews It is not known for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. Authorship has been proposed for Paul, Barnabas (Acts 4:36), Apollos (Acts 18:24), etc. The only geographical area mentioned is Italy (Heb. 13:24). The latest possible date for the writing of Hebrews is A.D. 95 but could have been written as early as A.D. 67. The book of Hebrews speaks of the sacrifice by the High Priest in the present tense (Heb. 5:1-3; Heb. 7:27) possibly signifying that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. had not yet happened.

401

James This epistle claims to have been written by James, "James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad, greetings," (James 1:1). The question is, "Which James?" Is it James, the son of Zebedee (Matt. 10:2-3); James, the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:2-3), or the most commonly and accepted James who was the brother of Jesus? "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And His sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matt. 13:55). Notice the context of the verses suggests immediate family since it mentions Jesus' Mother, brothers, and sisters. Also, see Gal. 1:19 which says "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother." It is probable that James didn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah until Jesus appeared to him after His resurrection as is mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:7, "then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles." James was martyred by the order of the high priest Ananus after the death of the "procurator Festus in A.D. 61 (Josephus, Ant. 20. 9)." Therefore, the epistle of James was written before A.D. 61. 4 6 1 and 2 Peter Both epistles clearly state that they were authored by Peter, an eyewitness of Jesus' life and post resurrection appearances. Though there has been some who have doubted the authorship of these two epistles, the clear opening statements of each epistle tell us Peter was the author. "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus...", (1 Pet. 1:1) and "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours..." (2 Pet. 2:1). It certainly seems most logical that Peter is indeed the author of the letters that bear his name. Peter died at Rome during Nero's persecution of Christians around 64 AD so the epistles were obviously written before that time. 1, 2, 3 John The writer of 1 John does not identify himself in the letter. The writer of 2 and 3 John refers to himself as "the elder," (2 John 1; 3 John 1). Regarding the first epistle, authorship can reasonably be determined to be that of John the Apostle. The opening of John is written from the perspective of someone who was there with Jesus (John 1:1-4). Also, "Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39) says of Papias, a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, 'He used testimonies from the First Epistle of John. Irenaeus, according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 5.8), often quoted this Epistle. So in his work Against Heresies (3.15; 5, 8) he quotes from John by name, 1 John 2:18...Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies, 2.66, p. 464) refers to 1 Jn 5:16, as in Johns larger Epistle.'"4 7 "In the earliest canonical lists, dating from the end of the second century, 1 John already appears. Indeed, 1 John is quoted as authoritative by Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna [a disciple of John the apostle] before the middle of the second century. The attestation of 2 John is almost as good. There is no second-century reference to 3 John, but that is not surprising, since it deals with a specific, local issue."4 8 Furthermore, the style of the three epistles is very similar to that of the gospel of John. 1 John mentions the "word of life" (1 John 1:1) as does the gospel of John 1:1, etc. It appears that the epistles were written after the Gospel of John since the epistles seem to assume a knowledge of the gospel facts. Date of writing varies from A.D. 60 to the early 90's. 4 9 Jude
46 47

The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962. Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1998. 48 Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985. 49 Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

402

Jude identifies himself as the brother of James (Jude 1). It is most likely that Jude, in true Christian humility, does not want to equate himself as the brother of Jesus as he is traditionally held to be and seems to be supported by scripture: "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55). 5 0 Instead, he mentions himself as a servant of Jesus, as James has also done. The date of writing seems to be anywhere from A.D. 68 to the early 90's. Remember that if Judas was a brother of Jesus, he was born around after Jesus which would mean the later the writing date, the older was Judas. There is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem which could have been naturally included in the writing considering that Jude mentions judgments from God upon believers and unbelievers alike (Jude 5-12). Nevertheless, it appears that Jude may have quoted from James. Jude 17-18 says, "But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18that they were saying to you, "In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts." Compare this to 2 Pet. 3:3, "Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts." If this is a quote, it would place the epistle after the writing of 2 Peter. 5 1 Revelation The author of the Book of Revelation is John. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John," (Rev. 1:1). "Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, p. 308) (A.D.. 139161) quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostles work."5 2 Revelation was probably written at the end of John the Apostle's life. Some hold to the 90's and it is the last book written in the New Testament. Conclusion Though this information is basic, it supplies enough evidence to support the apostolic authorship of the New Testament documents. The debate on the dating of the books may never be absolutely settled, but as scholarship and archaeology advance, confirmation of early authorship of the New Testament continues to be validated.

50

This is not Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus - "Judas (not Iscariot) *said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us, and not to the world?" (John 14:22). Also, Clement of Alexandria [Adumbrations, in Epistle of Jude, p. 1007] says, "Jude, through reverential awe, did not call himself brother, but servant, of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." Jamieson, Robert; Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. 51 Jamieson, Robert; Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. 52 ibid.

403

Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore?
This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted. The "telephone" analogy is often used as an illustration. It goes like this. One person tells another person a sentence who then tells another person, who tells yet another, and so on and so on until the last person hears a sentence that has little or nothing to do with the original one. The only problem with this analogy is that it doesn't fit the Bible at all. The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Test ament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of all the copies that do not agree with each other 100%. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actually amount of textual variation of any concern at all is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have an extremely accurate compilation of the original documents. So when we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is one step, not a series of steps that leads to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into. We do not translate from the Greek to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the Greek to the English. It is from the Greek into the Spanish. It is from the Greek into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said. Comparison Chart The following chart represents a compilation of various ancient manuscripts, their original date of writing, the earliest copy, the number of copies in existent, and the time span between the originals and the copies. If the Bible is singled out to be criticized as unreliable then all the other writings listed below must also be discarded. Date Written died 55 or 53 B.C. 61-113 A.D. 427347 B.C. 4th Cent. B.C. 850 A.D. 900 A.D. 1100 A.D. Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy 1100 yrs 750 yrs 1200 yrs 800 yrs Number of Copies 2 7 7 8 Accuracy of Copies -------------

Author53 Lucretius Pliny Plato Demosthenes

53

This chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.

404

Herodotus Suetonius Thucydides Euripides Aristophanes Caesar Livy Tacitus Aristotle Sophocles Homer (Iliad) New Testament

480-425 B.C. 75-160 A.D. 460-400 B.C. 480-406 B.C. 450-385 B.C. 100-44 B.C. 59 BC-AD 17 circa 100 A.D. 384-322 B.C. 496-406 B.C. 900 B.C. 1st Cent. A.D. (50100 A.D.

900 A.D. 950 A.D. 900 A.D. 1100 A.D. 900 A.D. 900 A.D. ---1100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 A.D. 400 B.C. 2nd Cent. A.D. (c. 130 A.D.)

1300 yrs 800 yrs 1300 yrs 1300 yrs 1200 1000 ??? 1000 yrs 1400 1400 yrs 500 yrs

8 8 8 9 10 10 20 20 49 193 643

------------------------------95%

less than 100 years

5600

99.5%

As you can see, the New Testament documents are very accurate. Therefore, when the scholars translate from the Greek into the English (or into any other language), we can trust that what is translated is accurate and reliable.

405

Since the New Testament writers were biased, can we trust their testimony?

Yes, we can trust their testimony. Being biased about something does not mean that you cannot tell the truth. Take for example the case of a robbery. The robber shoots and wounds two employees, escapes, but is later apprehended. At the trial the employees, who have recovered from their injuries, are brought in to testify. Both of these witnesses are biased in that they want to see the perpetrator properly punished. But, under oath their testimony is accepted as perfectly valid -- providing there aren't obvious problems. So, being biased does not automatically mean that the testimony they give is not true. The New Testament writers were certainly biased, but their bias was towards honesty and truth, not deceit. Their intention was to accurately record and testify to the events that they had seen. Remember, the disciples were followers of Jesus who taught them to love, to be kind, faithful, and honest. And this wasn't all. Jesus warned against hypocrisy (Matt. 6:1, and against bearing false witness (Matt. 19:18). The whole life of Jesus was based on integrity, character, faithfulness, truthfulness, love, and sacrifice. This is what the disciples learned from Jesus and this is what they taught in their writings. So, if they learned anything from Jesus it was to live in truth for this is exactly what Jesus said, "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth. 18"As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19"And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth," (John 17:17-19). Furthermore, the fact is that there were plenty of people around who could have discounted what the apostles had written if what they wrote was inaccurate. Yet, we find no evidence of any such thing in any writings of the time. Yes, the disciples were biased. But to what? To lying? To exaggerating? Or were they biased towards the truth of who Jesus is and what He had done? Of course, just because eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus rising from the dead does not mean it actually happened. This is true, but why would the disciples lie about this? Why would they risk their lives, their families, their cultural ties, and even end up dying for it all if they knew it was all a lie developed out of their "bias"? It doesn't make sense. But what does make sense is that the disciples were telling the truth.

406

What is the gospel of Q and does it prove the Gospels are false?

Q comes from the German "quelle" meaning "source." Some biblical scholars have proposed that there was a document prior to the writing of the gospels which was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke as a source of information. 5 4 They have called this hypothetical document "Q." It is hypothetical because there is no proof that the document existed. Nevertheless, this proposal has gained some acceptance in scholarly circles due to the very close similarities and identical written accounts found in both Matthew and Luke. It is reasoned that the very similar accounts must be taken from a common source. Since Matthew was probably originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic according to the historian Papias, and all we have is the Greek texts, some conclude that a translation of the Hebrew gospel of Matthew into Greek would have resulted in translations slightly different from the Luke accounts. But since some of the accounts are identical, it is proposed that Matthew and Luke shared a common reference source. This is perfectly reasonable and we do see differences in translations as well as identical wording. Is this the result of an unknown document known as Q? Perhaps, but there is no way to be sure since it is possible that one copied fro m another or copied from Mark. Following is a small sample chart of some of the sayings in Matthew and Luke that are identical as is demonstrated by being underlined. The text is taken from the NASB. Matt. 3:7-10, But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8"Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; 9and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, We have Abraham for our father; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10"And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Matt. 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Matt. 11:2-6 Matt. 8:18-22 Matt. 17:19-20 Matt. 25:14-30 ...etc. Luke 3:7-9, "He therefore began saying to the multitudes who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8"Therefore bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, We have Abraham for our father, for I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 9"And also the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Luke 13:34, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! Luke 7:18-23 Luke 9:57-62 Luke 17:5-6 Luke 19:11-27

54

Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc., 1985.

407

As I said above, another theory is that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. Please consider the following quote which deals with both the Q theory and the Markan Source theory. "It is plain as a pikestaff that both our Matthew and Luke used practically all of Mark and followed his general order of events. For this reason Mark has been placed first on the pages where this Gospel appears at all. But another thing is equally clear and that is that both Matthew and Luke had another source in common because they each give practically identical matter for much that is not in Mark at all. This second common source for Matthew and Luke has been called Logia because it is chiefly discourses. It is sometimes referred to as "Q."5 5 The above quote from A.T. Robertson, one of the foremost Greek scholars of the 20th century, is a good reflection of the position of many scholars. It may be that there was a common source for Matthew and Luke, either Q or Mark, or a combination of both. If Q is true, are the gospels inspired? Some people say that the Q theory invalidates the inspiration of the gospels since it would mean that the writers copied their material from one another and were then not inspired of God. But this does not invalidate inspiration at all. If Q is an actual source it does not invalidate the validity of the gospels. Why would copying from an earlier source invalidate the Gospels or say they were not inspired? Can God not inspire a writer as he copies from another document? Of course. If anything, the existence of Q would mean that the time between the actual events and their written record is lessened. In other words, Q would have to precede Matthew and Luke. This would mean that there is a source even earlier than the gospels which only adds to the validity of the accuracy of the gospels since it shortens the time between the event and the record. If Mark was a source of Matthew and Luke, then... Furthermore, if Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke, how would he have known what to write about if he wasn't an eyewitness? This isn't a problem because Mark was a disciple of Peter and Peter was in the inner circle with Jesus. Therefore, Mark received his information from Peter who was an eyewitness. Also, Matthew, who was a disciple, agrees with the account of Mark's gospel concerning Jesus and the events surrounding Him as is evidenced in his account. There is no disagreement between them, only confirmation and verification. So, we have confirmation of Mark's accuracy.

_______________ For further reading the possibility of Q, please consider Richard A. Edwards, A Theology of Q: Eschatology, Prophecy, and Wisdom (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1976). John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Exc avating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2000).

55

Robertson, A.T., A Harmony of the Gospels, Harper & Row; New York` 1950. p. 255.

408

Why isn't there other evidence of the massacre of the babies?

"Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi," (Matt. 2:16). If Herod really did slaughter all the male babies in Jerusalem, why isn't there any mention of it in historical accounts outside the Bible such as the Jewish historian Josephus or some other Roman historians? Since we find none, doesn't that mean that it didn't happen or at the least cast doubt upon the validity of the event? After all, killing a town full of babies being slaughtered is something that would have been recorded. First of all, not having any evidence outside the Bible of the slaughter of the babies, does not mean it didn't happen, especially since the Bible does record it and the Bible has already been proven to be historically accurate. Second, Bethlehem as far as the Romans was concerned, was an insignificant and very small town located about five miles south of Jerusalem at around 2500 feet elevation. It probably had a population of no more than 500 - 600 people. Micah 5:2 it says, "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity. Notice that Micah (written around 500 B.C.) prophecies that from Bethlehem, a small town, Jesus will be born. If there were as many as 600 people in Bethlehem, how many children would have been under the age of two? Ten, twenty, thirty? Whatever the number, it would not have been hundreds. It would have been relatively few. Add to this the fact that Herod was known for committing horrendous crimes against people and you could see why this event in an insignificant village in the Jewish area, would be ignored. "But it is not surprising that he [Josephus] and other secular historians overlooked the death of a few Hebrew children in an insignificant village, for Herods infamous crimes were many. He put to death several of his own children and some of his wives whom he thought were plotting against him. Emperor Augustus reportedly said it was better to be Herods sow than his son, for his sow had a better chance of surviving in a Jewish community."5 6 Third, there were more "important" things happening in the Roman Empire which would occupy the details of historical writers. Take a look at the chart below and notice that at the time of Christ, some major events were taking place. Undoubtedly, Roman historians would have focused on issues more appropriate to the Empire.

56

Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.; 1983, 1985.

409

Year 20 B.C. 12 B.C. 9 B.C. 7 B.C. 4 B.C.

Event Roman Empire

Israel - Herod begins remodeling of the Temple

- Beginning of war between the Pannonians and the Romans. - Pannonians are defeated. - Rome is divided into 14 regions. - Herod executes his son. - Herod dies. - Herod burns alive 40 Jews who destroyed a golden eagle. - Possible date of the slaughter of the babies - Archelaus (Herod's son) kills 3000 Jews in the Temple (Note that the chronology of Jesus' birth is probably 4 years too late. Therefore, Jesus was probably born around 4 B.C.) - War in Germany - Peace made with Persia - Roman decree permitting Jews to follow their religious customs - Herod dies - Tiberius subdues Germany - Pannonians revolt. - Herod Archelaus deposed by Augustus - Judea is absorbed into the Roman Empire

3 B.C. - 01 A.D. 2 A.D. 3 A.D. 4 A.D. 6 A.D.

We must remember that the Bible has demonstrated itself to be reliable and accurate countless times. It may very well be that some inscription is waiting to be uncovered which will, like many inscriptions in the past, validate yet another biblical event. In the meantime, we can trust the Bible to be the accurate document of historical record that it is.

410

Why isn't there any record of millions of Jews wandering in the desert?
There has been a lot of speculation on the route of the Exodus and why the traditional site hasn't yielded any archaeological evidence. After all, if two million people wander in a desert for forty years, you'd think that at least something would be found to support it. But, nothing at all has been unearthed in the Sinai Peninsula supporting the biblical account of the Exodus. Various explanations for this range from the idea that it is naturally difficult to find any archeological evidence in a desert of sand, to the explanation that the traditional site is the wrong one. First of all, we must understand that no archaeological find has ever contradicted the Bible. Archaeology has only confirmed what the Bible says. As has been the case with so many other things in the Bible, as archaeology progresses, they will most certainly uncover evidence in the future. Again, the Bible has yet to be proven wrong by archaeology. Second, lack of evidence doesn't mean there wasn't an Exodus. However, this is a slippery slope since having a lack of evidence for an ice cream factory on Jupiter doesn't mean that there is one. What we need is evidence and it is fair to say that there should be some evidence for the wanderings of two million people for forty years in a desert. Third, and I think this is the most probably explanation, it may be that the traditional site of Mt. Sinai is incorrect. Gal. 4:25 says "Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children." Present theories dealing with Mt. Sinai's location have it in the Sinai Peninsula, yet the Bible says it was in Arabia. The map to the right shows the traditionally accepted route (in the dotted line) and the currently accepted location of Mt. Sinai. The problem is that there has been absolutely no arc haeological evidence unearthed at that site to verify the Exodus. The route in the dashed line shows an alternate path that is consistent with Paul's description in Gal. 4:25. This would have Mt. Sinai be in Arabia, which is now Saudi Arabia, instead of the traditionally accepted Sinai Peninsula. In a recent book titled "In search of the Mountain of God," by Bob Cornuke and David Halbrook (Broadman and Holman, 2000), Bob Cornuke (a Christian) recounts his story of going into Saudi Arabia with his friend Larry Williams (a non-Christian commodities trader). They uncovered evidence of an alternate site where the real Mt. Sinai might be. Bob Cornuke was a police officer, swat team member, and crime scene investigator in Southern California and is the President of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (BASE) Institute BaseInstitute.org. He and Mr. Williams have produced a video and book (available on that site) where they claim to have found evidence in Saudi Arabia to support that Mt. Sinai is located within its borders. Now, I must admit that this has not been verified by any "official" archaeologists, but the video, which I have seen, does raise some interesting possibilities. Mr. Cornuke and Williams claim to have simply let the Bible guide them as they attempted to locate the actual route of the Jews of the Exodus. Through trial and error over several weeks, they followed what they believed was the route as is laid out by the Bible and they found the items described in Exodus 13 - 19 including, springs, a split rock, an altar, an underwater land bridge at the end of the Sinai Peninsula where the people of Israel could have crossed, and much more. The present location of Mt. Sinai, according to the locals in their account, is known as Jabal Al Laws as is traditionally known by them as the mount of Moses. The Saudis have the area fenced off with warning signs in Arabic and English telling people not to enter. If this is so, why would the Saudis not want anyone to know about the place? It might be because if Mt. Sinai is located in Muslim territory then one of the most holy places of the Jewish and Christian religions it could pose serious political problems. I must admit that this is speculative at present and it has not been verified. But the video was compelling. Whether or not this is a valid option is yet to be determined and it is supportive of the idea that the traditional location of Exodus route might indeed be incorrect, as Gal. 4:25 seems to suggest.

411

Do the lost books of the Bible prove that the Bible has been altered?

There is much talk these days about lost books of the Bible. Sometimes people claim that the Bible was edited to take out reincarnation, or the teaching of higher planes of existence, or different gods, or ancestor worship, or "at-one-ment" with nature, anything that disagreed with what the people in power didn't like. But, none of this is true. The "lost books" were never lost. These so called lost books were already known by the Jews and the Christians and were not considered inspired. They weren't lost nor were they removed from the Bible because they were never in the Bible to begin with. These so called lost books were not included in the Bible for several reasons. They lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship; they did not claim to be the Word of God; they contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead in 2 Macc. 12:45-46; or have some serious historical inaccuracies. These books were never authoritative, inspired, or authentically written by either the Jewish Prophets or the Christian Apostles. Nevertheless, in spite of these problems the Roman Catholic church has added certain books to the canon of scripture. In 1546, largely due in response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic church authorized several more books as scripture known as the apocrypha. The word apocrypha means hidden. It is used in a general sense to describe a list of books written by Jews between 300 and 100 B.C. More specifically, it is used of the 7 additional books accepted by the Catholic church as being inspired. The entire list of books of the apocrypha are: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch The Pseudepigraphal books are "false writings." They are a collection of early Jewish and "Christian" writings composed between 200 BC and AD 200. However, they too were known and were never considered scripture. A list of these would be the Epistle of Barnabas, the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthia ns, the Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, the The letter of the Smyrnaeans or the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the The Shepherd of Hermas, the The Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas (140-170 AD), the The Psalms of Solomon, the The Odes of Solomon, the The Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs, the Second Baruch, the Third Baruch, the The Books of Adam and Eve. The Deuterocanonical (apocrypha) books are those books that were included in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) but not included in the Hebrew Bible. The recognized deuterocanonical books are 1 Esdras (150-100 BC), 2 Esdras (100 AD), Tobit (200 BC), Judith (150 BC), the Additions to Esther (140-130 BC), the Wisdom of Solomon (30 BC), Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) (132 BC), Barach (150-50 BC), the Letter of Jeremiah (300-100 BC), the Susanna (200-0 BC), Bel and the Dragon (100 BC), the Additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah (200-0 BC), the Prayer of Manassesh (100-0 BC), 1 Maccabees (110 BC), and 2 Maccabees (110-170 BC). 5 7 These pseudepigraphal and deuterocanonical books were never considered scripture by the Christian church because they were not authoritative, inspired, written by either Prophets or Apostles, nor do they have the power of the word of the books of the existing Bible. Therefore, since the books are not lost and were never part of the Bible to begin with, they have no bearing on the validity of the Bible.

57

Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.

412

Is there non-biblical evidence of a day of darkness at Christ's death?

In Luke 23:44-46 there is the record of darkness falling upon the land during Christ's crucifixion. "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two. 46And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit." And having said this, He breathed His last." Is there any non-biblical evidence of the day of darkness mentioned at Christ's death? The answer is yes, there is. "Circa AD 52, Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. This work itself has been lost and only fragments of it exist in the citations of others. One such scholar who knew and spoke of it was Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221...In speaking of Jesus crucifixion and the darkness that covered the land during this event, Africanus found a reference in the writings of Thallus that dealt with this cosmic report. Africanus asserts: 'On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.'" 5 8 One might wonder why other historians of the time did not also mention the darkness. First of all, the darkness was localized so it would not be a widespread phenomenon that other historians would naturally record. Second, other historians like Pliny, Tacitus, and Josephus, generally were focusing on events that could be verified and were not based in the miraculous. The fact that Thallus mentions the darkness tells us that something did happen and that there is extrabiblical citation for the event.

58

Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the AnteNicene Fathers , ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

413

Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish priest at the time of the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66. He was captured by the Romans, imprisoned, set free and then retired to Rome where he wrote a history of the Jewish Revolt called the "Jewish War." Later he wrote "Antiquities" as a history of the Jews. It is in Antiquities that he mentions Christ. The mention is called the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63-64; see below). Josephus was born in Jerusalem around 37 A.D. He died around the year 101. The problem with the copies of Antiquities is that they appear to have been rewritten in favor of Jesus as they are very favorable, som say too favorable to have been written by a Jew. Add to this e that the Christians were the ones who kept and made the copies of the Josephus documents throughout history and you have a shadow of doubt cast upon the quotes. However, all is not lost. First of all, there is no proof that such insertions into the text were ever made. They may be authentic. The Testimonium is found in every copy of Jesusphus in existence. Second, Josephus mentions many other biblically relevant occurrences that are not in dispute (see outline below). This adds validity to the claim that Josephus knew about Jesus and wrote about Him since he also wrote about other New Testament things. Nevertheless, though there may be some Christian insertions into the text, we can still reconstruct what may have been the original writing. Two researchers (Edwin Yamauchi and John P. Meier) 5 9 have constructed a copy of the Testimonium with the probable insertions in brackets and underlined. The following paragraph is Yamauchi's: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. ] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. Though this may be a correct assessment of the Testimonium, we should note that an Arabic version (10th Century) of the Testimonium (translated into English) is in basic agreement with the existing Josephus account: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."60

The Arabic version was copied from a Greek version. What is not known is which one? But if you notice the comparison below, if the Arabic version was a direct translation of the Greek, then why the differences? Nevertheless, what is important in the Arabic Version is that the resurrection of Christ is maintained.

59

Edwin Yamauchi, Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence? in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland ( Zondervan, 1995): 212-4. And 2) John P. Meier, Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 76103. 60 Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan ("Book of the Title," 10th c.). See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism. (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html)

414

Greek Version About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.]

Arabic Version "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.

When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to men of the highest standing amongst us, had die. And those who had become his disciples condemned him to be crucified, those who did not abandon his discipleship. had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

To summarize, the Testimonium Flavianum cannot be so easily dismissed as pure Christian interpolation (insertion into the text). Though it seems probable that interpolation did occur, we cannot be sure what was added. Also, the Arabic version contains very similar information as the Greek one regarding Jesus in His resurrection. Even if both versions have been tampered with, the core of them both mentions Jesus as a historical figure who was able to perform many surprising feats, was crucified, and that there were followers of Jesus who were still in existence at the time of its writing.

415

1 Cor. 15:3-4 demonstrates a creed too early for legend to corrupt.

One of the criticisms raised against the historic validity of Jesus, His crucifixion, and resurrection, is that after Jesus' time, legend crept in to the stories about Him and corrupted the true accounts of His life. If that is so, then the earlier we can find information concerning the fundamental events of Christ's crucifixion, the less likely error and legend would have crept into the story and the more believable it will be. 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is considered by many scholars to be an extremely early creed of the Christian church. A creed is a statement of belief. In 1 Cor. 15:3-4 we see that Paul says he received this information. It reads, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve," (1 Cor. 15:3-5). If we were to take a chronological look at some important events and their dates related to this subject we find that the time period between the event and the record is very small. EVENT Jesus' Crucifixion Paul's conversion Paul's first visit to Jerusalem since conversion Writing of 1 Corinthians DATE 30 A.D. 32 A.D. Strobel, Lee, The Case for Christ, (Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan), 1998, p. 35 DOCUMENTATION

34-37 The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House A.D. Publishers, Inc.) 1962. The New Bible Dictionary, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale 37-38 House Publishers, Inc.) 1962. A.D. The Chronological Bible, (Nashville, TN: Regal Publishers), 1977, p. 1429. Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

54-55 A.D.

If the Crucifixion was in 30 A.D., Paul's Conversion was as early as 34 A.D., and his first meeting in Jerusalem was around 37 A.D., then we could see that the time between the event of Christ's crucifixion and Paul receiving the information about His death, burial, and resurrection (in Jerusalem) would be as short as seven years (five if we use the earlier date). That is a very short period of time and hardly long enough for legend to creep in and corrupt the story. This is especially important since the apostles were alive and spoke with Paul. They were eyewitness accounts to Christ's death, burial, and post death appearances. Paul himself had seen the Lord Jesus prior to His death and after His resurrection (Acts 9). Paul's account agreed with the other Apostles' account and Paul wrote it down in 1 Cor. 15 around the year 54. So, since 1 Corinthians was written as early as 54 A.D., that would mean that from the event (Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection) to writing it down is 24 years. That is a very short period of time. Remember, there were plenty of Christians around who could have corrected the writings of Paul if he was in error. But we have no record at all of any corrections or challenges to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ from anyone: Roman, Jew, or other Christians.

416

We must note here that some critics of the Bible claim that there is no extra biblical-evidence of Christ (not true) and that because of it, He didn't exist. The sword cuts both ways. If they can say that Jesus' events aren't real because there is no extra-biblical evidence mentioning them, then we can also say that since there are no extra biblical-accounts refuting the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then it must be true. In other words, lack of extra-biblical writings does not prove that Christ did not live and did not die. Furthermore, Paul corroborated the gospel accounts (He wrote before the gospels were written) and verified several things: Jesus was born in as a Jew (Gal. 4:4), Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23) and Jesus was crucified (Gal. 3:1; 1 Cor. 2:2; Phil. 2:8). Jesus was buried in rose again (1 Cor. 15:4; Rom. 6:4).

Obviously, Paul considered Jesus was a historical figure, not a legend or a myth. Furthermore, Paul was a man of great integrity who suffered much for his faith. He was not the kind of person to simply believe tall tales. After all, he was a devout Jew (a Pharisee) and a heavy persecutor of the Church. Something profound had to happen to him to get him to change his position, abandon the Jewish faith and tradition, suffer persecutions, whippings, jail, etc. The most likely event that fits the bill is that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again from the dead, and appeared to Paul, just as Luke said in Acts 9.

417

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was popularized by Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996), a well-known astronomer and author who hosted a TV series called "Cosmos," published hundreds of scientific articles, and was professor of astronomy at Cornell University in New York. The statement is self explanatory; if someone makes an extraordinary claim, there better be extraordinary evidence to back it up. If, for example, someone made the claim that an alien race has made contact with earth, we would need sufficient evidence to verify the claim, such as an alien space craft, or an actual alien. The extraordinary claim would need extraordinary evidence. At the heart of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a healthy and normal skepticism. There are far too many charlatans and con-men in the world who make extraordinary claims without evidence to back them up. Unfortunately, too many people lack the necessary skepticism and critical thinking skills to help them avoid being duped by con artists and wild theories. Personally, except for a few qualifications, I agree with the sentiment of the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Those qualifications follow. Presuppositions Requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims sounds good on the surface. But, it is subjective. The fact is that a person's presuppositions strongly affect how and to what degree the statement is applied. In Jesus' resurrection, for example, Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead. The evidence of fulfilled prophecy, eyewitness records, and changed lives of the disciples is enough to convince many people who believe in God that Jesus rose from the dead. This is a logical conclusion based on the presupposition and the evidence. Atheists, on the other hand, would negate the resurrection by default since their presupposition that there is no God 6 1 would require that God involved event cannot occur. Therefore, for an atheist the extraordinary evidence would have to be "exceptionally" extraordinary in order to overcome his atheistic presuppositional base. In other words, evidence would need to be presented that was rock solid and irrefutable. This is why the skeptic must require "extraordinary evidence." It enables him to retain his presupposition should the extraordinary level of the evidence not be met. Therefore, requiring extraordinary evidence effectively stacks the deck against the claim. What would qualify as extraordinary evidence? When debating skeptics, I often ask them to tell me what would qualify as extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Generally, nothing sensible is offered. Normal evidence would be written accounts. Extraordinary evidence would be a film, but we know that this extraordinary evidence is not reasonable. Therefore, can the requirement that extraordinary claims (Christ's resurrection) require extraordinary evidence apply to Jesus' resurrection? It would seem not. Since Jesus' resurrection is alleged to be a historical event, then it seems logical that normal historical evidence and normal historical examination of that evidence would be all that we could do. The resurrection is supposed to be an event of history and since it claims historical validity, then typical criteria for examining historical claims should be applied.

61

I am aware of the different atheistic positions, i.e., lack of belief, belief there is no God, etc., but for simplicity in the illustration I am using the "belief there is no God," atheistic position.

418

What criteria do they use to determine what is extraordinary evidence? The reality is that there is no precise scientific method for determining the validity of historic events. There is a degree of subjectivity involved. Different people will claim different requirements for validating ancient phenomena based upon their presuppositions and the type of evidence involved. Also, since ancient events dealing with human history and claims cannot be observed or repeated, we must look at the evidence differently. This makes the application of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" somewhat subjective and invalid for determining ancient phenomena. Is the criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable? The skeptic often requires "proof" that God exists, or "absolute proof" that Jesus rose from the dead. I have heard many atheists, for example, say that the only proof they would accept of Jesus' resurrection would be if it could be tested using the scientific method. Of course, we know that is impossibility since the scientific method means observation, experimentation, and repetition and we can't apply that to an event that occurred 2000 years ago. Atheists know this and that is why they require it. When the Christian fails to produce a scientific method or scientific evidence, the atheist feels safe in his position. However, the requirement for absolute proof ignores the fact that there is a category of "sufficient evidence." In logic, there is deduction and induction. Deduction is drawing a conclusion based on facts. It is reasoning from the general to the specific. Induction is process of drawing general principles from specific facts. It is from the specific to the general. Often times, we use deductive and inductive reasoning to arrive at conclusions about events in history. In so doing, there is no requirement of "extraordinary evidence." The evidence is simply examined contextually; that is, it is examined according to the genre in which it fits. This is what I mean... We do not apply the logical requirement of establishing a fact that is thus established through experimentation and repetition to the subject of Napoleon's existence. The genre, history, does not fit that methodology. Yet, the skeptic will sometimes require that experimentation and repetition be applied to Jesus' resurrection, thereby, misapplying evidential and logical analysis. Furthermore, we cannot ascertain all things with absolute certainty. We cannot, for example, prove that Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) ever lived by observing him. But, we have ancient writings from eyewitnesses concerning his existence. Skeptics readily believe in Alexander the Great without involving the scientific method and without requiring "extraordinary evidence." However, a skeptic might say that Alexander the Great never claimed to have risen from the dead and that normal evidence would be suffic ient to determine his existence with a reasonableness of probability. But, Alexander the Great, according to history, performed an extraordinary feat. By the age of 33 he had conquered the known world. That is indeed an extraordinary event in history. So, I ask, "Where is the extraordinary evidence to back that extraordinary claim up?" Has any skeptic in Christ's resurrection, equally applied the principle of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," to Alexander the Great's conquest of the known world? If not, then this brings us full circle to the issue concerning presuppositions. With an atheist, for example, the presupposition that God does not exist means that the extraordinary claim of Christ's resurrection requires extraordinary evidence but Alexander the Great's world conquest does not, yet both are extraordinary claims of history.

419

Conclusion If it is true about Alexander the Great, no big deal. It won't have any effect on anyone and it won't change anything in anyone's life outside of just having the information that he conquered the known world by age 33. But, if it is true about Jesus, then that is completely different. Jesus claimed to be divine and He had a message for people about heaven and hell and that salvation is only through Him. Such a claim requires extraordinary evidence, such as a resurrection from the dead. This would have a profound effect on people and it can make them uncomfortable. Therefore, people will not want it to be true and will desperately try to hold onto their presuppositions; hence, the claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nevertheless, when defending the Bible and dealing with the claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," address the following issues: 1. 2. 3. 4. Will their presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence? What would qualify as extraordinary evidence? What criteria is used to determine what is extraordinary evidence? Are the criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable?

Hopefully, a healthy dialogue can be had by both parties.

420

Does the Bible provide extraordinary evidence for Jesus' Resurrection?

If you read the paper on Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then you read the concluding points about the validity and weaknesses of the position and addressing four major points: 1. 2. 3. 4. Will their presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence? What would qualify extraordinary evidence? What criteria is used to determine what is extraordinary evidence? Are the criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable?

Nevertheless, does the Bible actually provide extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims? I believe so. But, instead of providing a list of various claims and evidences, I want to focus on the most important one in the Bible: Christ's resurrection. Basically, does the extraordinary claim that Jesus rose from the dead have any extraordinary evidence to back it up? But, since this is a subject of history, we cannot apply the methods of experimentation and repetition to see if it happened. We don't have any film. All we have is the evidence presented in the Bible, a document of history. Like the extraordinary Alexander the Great who conquered the known world by the age of 33, the resurrection of Jesus is also a historic event. Following is a chart that categorizes some Biblical facts into two categories. I admit this is a bit subjective, but I think that my analysis is sound. Afterwards, I will briefly comment on each one.

Extraordinary claim: Jesus physically rose from the dead Extraordinary evidence 1. Textual reliability of the ancient document 2. Retention of crucifixion wounds post event 3. Post death appearances to many people 4. Prophetic fulfillment 1. Not so extraordinary evidence 5. Accounts written by eyewitnesses 6. No counter historic information 7. Jesus' body is gone from the tomb 8. Changed lives

2.

3.

4.

Textual reliability of the ancient document A. The New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. This is indeed an extraordinary fact since all other ancient documents do not even approach this level of accuracy. Retention of crucifixion wounds post event A. This would indeed be an extraordinary evidence of a resurrection to see the actual holes in Jesus' hands and side after he had died on the cross. i. John 20:27, "Then He *said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." Post death appearances to many people A. It is indeed extraordinary to have someone who has died in public at an execution to appear to many people afterwards. i. John 20:26, "And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, "Peace be with you." Prophetic fulfillment A. Fulfilling prophecies made hundreds of years earlier about Jesus birth, death, crucifixion, and resurrection is indeed extraordinary.

421

5. 6.

7.

Accounts written by eyewitnesses A. It is perfectly ordinary to have people write about what they saw. History is full of such accounts. No counter historic information A. There is no contradictory historical information concerning Jesus' resurrection. This doesn't prove anything, but when the gospels were written, people contemporary to the described events (Jews, Romans, etc.), could have easily written something refuting or correcting the resurrection account. No such writings exist. This isn't extraordinary, but it is important. Jesus body is gone from the tomb A. It is not extraordinary for a body to disappear from a tomb if we realize that it could have been stolen.

We can see that there is sufficient reasons to believe that the Bible does indeed provide extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim; namely, the resurrection of Jesus.

422

It is improbable that Jesus rose from the dead

When someone says that it is improbable that Jesus rose from the dead, he is speaking logically. The fact is that probability strongly works against Jesus rising from the dead. After all, how many people have risen from the dead in this century? If it had happened, would not the news have reported it? Would not the doctors have known about it? Anyone rising from the dead would be a noteworthy event. So, on one hand, it is true that it is improbable that Jesus rose from the dead. However, on the other hand is not. If there were no God in the universe and if all things followed the natural laws that we know and universe then indeed it would be highly improbable that anyone would rise from the dead. But if there were a God who controls the natural laws and is in fact the author of those laws, then it would be easy for him to raise someone from the dead. The issue of improbability cannot be examined without examining the concept of whether or not God exists. After all, if he does exist the resurrection of Christ is certainly possible. So we see that someone's presuppositions about the existence of God will affect whether or not he or she can accept the idea that Jesus can rise from the dead. Even though statistically it is not normal that anyone would rise from the dead, the statistical improbability does not mean that it is impossible. But we see in the New Testament eyewitness accounts of people seeing Jesus after He was crucified, died, and buried. Take, for example, the following accounts of Jesus appearing after His death and burial. John 20:25-28, "The other disciples therefore were saying to him, We have seen the Lord! But he said to them, Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe. 26And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, Peace be with you. 27Then He *said to Thomas, Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing. 28Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God! Luke 24:39, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Of course, simply quoting the Bible is not sufficient for skeptics who cannot or will not believe in the resurrection of Christ. But it is difficult to blame them because someone rising from the dead is indeed improbable. In fact, they would say that such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence. This is not unreasonable if applied fairly and consistently to the context of history. I have written on this in the paper "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Does the New Testament provide extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Christ? Quite frankly, yes it does. It does in that the eyewitness accounts which were written down by the apostles of Christ, were preserved on an extraordinary good level. There is absolutely no comparable ancient document or documents that even approaches the accuracy and reliability of the New Testament documents. This is indeed extraordinary. To see more on this, please read "Does the Bible provide extraordinary evidence for Jesus' resurrection?" Just because something is improbable, does not mean that it is impossible. Given that God exists in that he is involved in human history, and that Jesus performed many miracles, walked on water, and raised others from the dead, it is not improbable to conclude that he has risen from the dead. In fact, in light of the eyewitness accounts that have been accurately transmitted to us, it is perfectly reasonable to trust in his resurrection.

423

The Christians were mistaken about Jesus' resurrection

Sometimes critics of Christianity say that Jesus' disciples were mistaken about His resurrection. They say that because no one can rise from the dead, then the disciples were wrong when they said that Jesus rose from the dead. First of all, they are assuming something that may not be true. After all, if there is a God, then why can't a resurrection happen? But, when I ask them to explain how it was possible to be mistaken about something like a person rising from the dead according to the gospel accounts, I don't get any answers except, "Well, they were wrong." It is true that the disciples made mistakes. After all, they were only human. But, how could they be mistaken about something as serious and as monumental as Jesus rising from the dead? Is it likely that they simply goofed, that somehow after seeing Jesus die on the cross, and after fleeing and going into hiding that the figure that appeared before them in the closed room that looked like Jesus and sounded like Jesus and had holes in His hands and feet really wasn't Jesus? Were the women who saw the empty tomb also mistaken when they looked into it and saw that the body wasn't there? Was the apostle John mistaken when he said that Jesus appeared before Thomas and said, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing," (John 20:27). Was it Jesus or not? If not, then who was it? Did the disciples make up the story? Did the apostle John lie when he wrote the account? If so, where are the records refuting this preposterous notion? There aren't any. Is it possible that all the disciples were mistaken about the same thing at the same time especially when they believed that Jesus had died and was still dead? What would cause them all to switch from believing that when you're dead you're dead to believing that Jesus died and rose from the dead? Was Paul the apostle also mistaken when he was riding along the road to Damascus and claims to have encountered Jesus? Remember, Paul was a persecutor the Christians. He had authority to arrest the Christians and imprison them. He was a devout Jew and quite powerful in the Jewish religious system. How is it that he changed his mind so drastically and claims to have seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1)? Was he also simply mistaken? If so, how? What did he see on the road to Damascas that changed his life if not something incredible? Is all of Christianity a big "oops"? Might we meet the disciples in the afterlife and have them say to us, "Uh, remember that resurrection thing about Jesus we wrote about? Well, we goofed. It really didn't happen. We mistook the empty tomb -- never did find His body -- the prophecies of the Old Testament about Him rising (Psalm 16:10), the prophecy of Jesus saying He'd rise (John), the accounts of the women saying that they had seen Him risen, the appearances of a man who looked like Jesus and who had holes in his hands and feet and appeared to us in closed rooms, the conversion of Paul -- that was weird -- oh, and all those miracles He did and those that we then did afterwards, too, well, that was all a big mistake. Also, it was a big mistake going around Israel and all of the Mediterranean proclaiming Jesus had risen from the dead while we suffered persecution and death...yeah, it was all a big mistake. Hope there are no hard feelings." Is it rational to think that the disciples were simply mistaken about something as serious as stating that Jesus had risen from the dead? How do you mistake someone rising from the dead? What would have to happen for numerous people to change their minds about someone coming back to life? Or is it more rational to simply conclude that the disciples weren't mistaken and that Jesus actually did rise from the dead?

424

The New Testament writers conspired together to gain power and influence

It is certainly possible that the New Testament writers worked together and concocted a plan to use a good man named Jesus, who had recently died, in order to gain power and influence for themselves. But just because something is possible does not mean that it is a reality. It is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, but that does not mean that one exists. When we look at the New Testament claims of Christ do we see what looks like an elaborate deception concocted by several people? Or do we see that their behavior is more consistent with the idea that Jesus actually did do miracles and rise from the dead? It is the latter explanation that best fits the facts. Following is a list of reasons why the conspiracy theory does not work. It would require great coordination of events and writing over a long period of time. First of all, in order for this conspiracy to work several people would have needed to get together and write documents that were not only inspirational but reflected accurate historical accounts, could stand up to cross examination, and agreed with each other sufficiently to avoid being exposed as a fraud. After all, if their stories and writings were contradictory, their conspiracy would fall apart. This means that there had to be large and sophisticated collusion and careful, deliberate fabrication over a long period of time since the New Testament documents were written over approximately a 50 year span. The writers would have to be very careful about who was named and what places were mentioned. Why? Because the accounts dealt with actual places and people and they would have to make sure it was all correct. If these people wanted to gain power and influence by concocting a plan as grandiose as this, is it logical to say that they agreed to make up a story about this person Jesus, who was known to many people, and say things about Him that were not true, and then get people to believe that He had risen from the dead? Does it make sense that they would go against not only the Jewish system but also that of the Roman Empire, all so that they could try and gain power and influence in an area already dominated by two powerful cultures, the Jewish and Roman? Or is it more logical to say that they didn't conspire to deceive, but simply wrote and testified to what they saw? Doesn't it make more sense to say that they wrote what they knew, recorded the facts, the places, and the events and that it was all true and that that explains the New Testament documents better than anything else? It would mean that the NT writers wrote about truth based on a lie The writers of the New Testament used the words "true" and "truth" 170 times. They lived for the truth of what they believed and they died for it as well. They wrote about truth (Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 4:2), honesty (Luke 8:15), love (1 Cor. 13:4-8), integrity (2 Cor. 7:2), compassion (Col. 3:12), forgiveness (Col. 3:13), etc., and it was all based upon their love for and dedication to the truth of Jesus. They spoke against hypocrisy (Rom. 12:9), lying (Col. 3:9), jealousy (James 3:13), and selfish ambition (James 3:16). In fact, they lived according to their words. Does it really make sense to say that the NT writers deliberately conspired to misrepresent the truth and then go to great depths, even to suffer beatings and death, all while they were continuously telling people to believe in a lie? Add to this how they knew they would be persecuted for this alleged conspiracy of lies and we have serious problems explaining their behavior. It would make far more sense to simply acknowledge that they were telling the truth and that it was not a conspiracy to deceive. It would mean that the conspiracy would have to survive cross examination For the conspiracy to work, it would have to face cross examination. Remember, the gospels were written as historical documents mentioning places, people, and events. There certainly were many people who were still alive and who could verify and/or deny the miraculous events concerning Jesus. If you want to make a conspiracy work, you don't offer verifiable facts. Instead, you make up storie s that cannot be verified but sound good. This is what Joseph Smith did when he began Mormonism.

425

Nothing of his great cities and civilizations in the Book of Mormon have been verified since 1830 when he published his book of Mormon. Smith's religion isn't based on historical fact with verifiable locations and events. Instead, it is based on a story that cannot be verified. This is not the case with the New Testament books. The Gospels contained records of Jesus performing many miracles and eventually rising from the dead in Jerusalem. He was crucified at the hands of the Romans who were urged by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This was verifiable at the time especially since names and places are listed in the gospels and epistles. All anyone would have to do is contact those people (or check the court records) and go to those places to verify the accounts. If it was all a conspiracy, then where are the contradictory accounts refuting what the New Testament writers claimed? The problem is that there are no contradictory documents known anywhere that attempt to refute the claims recorded in the Gospels. In other words, there is no contradictory evidence even though there were plenty of people around who could have written material contrary to the claims of the New Testament. After all, Pontius Pilate was named (Matt. 27:2), as was Herod, king of Judea (Luke 1:5), the high priest Caiaphas (Matt. 26:3), Elizabeth (Luke 1:57), Mary (Matt. 1:25), John the Baptist (Matt. 3:1), Paul the apostle a convert from Judaism (Acts 9), etc. Locations were cited: Damascas (Acts 9:10), Cyprus and Cyrene (Acts 11:20), Jerusalem (Matt. 16:21), etc. Also, claims of Old Testament prophetic fulfillment were made (see Prophecy, the Bible, and Jesus) and all people had to do was read the Old Testament to check. In other words, there were plenty of people, most of whom were still alive, and places to go to and check in order to expose the conspiracy. But we find no contrary evidence or writings concerning the miraculous events of Jesus life, death, and resurrection. If there is no contrary evidence, no contrary writings, then does it make sense that it was all a conspiracy? Of course not. If it was a conspiracy, then where is the evidence for it? It would mean the conspirators would have to face persecution Undoubtedly, if the writers of the New Testament documents wanted to gain power and influence by writing about a new religious system that would go against the culture of Judaism as well as that of the Roman Empire, they most assuredly knew they would face persecution. We have to remember that the culture of the time was not beset with litigation and polite procedures. People often reacted irrationally and would spontaneously try to kill people (John 8:59). It also means that those who wrote the New Testament faced certain social, economic, and theological pressures. In the Jewish culture the religion was intimately interwoven into the social and economic fabric . Anyone who would go against that system would knowingly risk starvation, mockery, beatings, ridicule, loss of family and friends, etc. This is not something to be considered lightly. Perhaps a single demented individual might consider doing such a thing, but how is it possible to get Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Timothy, Apollos, etc. to all join in the charade, risk loss of family, reputation, economic stability, be persecuted and maybe even face death? Is this something that is rational to consider? Should we believe that they were all working together to deceive people so they could gain power, fame, and influence? It is simply extremely unlikely and full of problems as a theory. It would have to explain Paul's Conversion How did the Christian conspirators persuade Paul who was a devout Jew, educated in Jerusalem at the school of Gamaliel, (Acts 22:3), a Pharisee of Pharisees (Acts 22:3), and who was given letters of authority by the Jews to go out and arrest Christians (Acts 9:1-2), to become a Christian and thereby give up everything he had come to believe and stand for? Remember, Paul was a heavy persecutor of Christianity: "And Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him [Stephen] to death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles," (Acts 8:1). The most logical reason for Paul's conversion is that Jesus actually appeared to him on the Road to Damascus in Acts 9. It would take something pretty severe to cause Paul to abandon everything he had been taught his whole life and to not only convert, but to also advocate, and teach about the risen Lord Jesus -- and he did this for years before he was finally killed for his faith. So, how would the conspiracy theory account for Paul's incredible conversion and life long pursuit of proclaiming Jesus as

426

Lord and Savior? If an adequately plausible explanation cannot be offered, then the simplest one is best; namely, that Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus and Paul was then converted. Occam's Razor There is a principle known as Occam's Razor. This principle states that generally the simplest explanation is the best. When we examine the facts about the New Testament claims is it simpler to say that the New Testament writers conspired over many decades to write about actual places and people in such a way so as to convincingly deceive thousands of people into believing that Jesus was the Messiah, fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, healed the sick, cured diseases, claimed to be divine, raised Lazarus from the dead, was crucified by Romans after enduring the religious court of the Sanhedrin, was buried, and rose from the dead or that it simply all happened and they recorded it? Which is the simpler explanation? Which requires greater faith? Did the conspirators get what they were after? Finally, if power and influence were sought by the New Testament writers, did they attain it? At best, what they have gained by such an elaborate hoax would have been influence in a small group of people who were outcasts in Israel as well as Rome. Remember, to get followers into Christianity meant that you went against not only the Jewish system but also the Roman system, not to mention being able to concoct a story that could stand scrutiny. Obviously the odds are extremely against such a thing. Did they get what they were after? They were outcasts in their own society. They were beaten, ridiculed, accused of debauchery, jailed, beaten, and executed. If it was all a conspiracy, did they get the influence and power they were after? It doesn't seem so. Instead, it simply makes more sense to believe the New Testament than to say it was all a hoax.

427

Jesus was a magician who made people hallucinate about His miracles
All sorts of excuses and challenges have been offered to contradict or explain away the miraculous accounts of Jesus' life. Among the weaker challenges offered is that Jesus was some sort of a magician who was able to get people to hallucinate about His miracles. In other words, countless people were all seeing Jesus do things that were not really happening and it was Jesus who was perpetrating this deception upon them. Let's take the account of where Jesus feeds the five thousand with five loaves and two fish (Matt. 14:19-21). Though it is certainly possible to have one person hallucinate about this, how do the critics account for five thousand people hallucinating about the same thing at the same time? Or what about the resurrection? How do the critics explain the accounts of Jesus appearing to the disciples with holes in His feet and hands? How did Jesus get numerous people to believe a lie about His resurrection (a mass hallucination?) after the Romans, who were experts at executions, not only flogged Him severely, beat Him, and hung Him on a cross for six hours and then pierced His side where water and blood came out? How did Jesus do that? Some have alleged that Jesus went to the Far East and learned many "tricks" and techniques for influencing people as well as controlling His bodily functions so as to appear dead. Of course, this kind of theory lacks any evidence at all and is nothing more than conjecture and guesswork. Besides, the Bible says in Luke 2:51 that Jesus from a very young age continued in subjection to His parents. This means that in that culture, Jesus was obligated to stay with His earthly parents and care for them in accordance to the Ten Commandments which stated that He was to honor His mother and father. His obligation was to be there and care for them in their old age, not abandoning them for some journey to the far east in order to learn techniques of mind control. Hallucinations are misperceptions, false interpretations of reality. It is certainly possible for a single person to have a hallucination about something. But, how do you get two, three, or four people to misperceive reality and claim to see the same thing at the same time -- like Jesus' resurrection? That is very difficult to do. In fact, have you ever heard of a group of people succumbing to a mass hallucination and all of them believe the same thing? But then, some might say that Jesus was able to hypnotize people which would account for the mass hallucination. But you must remember that if Jesus were hypnotizing people, then He would have had to do it over and over again in different circumstances (in homes, in temples, in open fields, in boats, from the cross, etc), with hostile audiences (Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.), as well as those who were already believing Him. If Jesus was so good a hypnotizing people and getting them to believe things that weren't true (which makes Him a deceiver), then why did He not fool people and escape the sentence of being beaten and crucified? Or is it all part of the incredibly great hoax that Jesus somehow managed to accomplish on hundreds and hundreds of people. Also, did Jesus teach His disciples how to do mystical and/or mind control techniques? If that is so, then where is the evidence? Merely claiming that Jesus could do it, does not mean that it is true. There must be some compelling evidence to support the claim. Simply stating that miracles cannot happen and this must mean that Jesus was a magician or some sort, is begging the question. In other words, the critics assume to be true the thing they are trying to prove; namely, that miracles cannot happen. They then base conclusions upon that assumption which cannot be proven at all. In order to maintain the theory that Jesus was a master magician who caused people to hallucinate it would seem that the person holding that position must himself be hallucinating.

428

Jesus only appeared to have died on the cross - Swoon Theory

The swoon theory is the theory that Jesus never really died on the cross but that He was crucified and came very close to death. It further states that after He was taken down from the cross and laid in the tomb, after three days the coolness of the tomb revived Him and He managed to, roll away the stone, out of the tomb and appear to the disciples making them think He'd risen from the dead. The swoon theory has been thoroughly refuted by many people and very few continue to bring it up as a possibility. Nevertheless, following is an outline of why the Swoon theory can't work. Basically, it is because Jesus' ordeal was far too serious to permit Him to survive. 1. Six trials - three before Jewish officials (Annas, John 18:12-14; Caiaphas Matt 26:57-68; the Sanhedrin, Matt. 27:1-2), and three before Roman officials (Pilate, John 18:28-38; Herod, Luke 23:6-12; Pilate, John 18:39-19:6). A. In these trials, Jesus was beat on the face (Matt 26:67). Scourging A. Scourging was done with a flagrum, a short whip with several leather strips which were either embedded with pieces of metal and glass or small metal balls were tied to the ends of the leather strips. The victim was either tied to a post or tied bent over an object with his back exposed. The person inflicting the blows had been trained on how to properly administer the beating so as to assure the most painful and damaging punishment. The whipping consisted of 39 lashes. Each lash was administered and pulled across the back so as to rip the back open. Often the back muscles were so badly shredded that the skeletal structure was exposed. People very often died from this punishment alone. Jesus suffered 39 such lashes. Undoubtedly, his back was very badly beaten and bloody. Crown of thorns A. A crown of thorns was placed on the head of Jesus (Matt. 27:29). There are different thorn bushes growing in the region with thorns being very short to quite long. Even short thorns can tear the scalp. The crown was woven and then pressed down around the head ripping the skin. Bleeding would then occur. Purple Robe A. Wearing a purple robe (John 19:5) may not seem like a physically harmful thing to do. But, when you consider that Jesus had just undergone a terrible scourging and that His back had been ripped open and was quite bloody and raw, the robe on His back would cause additional pain by rubbing against it. Additionally, as the blood began to congeal, it would congeal into the fabric of the robe. When the robe was ripped off, more excruciating pain would result. Crucifixion A. The arms are pulled apart and nails driven through the wrist into a cross beam which is raised in place. This dislocates the shoulders. The nails in the wrists sever the median nerve resulting in a burning pain as well as paralysis in the hand. To breathe Jesus had to press up on the nails in His feet, scraping His raw back on the wood. The body gradually drains of blood causing the heart to beat faster and faster. Dehydration is occurring. The breathing becomes more labored and intense as well as frequent adding to the agony. The blood loss results in extreme thirst as the body craves water to restore the lost blood. Jesus said, "I thirst" (John 19:28). The heart beats so hard trying to compensate for the loss of oxygen (due to the lack of blood) in the body that it eventually ruptures. At this point the chest cavity fills with fluid. The soldier pierced Jesus' side and out came blood and water, signifying that the heart had stopped beating and the blood was settling in the chest cavity. Jesus was dead.

2.

3.

4.

5.

429

6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

Burial A. Jesus' body was wrapped in linen (Matt. 27:59). This wrapping was done tightly around the whole body from head to toe. We see from the resurrection of Lazarus, that Lazarus had to be unbound (John 12:44) since help was needed to get out of the linens. Three days without medical attention in the cold tomb A. The tomb was cold and Jesus laid in it for three days without medical attention. Moving the stone A. A "large stone" had been placed over the entrance to the tomb (Matt. 27:60). Unless Jesus had some help, which isn't mentioned, He would have had to move the large stone. The stone had to be large enough to cover an entrance big enough for people to walk into. Even if they ducked to get in, the stone was large enough that it would take more than one person to move it in place. Presence of the guards A. The Romans guards on the tomb were given the job to guard the tomb. Since there had been rumors that the body of Jesus might be stolen, they were ready to meet the challenge. In Roman society, if the prisoner of the guard escaped, the guard would then take the prisoner's place in punishment. The guards had a strong motivation to not let anyone take the body of Jesus. Walked on pierced feet to get to the disciples. A. Jesus appeared to several people after His resurrection. Does this mean He walked on feet with holes that had been made by nails several inches long?

The swoon theory falls apart quickly when you consider that Jesus had undergone six trials, been beaten, then scourged with 39 lashes that left His back raw, exposed, and bloody, had a crown of thorns forced upon His head, ripping His scalp, been crucified with nails in the hands and feet, hung there for six hours bleeding and dehydrating, had his side pierced with a spear which emitted blood and water, was left in a tomb for three days, and was tightly wrapped up. Was anyone in this condition able to revive, get himself out of the tight wrappings, walk on pierced feet, and single handedly move a large stone with hands that were unusable due to the wrist piercings which severed the median nerve in the hands and paralyzed them, and then some how got by the armed guards given the charge of watching the grave side? Are we to further believe that Jesus managed to walk a long distance on feet which had been pierced through and appear to the disciples as a victorious conqueror of death? It makes no sense. In fact, it would take more to believe this ridiculous conjecture than it would to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

430

The Disciples stole Jesus' body and faked His resurrection.

Critics have raised this possibility ever since Jesus rose from the dead. But it has never taken root except in some Jewish circles because the New Testament account does not support a faked resurrection theory. Nevertheless, in order for the disciples to have faked the resurrection of Jesus, several conditions must have been met. Let's take a look at them and analyze them. 1. The disciples would need to concoct an elaborate plan. A. The disciples would have to have a plan. You can't just walk to a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers and ask for Jesus' body. So, in order to fake Jesus' resurrection the disciples would have to obtain and dispose of the body of Jesus without any hostile witnesses seeing them do this. This would mean that the guards in front of Jesus' tomb would need to be bribed (discussed later). It would further mean that several people would have to be involved in carrying the body of Jesus to an area where it could be disposed of. A single person would not be able to carry another human body a long distance. Therefore, these several people would have to agree to steal the body of Jesus and risk arrest by the guards and the Jewish leaders. Furthermore, this plan would also have to include other people outside the circle of the disciples since such an "impossible" occurrence as a resurrection would be more convincing if others who were not biased followers of Jesus said that they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. This means that the disciples would have to convince a lot of people to go against the Jewish religious leaders, thereby risking their own economic and social security, as well as risk bringing conflict into the region since the Jews who sent Jesus to the cross, could easily persecute these new apparent converts. Additionally, this would bring further attention of the Ro mans to the issue thereby escalating tension which was not something the Jewish people wanted. One more thing, it would be very obvious to the disciples that to continue claiming Jesus rose from the dead would bring the harsh attention of the religious leaders upon them. Remember, the Jewish leaders knew who Jesus' disciples were. Therefore, easy attention could be focused on them in the form of persecution. Unlike others, the disciples would be easy targets. Since the Jewish leaders had just sentenced Jesus to die a horrible death on the cross, what would stop them from continuing with the disciples who would then start proclaiming Jesus had risen from the dead? The disciples had to know what they were getting into. They were risking their families and their own lives. In all, concocting an elaborate plan to deceive many people has too many difficult variables in it to overcome. It would simply make more sense to assert that the reason the disciples proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus is because they actually saw the resurrected Jesus. 2. A sufficient motive would have to be offered to account for the disciples' intended deception? A. Remember, we have many people in the Bible who said that Jesus rose from the dead. Did these people all agree to lie? If so, why would they do that? What would motivate various people, who have differences of opinions, differences in needs and desires, to all agree to testify to something false? Could it be that they were dissatisfied with the Roman Empire ruling over the Jewish nation? But what would they accomplish by proclaiming Jesus' resurrection? Did they think that the Roman Empire would suddenly leave Israel because of that? Not a chance. Or perhaps the people were tired of the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders and it motivated them to claim Jesus rose from the dead in order to undermine their authority. But if this is the case then we have an inconsistency between motive and behavior because people who would be upset with someone else's hypocrisy are not likely to proclaim such an incredible lie as a resurrection -- thereby being even bigger hypocrites than the leaders. Does this make sense? Also, since Jesus taught love, truth, and self sacrifice, such deceptive actions would be in direct contradiction with the teachings of the One they were following. At best all anyone can do is guess about what the disciples may have been thinking or what might have motivated them to devise an elaborate deception. Guessing is all that

431

can be done. But we would need to ask if any proposed motives of the disciples could be harmonized with the facts of their preaching and teaching about truth, long-suffering, patience, kindness, and love. No one can read their hearts or their minds and insert into a scenario 2000 years old the motivations of people long gone. It is best to simply let the facts speak for themselves. They lived, suffered, proclaimed, and died for the truth of the resurrection. 3. The guards at the tomb would need to be bribed. A. The problem of bribing works both ways. The disciples could have bribed the guards to not say anything about them taking the body of Jesus. But, the Jews could also have bribed the guards into saying that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. In fact, the only bribing we see in the gospel accounts of the guards is done by the Jewish leaders. Matt. 28:11-15 says, "Now while they were on their way, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12And when they had assembled with the elders and counseled together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13and said, "You are to say, His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep. 14"And if this should come to the governors ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble." 15And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day." The bribe would be very necessary since the guards were at risk of their lives if they had failed at their duty. It was the custom of the Roman military that if a prisoner escaped, then the guard(s) who was in charge of guarding the prisoner would take the prisoner's place. This is a very strong motivation to make sure that they carried out their duty, bribe or not. In Acts 16:25-30 when Paul was in prison, there was an earthquake that opened the cell doors which would have allowed the prisoners to escape. When the jailor saw this he intended to kill himself. Undoubtedly, this is because he knew he would have to take their place should they escape. But Paul called out and said in verse 28, "Do yourself no harm, for we are all here!" This shows that the guard did not want to take the place of the prisoners. In fact, in Acts 12:18-19 we read of how Herod ordered guards to be executed who had allowed Peter to escape. Therefore, for the guards to risk their lives, a large bribe would be necessary. Who was more likely to have enough money to bribe the guards, the religious leaders or the disciples? Also, who had a greater mo tive, the disciples who wanted to have Jesus rise from the dead (risking further persecution), or the Jews who wanted to complete their attempt to be rid of Jesus? 4. The body of Christ would need to be disposed of to prevent disproof of his resurrection. A. If the scenario of an elaborate plan with bribed guards and collusion on the part of many non followers of Jesus were to be effective, the body of Jesus would need to be disposed of. If the disciples could get a hold of His body and get away from the population, it would not be difficult at all to bury it someplace. It would then be necessary that the disciples promised that they would never disclose the location. This is a possibility but it would mean that the disciples were liars and thieves. Is this basis for their faith consistent with their writings about truth, honesty, etc., combined with their dedication to their assertion of Jesus' resurrection that cost them their lives? 5. Various witnesses would need to be arranged A. As I have already stated above, many people would be to be coached into lying about seeing the risen Lord. Is this probable for so many Jews who grew up under the idea that lying was a sin? Perhaps. But, is it easy to convince people to lie about an event that they know would bring them economic, familial, social, and religious difficulties? The answer, of course, is no it is not. The Jewish people were living under Roman rule. The Romans served both as oppressors and protectors. They were oppressors and that they forced many of their own rules upon the Jewish people. On the other hand, they protected the land of Israel from hostile nations surrounding them. Friction in the region is not something people would want to have, especially if they have families with children and parents to take care of and to love. Does it really makes sense that so many people would agree to such a great lie for such a great consequence?

432

The Apostle Paul But what about Paul the Apostle? Did the disciples plan on converting one of their greatest enemies into a Christian? How did they get Paul to agree to the conversion and in so doing convince Paul to give up everything he had stood for and worked for his entire life in order to be ostracized, condemned, persecuted, shipwrecked, beaten, and finally ma rtyred by both the Romans and the Jewish leadership? Does a faked resurrection account for such a bold and profound conversion of someone who had been seeking to destroy the very Christians that he later proclaimed? Remember, Paul claimed to have seen the Lord on the road to Damascus (Acts 9; 1 Cor. 9:1)? What would motivate him to give up everything and to proclaim Christ's resurrection? What would he have to gain? Power? Money? Fame? If Paul wanted power, then perhaps it could be said he achieved it since he wrote much of the New Testament and had great influence in the Christian Church. But, power is not what he demonstrated over anyone. The New Testament does not demonstrate any wielding of power. Some of Paul's writings are the greatest testimonies to truth, love and wisdom that have ever been written. Are the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 13, or Col. 3, and the entire book of Romans the words of one man who knew that everything he was writing and teaching was based on a lie just so he could get power? It just doesn't make sense to say so. If it was money Paul was after, then why did he preach without charge (2 Cor. 11:7)? Why did he often go without food (2 Cor. 11:27)? Why did he have odd jobs in order to make a living (Acts 18:3)? It does not make sense to say that he was in it for the money. If it was fame that he was after, then he certainly attained it. Paul the apostle is still a famous person throughout all of Western civilization. But we cannot know if this was a motive or not since we cannot ask him. What we can do is read what he wrote and do our best to discern his motives there. It would be up to the reader to read his epistles and see if the quest for fame is woven into his words. Personally, I see no such thing when I read his works. I see a man who preached Jesus and Him crucified and risen from the dead. Conclusion It is very unlikely that the disciples faked the resurrection of Christ. In summation, this is why: 1. 2. 3. 4. They would need an elaborate plan involving many unpredictable elements: guards, other witnesses, etc. There is a large problem in developing a motive to deceive that would be greater than the consequences of that deception. Remember, the disciples would be risking their security, safety, families, and their lives for their beliefs. The guards at the tomb would have to be bribed, but the only bribing we see is from the Jewish leaders (Matt. 28:11-15) who had a very strong motivation to finish what they had started with Jesus. Various witnesses not involved with the disciples would have to be obtained in order to validate the story. But this means that a strong incentive would have to be offered to the additional witnesses since their story would likely get them in deep trouble with the Jewish leadership. The apostle Paul. He is a wild card. What illegitimate thing would motivate him to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus when it didn't happen? Remember, he was a heavy persecutor of the church. Something happened to change him. According to him, it was the appearance of the risen Lord Jesus.

5.

433

There are no non-biblical accounts of the resurrection

First of all, saying that there are no non-biblical accounts of the resurrection does not invalidate the resurrection. The New Testament documents, particularly the Gospels, were written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses before the death of the apostles. Therefore there were plenty of people around who could have contested the post crucifixion appearances of Christ. We must first understand that the Gospels are historical documents and they are reliable ones. Second, it is not accurate to say that there are no extra biblical accounts of the resurrection of Christ. There are other historians who have written about this. However, the problem with most of them is that they were not contemporaries of Jesus. They were written well after the fact. This, therefore, tends to invalidate the reliability of these extra biblical accounts according to the critics. But if the extra biblical accounts are not valid because they were written after the fact by non eyewitnesses, then that indirectly supports the gospel accounts which were written by the eyewitnesses, by those who knew Jesus, and encountered him after his resurrection. Third, how do you have witnesses to the resurrection? Even the disciples didn't see Him rise from the dead. Instead, they saw Him after He had risen, as was evidenced by the wounds in His hands and side when He appeared to them (John 20:27). He appeared to those who most needed to see Him. They were the ones who had spent years with Him, watching Him do miracles, watching Him heal the sick, and teaching great wisdom and love. After Jesus died, their faith in Him had been shattered. It was necessary that Jesus appear to them in order to establish the truth of who He said He was; namely, God in flesh (John 8:24,58; 10:30-33). Fourth, Jesus would have to appear only to those who had seen Him before His crucifixion since appearing to someone who had never seen Him nor knew that He died, would prove nothing. This means that the ones whom Jesus would appear to were those who were following Him in the area of Israel. This further means that at best, other records of His resurrection would have to be hearsay, written well after the fact, by those who did not know Jesus. Fifth, we do have non-biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus No sign would be given Jesus typically would not demonstrate anything miraculous to those who refused to believe in Him. It is, therefore, consistent with Jesus' method to demonstrate Himself to those who were in need of Him and who did not mock Him and doubt Him. Like it or not, this is how He operated. It would be logical to assume that He would deal in the same manner after His resurrection and only appear to those who knew Him and followed Him. For verification of Jesus' denial to those who doubted him, please note the following quotes. "And the Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. 12And sighing deeply in His spirit, He *said, "Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation." 13And leaving them, He again embarked and went away to the other side," (Mark 8:11-13).

434

"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." 39But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," (Matt. 12:38-40). "And the Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Him asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. 2But He answered and said to them, "When it is evening, you say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red. 3"And in the morning, There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening. Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? 4"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah." And He left them, and went away," (Matt. 16:1). "For the heart of this people has become dull, and with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, and I should heal them," (Matt. 13:15).

Jesus plainly taught that He would not "perform" for those who denied Him. He did, however, do public miracles in order to validate who He was, God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 8:24; 8:58). This great truth is a matter of faith and is not something proven with a calculator or a camera. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God which, in that culture, meant to claim equality with God (John 5:18). Jesus said that "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58) a statement that infuriated the Jews who were familiar with God's self description to Moses in Exodus 3:14 when He said, "I AM that I AM. Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." It is a claim made real by evidence. The evidence was His miracles. Conclusion The real issue of the resurrection deals with its evidence. This evidence consists of the testimony of many people who stated that they had seen Jesus after His crucifixion and death. The same people who testified of the resurrection of Christ also gave up their social and economic security and put their lives on the line in order proclaim that Jesus had risen. Does it make any sense at all to say that they knew Jesus did not rise from the dead and had concocted an elaborate plan in order to deceive a great many people into believing that Jesus had risen? Why would they do that? Does it also make any sense that they would continue in this lie while being persecuted, ostracized from family and friends, beaten, imprisoned, and finally killed for what they believed? It makes more sense to believe that their actions were consistent with their teaching. In other words, they taught about self-sacrifice, dedication to truth, love, peace, etc., and they based it all on the risen Lord. It was based upon the truth that they had seen.

435

Miracles cannot happen

Before we can decide whether or not miracles can happen, we must first define what a miracle is. Basically, a miracle is an event that c annot be normally explained through the laws of nature. In the context of Christianity, miracles are the product and the work of God who created the natural laws as well as the universe. However, vital to the discussion of whether or not miracles can occur is the issue of a person's presuppositions. If someone believes that there is no God and also believes in what is called naturalism - that all things in the universe are subject to natural physical laws - then miracles are defined out of existence. That is, the universe is defined in such a way as to make miracles impossible. Therefore, if someone says that miracles cannot happen, then it is most probable that they deny the existence of God and/or believe in naturalism along with its companion, evolutio n. On the other hand, if someone believed that there was a God and that God is involved in the world, then it is easy to acknowledge that miracles can occur. If God created the universe as the Bible states (Gen. 1), why can't God also intervene in our world and perform miracles? Take the resurrection of Jesus, for example. With an atheistic, naturalistic presupposition the resurrection of Christ could not occur since people simply do not rise from the dead, no matter what is said. Therefore, the account of Jesus' resurrection must be wrong. Either the Bible is untrustworthy, the witnesses collaborated on a lie, Jesus never died, He only appeared dead, His body was stolen to make it look like He'd risen, or someone else died in His place. Either way, the non-God, non- miraculous presupposition would not allow the skeptic to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, especially after three days of being in the tomb. It just could not have happened, no matter what. The problem is that with this kind of presupposition, objectivity can be thrown out the window. This is especially ironic since many atheists consider the Christians to be the ones who lack objectivity. Weigh the Evidence If someone believed that miracles were possible because he believed that God exists, then all he needs to do is look at the Bible, weigh the evidence and decide to believe or not believe in miracles -like Jesus' resurrection. From the accounts of the eyewitness testimonies in the Gospels we can see many people believed that Jesus rose from the dead. After all, the Romans, who were expert at crucifixion, killed Jesus, and put guards on the tomb. Yet, the tomb was found empty. The disciples who were in hiding, suddenly started proclaiming that Jesus had risen. These same disciples risked life and limb in order to teach that Jesus had risen. Why would they do that for a lie that would cost them everything, even their livesunless it really happened? Since Christians do not have a presupposition that excludes the miraculous, we are able to look at the resurrection of Christ as recorded in the Bible, weigh the evidence, and make a choice to believe or not believe. Of course, Christians by default believed in the resurrection of Christ. Logic Finally, it would be illogical to state that miracles cannot occur because in order to logically state that miracles cannot occur, a person must either know all things in the universe to know that miracles cannot occur, or he must have a logical proof why miracles cannot occur. Furthermore, it is not enough to state that there is no evidence for the miraculous since a person's experiential base is limited. It may very well be that miracles have occurred and this person is simply not aware of it. Therefore, at best someone could simply say "I do not believe that miracles occur because (insert reason)." At least this leaves open the possibility that they may occur. And if they might indeed occur, why not have the possibility that Jesus who claimed to be God (John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14), who fulfilled Old Testament prophecies (i.e., Psalm 22:11-18; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6, Micah 5:1-2, etc.), who predicted his own death and resurrection (John 2:19-21; ), appeared to people after His public execution (Luke 24:39; John 20:25-28), did indeed actually rise from the dead? Since the eyewitness accounts have been accurately transmitted to us, would it not be logical to believe the witnesses who described what they saw? It would seem so. Can miracles occur? Yes, they can because there is a God in the universe.

436

Was Jesus just a myth?

Was Jesus simply a mythical figure, a fabrication by religious zealots who wanted a symbol to rally behind for whatever reason they needed at the time? Or, was Jesus an actual person who lived in Israel 2000 years ago? Most often, those who deny Jesus as a historic figure denounce the New Testament writings, particularly the gospels, as fabrications or highly embellished stories passed down through the years. They must do this. Otherwise, they would have to acknowledge that Jesus lived. In reality, a person must ignore a great deal of evidence establishing the historic accuracy of the gospels. In other words, the Bible alone is sufficient evidence that Jesus lived, whether or not the critics want to admit it. But making this claim doesn't establish it as fact. So, let's look at reasons why Jesus is not a mythical creation, but an actual man who lived in Israel. The Gospels as history - date of authorship According to the Christian church, the four Gospels were written by the apostles and/or those under the direction of the apostles of Jesus. That means that they were written under direction of eyewitnesses of the actual events. Also, none of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). If the gospels had been written after that date and if they were fabrications, then surely they would have contained the account of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple which are known historical facts. Yet, Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain no such information. Luke was written before Acts (Acts 1:14). The book of Acts, a history of the Christian church, which doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem either, nor does it record the deaths of Paul, James, and Peter which all happened in the early 60's. This means that Acts was written at least by A.D. 62 and Luke was written before that. Therefore, the time between the events and the writings is around 30 years. This further means that the eyewitnesses were around who could have corrected any statements written in the gospels. Yet, we have absolutely no corrective or contradictory writings from that time, from anyone, denying the accounts of the gospels. For more information on this please see When were the gospels written and by whom? Therefore, we can conclude that the gospels were written well before the close of the first century. The Gospels as history - historical content The gospels do not have the sense of myth. If anything, they are written as eyewitness accounts. Consider the first four verses of the gospel of Luke which clearly states that it is a researched document. Luke 1:1-4, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." This is not how myths are made. This is how you uncover evidence and record it. Luke examined the witnesses, interviewed them, and checked out the facts. In Luke 2:1-2, we have historically verifiable information: "Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. 2This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Also, see Luke 3:1-2, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness." We clearly see numerous historical statements that have been verified

437

through archaeology. This is precise record keeping, not extravagant additions. In fact, "Sir William Ramsey has shown that in making reference to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands he made no mistakes!"6 2 Sir William Ramsey (1851-1939) was a classical scholar and archaeologist. He taught at Oxford England, Aberdeen. He authored several scholarly books dealing with archaeology and had a major influence upon it as a science. Nevertheless, there are many verifiable things found in the gospel accounts. 1. 2. 3. 4. Herod, king of Judea, (Matt. 14:1; Luke 1:5). Herodias, the wife of Herod's brother Philip, (Matt. 14:3). Pool of Bethesda, (John 5:115). Pool of Siloam, (John 9:7), etc.

There are many many more citations verified by archaeology that demonstrate the accuracy of the gospels. When they mention events dealing with rulers, places, events like a census, who was governor, etc., they are all accurate historically. The Gospels as history - accuracy of transmission A very important issue is whether or not the Gospels have been accurately transmitted from the original writings down to the copies that we have today. Yes, they have been accurately transmitted to us. The truth is that the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. This means that only 1/2 of 1% of all the copies in existence has any question about the text. If this is compared to any other ancient writing, the New Testament comes out way ahead. See Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability for more information on this. Nevertheless, the accuracy is really even greater than 99.5%. The reason is because many of the copies that have spelling errors, minor word omissions and additions, etc., are copied and those copies contain those various minor errors. So, for example, if one manuscript has "Jesus Christ" and it is copied only as "Jesus", then the following manuscripts will contain only the word "Jesus" where other manuscripts might contain "Jesus Christ." All that is needed is to compare the copies, see which of them is the oldest, which fits into the lineage of copies that is correct, or has an error, etc., and the mistake is usually very easily cleared up by comparing copies. Therefore, we can know what the original said in almost every case. Also, if 10 copies contain the same copying error, then the total number of copies with error increases. But in reality by tracing the text back through parent manuscripts that are uncovered to archeology, we can uncover manuscripts that shed light on which rendering is correct. Following is a partial chart detailing various copies of various ancient writings. It should be obvious that the New Testament documents are extremely well preserved. Therefore, if the New Testament cannot be considered reliable, then neither can any of the other writings listed below. Approximate Time Span between original & copy 1200 yrs 1000 1400 500 yrs less than 100 years

Author Plato Caesar Aristotle Homer

Date Written 427-347 B.C. 100-44 B.C. 384-322 B.C. 900 B.C.

Earliest Copy 900 A.D. 900 A.D. 1100 A.D. 400 B.C.

Number Accuracy of of Copies Copies 7 10 49 643 5600 (in Greek) ---------95% 99.5%

New 1st Cent. A.D. approx. Testament (50-100 A.D. c. 130 A.D.

62

Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. 1992. When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties . Victor Books: Wheaton, Ill., p. 384.

438

Miscellaneous Information Noted Oxford expert on literature and myths, C. S. Lewis, said, "I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this [the Gospels]." 63 Regarding the gospel of Mark. "A date before a.d. 50 leaves no time for mythological embellishment of the records. They would have to be accepted as historical."6 4 "New Testament books appeared within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and contemporaries. Luke was written by about 60, only twenty-seven years after Jesus death, before Acts in 6062 (see Hemer, all). First Corinthians was written by 5556, only twenty-two or twenty-three years after Jesus death (cf. 1 Cor. 15:6-8). Even radical New Testament scholar John A. T. Robinson dates basic Gospel records between 40 and 60...there is no time or way for a legend to develop while the eyewitnesses were still alive to refute the story."6 5 Conclusion There is no reason to doubt the reality of Jesus as a historic figure. The gospel accounts are four different accounts from four different people. They were penned by either eyewitnesses or under the direction of the eyewitnesses. These same gospels were distributed throughout the region very quickly and we have no account anywhere on any of the contemporaries attempting to refute any of the facts written in them -- including those accounts dealing with the miracles of Jesus. In order for Jesus to be a myth, it would have to be shown that the gospel accounts were highly embellished and inaccurately copied and transmitted. But, considering that there are other, non biblical accounts mentioning Jesus, it would be very difficult for anyone to demonstrate that He never lived.

63

C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 15455. cited in Geisler, N. L., & Saleeb, A. 2002. Answering Islam : The crescent in light of the cross (2nd ed.) . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich., p. 244. 64 Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich., p. 188. 65 Ibid, p. 518

439

Did Jesus really die on the cross?

Yes, Jesus really did die on a cross. The scriptures teach this in numerous places. Following are two of them: "And as they were coming out, they found a man of Cyrene named Simon, whom they pressed into service to bear His cross," (Matt. 27:32). "Therefore the soldiers did these things. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene," (John 19:25).

There is dispute on the Greek word for "cross" which is "stauros." It can mean an upright stake or a cross. Therefore, some groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, say that Jesus died on a vertical stake. But then, others simply deny that Jesus was crucified at all and they claim He died of old age or some other natural sickness. Both of these conjectures are in error according to the New Testament. First of all, there is a verse in the New Testament that demonstrates Jesus did not die on a vertical stake without a cross bar. If Jesus died on a vertical stake, then His hands would have been placed together over His head, one on top of another. It would be very easy to then take a single nail and drive it through both wrists at the same time. This is how crucifixion was done when victims were crucified in this manner. However, if a person was crucified on a cross, then two nails were required, one for each wrist, since the hands would be spread apart. If we look at John 19:25 we see that the plural word "nails" is used in reference to Jesus' hands. "The other disciples therefore were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe," (NASB). The plural form "nails" is used. This means that more than one nail was used upon Jesus' hands. Therefore, we can conclude that the most logical explanation for the plural use of nails is that there is at least two nails, one for each hand that was stretched out from left to right as would be done if Jesus were crucified on a cross. This would mean that the torture stake or the vertical stake theory would be invalid. Did Jesus really die on the cross? According to the gospel accounts, Jesus went through six different trials before He was condemned to die on a cross. Three of the trials were before Gentiles and three were before the Jews. He was repeatedly put before people to be tried and the whole time He was under heavy guard. They knew who Jesus was. So, this excludes the possibility of mistaken identity. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the Romans would have crucified a man by mistake. Remember, Jesus had been performing many miracles and was quite well known in the area. Since the Roman soldiers had Him in their possession during the trials, during the beatings, and finally on the way to the cross, the most logical conclusion is that they did not make a mistake and crucified someone else instead of Jesus. Therefore, we can logically conclude that Jesus really did die on a cross.

440

Did Jesus rise from the dead?

This is one of the most important questions of all of history. If Jesus arose from the dead, then what he said about himself is true. If he did not arise from the dead, then what he said about himself is not true. Jesus claimed to be the only way to God (John 14:6). He claimed to be able to forgive sins (Luke 5:20). He also claimed to be divine (John 8:24; 8:58 with Exodus 3:14). Therefore, his extraordinary claims are tied to his resurrection. Of course, it is one thing to "say" that Jesus arose from the dead; it is another thing to prove it. But the problem is we cannot prove that he rose from the dead. The reason is because the documents that describe Him are 2000 years old. At best, all we can do is look at those documents to determine if they are reliable and accurate. If they are, then we simply need to look at what they say in order to see if they support His resurrection or not. It is then up to the individual to accept or reject the claims thus presented. This becomes an important issue because a person's presuppositions will govern how he interprets the data. If a person presupposes that God does not exist, or that miracles cannot happen, then it would be virtually impossible to convince such a person that the resurrection of Jesus occurred. On the other hand, if a person presupposes that there is a God and that miracles can happen, then it would be easier to convince a person that the resurrection of Jesus did happen. So, what are your presuppositions? Do your presuppositions allow you to objectively look at the evidence in order to make an "unbiased" conclusion about it? In my paper Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document? I cover the information necessary to validate the New Testament documents as being accurate and reliably transmitted to us today. If you are interested in reading a more detailed examination of this, please click on the link above. Nevertheless, I will review the information in brief here. The New Testament is reliable First of all, the New Testament documents have a greater reliability to them in any other set of ancient documents in existence. The New Testame nt documents are 99.5% textually pure. This means that there is less than 1/2 of 1% of all the 26,000 copies we have of the various documents included in the New Testament. Added to this the incredible redundancy of copies, and their almost 100 percent agreement, and we can easily conclude that the transmission of the documents to us has been extremely reliable. If anyone were to dismiss the New Testament documents by saying that they are corrupted, then he must also throw out all other ancient documents including those of the writings of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and many others because none of them come close to approaching either the number of manuscripts in existence, their reliability, or the accuracy of the copies that exists in the New Testament documents. Second, since the documents are reliable then we must look at them to determine whether or not the content supports the resurrection of Jesus. At this point, it becomes very easy to demonstrate this since the Bible definitely teaches that Jesus rose from the dead. There are many scriptures that teach Jesus' resurrection. Following are three of them. Luke 24:56, "and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? 6 "He is not here, but He has risen..." John 2:19-21, "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22When therefore He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken." 1 Cor. 15:3-4, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."

Did Jesus rise from the dead? According to the Bible, yes He did.

441

Didn't Jesus simply rise in a non-physical, spirit form?

Some people say that Jesus' resurrection was not physical, but a spirit form. Groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses hold to this. But, the Bible teaches that the resurrection of Jesus was physical, not simply spiritual. In John 2:19-21, Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews therefore said, 'It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?' But He was speaking of the temple of his body." Notice that Jesus was speaking of His body. The apostle John then comments that Jesus was prophesying that His physical body would be raised from the dead. Is this what happened? After Jesus' resurrection He appeared to Thomas. "Then He said to Thomas, 'Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing,'" (John 20:25). Notice that Jesus still retained the hole in His side where he was pierced during the crucifixion: "But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water" (John 19:34). This clearly shows that Jesus retained the wounds in His body. The only way this is possible is if He was raised from the dead physically. But some people refer to 1 Cor. 15:44 that says, "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." They conclude that Jesus was raised in a spiritual form, not a physical one. But, the truth is that He was raised physically. His body was a glorified body. It was the same body, but it was slightly different. That is, His body was raised physically, but it had been glorified. It had been changed. If we look at the context of the verse we see that Paul is repeatedly stating that the thing that is sown, is also the thing that is raised. "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body," (1 Cor. 15:42-44). Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). If this is so, then how could a physical body have been raised? The answer is simple. After His resurrection Jesus said, "Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39). You must note that Jesus did not say, "flesh and blood." He said, "flesh and bones." This is because Jesus blood was shed on the cross. The life is in the blood and it is the blood that cleanses from sin: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul," (Lev. 17:11). See also, Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23; and John 6:53-54. Jesus was pointing out that He was different. He had a body, but not a body of flesh and blood. It was flesh and bones. I am of the opinion that Jesus' body had no functioning blood in it. Remember, after the resurrection He still retained the wounds in His hands, feet, and side. But, His blood was the thing that cleanses us of our sins: "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin," (1 John 1:7). His body was raised, but it had no blood flowing through its veins. It was a glorified, physical body. This explains why Paul said in Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." And also, 1 Tim. 2:5 that says, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." In these two verses, written after Jesus' resurrection and ascension, Jesus is said to be in bodily form and also to be a man. How could he be in bodily form and be a man if He does not have a body of flesh and bones? Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead in a physical body.

442

If Jesus is God in flesh, why did He not inherit original sin?

If all people have original sin and Jesus was a human being, then didn't Jesus need to have had a sin nature? Before we can answer this question, we need to know what the term "original sin" means. This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-32). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 3:2). So, if we inherit our sinful nature from our parents, then Jesus, who had Mary as a parent, must have had a sin nature. Right? Not necessarily. I believe that the sin nature is passed down through the father. Let me explain. Some Bible commentators, with whom I agree, hold the position that the sin nature is passed down through the father. Support for this position is found in the fact that sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve. Remember, Eve was the one who sinned first. However, sin did not enter the world through her. It entered through Adam. Rom. 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." The concept behind this is called Federal Headship. This means that a person (a father) represents his descendants. We see this concept taught in Heb. 7:9-10, "And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." We see in Hebrews that Levi, a distant descendant of Abraham, is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek when Abraham was the one offering the tithes, not Levi. What this means is that there is biblical support for the idea that the sin nature was passed down through the father. Since Jesus had no literal, biological father, the sin nature was not passed down to Him. However, since He had a human mother, he was fully human but without original sin. Jesus has two natures: God and man. Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form." Jesus received His human nature from Mary, but He received His divine nature through God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus is both God and man. He was sinless, had no original sin, and was both fully God and fully man.

443

Can't all Jesus' miracles be explained naturally?

Can Jesus' miracles be explained naturally? It is certainly possible that some might be explained with non-divine answers, but can all of them? I don't see how. It could be said that the gospel accounts were simply altered to make it look like Jesus was performing miracles which never happened. This is a possibility, but it is not very probable. Briefly, the eyewitnesses of Jesus' miracles were still around when the gospels were written and could have easily refuted such claims. Yet, we have no record of any such refutations. The disciples died for what they believed. Remember, this is not simply dying for a principle(s) or philosophy like Buddhism. They died for their belief in the risen Lord Jesus who claimed to be God and performed miracles in front of their very eyes. This is far different than believing in something that wasn't tangible or was merely a belief for the sake of believing and being good. Therefore, I will not address the idea that the disciples were deceivers in their attempt to recount Christ's work. For further reading on this, please see Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document? and Since the NT writers were biased, can we trust what they wrote? In the following outline, I have stated a miracle, then offered a potential explanation, and then rebutted the explanation. 1. Jesus was born of a virgin (Matt. 1:25). A. It could be said that Jesus was born normally, and myth crept into the story of Christ's birth in order to make Him seem special. After all, how do you verify a virgin birth? i. But, Mary, the mother of Jesus was probably still around when the gospels were written. As was James, Jesus' brother. If the gospel accounts of Jesus' virgin birth were fictitious, certainly those who "knew" the situation would have refuted it. Yet, we have no account of any such refutation. Jesus changed water into wine (John 2:6-10). A. It is possible that Jesus switched the water for wine or had some help in doing it. i. There is no indication in the account of John that would lead anyone to believe that this was the case. Given that the six jars of wine were very heavy (minimum of 160 pounds each, maximum 240 pounds each), Jesus would have had help to do this. But, if that is so, who was it and why? Did Jesus secretly arrange for a large supply of wine to be delivered to a party long after it had begun? Again, there is no evidence of this. B. It is possible that the members of the party were simply mistaken about the wine running out. i. This is possible, but we have the wine steward tasting the wine and commenting on how good it is. His speech displays clarity of thought so he was not drunk. Not being drunk, he was easily able to recognize the quality of the new wine. Therefore, it is very unlikely that this was a mistake regarding the water for wine. Jesus caused the disciples to catch a large load of fish (Luke 5:4-6). A. The only explanation I can come up with to account for the time when Jesus instructed the disciples to cast their net into the water and they caught a large amount of fish even though they had been fishing all night long and caught nothing is that from shore, Jesus was somehow able to see into the water and see the fish swimming there. i. The problem with this is that Jesus told them to go out into the deep water. Deep water is far from shore and it is basically impossible for Him to have seen so far out into the water at any depth. Remember, many of the disciples had been life long fisherman and they knew how to catch fish. If all it took was to look into the water to see fish, they would have long ago used that method.

2.

3.

444

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Jesus cast out demons (Matt. 8:28-32; 15:22-28). A. It is possible that demons were never cast out of anyone. It is possible that the people were pretending to be sick and then appeared cured after Jesus did whatever He did to cure them. i. Though this is possible, it is merely conjecture. It isn't as though this is a repeatable experiment we can do in a laboratory. After all, the existence of demonic forces is something that must be taken on faith. Jesus healed diseases (Matt. 4:23,24; 8:3 Luke 6:17-19; 17:14). A. Jesus had knowledge of herbs and roots that when applied to various ailments cured people. Therefore, it would not be miraculous. i. This is possible, but where is the evidence of them doing that? How can Jesus cure leprosy with herbs, or heal a withered hand, or raise the dead using herbs and roots. Sure, maybe, just maybe some herbs and roots were applied to basic ailments, but such an explanation cannot account for many of the miracles accounted to Jesus. B. Jesus faked the healings i. I am not sure how it would be possible to fake the healing of leprosy and disease. The people of the time knew what the disease was and what it looked like. People's fingers and hands would fall off from leprosy. How it would be possible to restore hands and feet and fingers and have it all be a trick would be an amazing thing to do. I cannot think of any way to fake such a thing especially since so many of the lepers were known by the people around them and cures would have been obvious. Jesus healed the paralytic (Mark 2:3-12). A. In order to make it look like Jesus healed a paralytic, it would require that the paralytic be willing to appear paralyzed in order to fool those around him. This is possible since Jesus could have had enough time to employ the individual. i. In the account of Mark, the paralytic is let down through the roof because there were so many people that they could not bring him in on a stretcher. Jesus then healed the man. If the paralytic was in the employ of Jesus in some way, the men who lowered him through the roof must also have been in His employ since they helped to accomplish the ruse -- if that is what it was. But, simply stating that this is a possibility does not mean that it is a reality. All the text says is that there was a paralytic who was let down through a roof and Jesus healed him. There is no information that would lead us to believe that collusion was occurring. Jesus raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44). A. Those who were dead were really only appearing to be dead. Given that the people of the time were not aware of many of the medical intricacies that can lead to people looking dead when they were not really dead. i. This explanation is certainly possible, but is it really that likely? People in ancient times were far more familiar with death than we are. Our people die in hospitals away from the families. Undoubtedly, we are less familiar with death then they were. It is more probable that they knew when people were actually dead, especially since the dead were left in stasis for several days as they were washed and prepared for burial. ii. The John 11 account of Lazarus' resurrection Jesus restored sight to the blind (Matt. 9:27-30; John 9:1-7). A. The blind were not really blind but were working with Jesus in order to make it look like He was able to perform miracles. i. This is a possibility, but it has no basis or evidence. Furthermore, how can anyone account for the man born blind in John 9:1-7. He was known, from birth, to be blind and yet he was healed by Jesus. How can anyone account for this other than to say that the man was healed?

445

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Jesus cured deafness (Mark 7:32-35). A. The deaf person was not really deaf. It was a trick, a previously arranged setup to make Jesus look good. i. If this is the case, where is the evidence? Simply saying this is what happened doesn't make it so. Jesus fed the multitude (Matt. 14:15-21; 15:32-38). A. The disciples had previously arranged a large stash of food sufficient to feed a great many people. i. This is a possibility but we see no evidence of it. Also, it means that the account is, basically, a lie which doesn't fit the character of Jesus and the disciples who wrote so much about integrity. B. The people had already brought their own food and were sharing it with each other at the urging of Jesus so it was written to make it look like He'd done a miracle. i. This, of course, has no evidence for it either. The account simply states that Jesus fed the multitude with just a few fish and some bread. What would be wrong with simply writing the truth, if it were true, that everyone had brought food? Besides, that isn't what it says. Jesus walked on water (Matt. 14:22-24). A. There was either a ledge Jesus was walking on near shore or He was in a low profile boat in which He was standing. This way it only appeared that He was walking on water. i. Matt. 14:24 says that the boat was many stadia away. A stadia is about 600 feet. So, they were way out on the lake when the storm hit. How could Jesus have gotten out into the middle of the lake during a storm and manage to find a ledge to stand on that happened to be close to the disciples' boat? It is extremely unlikely. ii. If Jesus was in a low profile boat out in the middle of a lake during a storm, it would have sunk long before He got out to them. So, this wouldn't work as an explanation. Jesus calmed a storm with a command (Matt. 8:22-27; Mark 4:39). A. It was merely a coincidence. Jesus grew up around the area and knew when storms were coming and going. He simply knew what to look for, waited, and then commanded the storm to be quiet at the right moment. i. If Jesus, who was a carpenter, knew when storms were coming and going, then why didn't the disciples who also grew up in the area and who were fishermen also know this? If they did, then they would have been very unimpressed by Jesus' command. In fact, they would have thought He was pretending to be able to command the storm to stop when in reality He couldn't. This would cause them to doubt Him, not to believe in Him more as the account suggests. Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27). A. The disciples stole Jesus' body and lied about His resurrection. i. This is unlikely since the guards were there in front of the tomb. Also, the disciples later died for their belief in the risen Lord. Add to this the various persecutions they received during their lives and it doesn't make sense that they endured so much pain and suffering for what they knew was a lie. ii. Also, what about the apostle Paul? He claims to have seen the risen Lord as well. Was he, a heavy persecutor of the church, conned by the disciples into joining with them, losing his place in Jewish culture and society, also suffering persecution and martyrdom all for what he knew was a lie as well? It makes no sense.

446

B.

14.

15.

Jesus never died in the first place. i. This is sometimes called the swoon theory that states that Jesus almost died. But it does not fully consider the severe trauma that Jesus had undergone before He got to the cross, let alone the actual crucifixion itself which was incredibly painful. Also, the Romans were experts at killing by crucifixion. The evidence of the water and blood coming out of Jesus' side after being pierced is evidence enough that Jesus had died since that is a sign of blood flow having stopped. Jesus appeared to disciples after resurrection (John 20:19). A. This was because Jesus had never died. He almost died. i. This is sometimes called the swoon theory that states that Jesus almost died. But it does not fully consider the severe trauma that Jesus had undergone before He got to the cross, let alone the actual crucifixion itself which was incredibly painful. Also, the Romans were experts at killing by crucifixion. The evidence of the water and blood coming out of Jesus' side after being pierced is evidence enough that Jesus had died since that is a sign of blood flow having stopped. B. Someone else who looked like Jesus died in His place. i. This is an unsubstantiated and completely fictional fabrication. There is no evidence of this at all. Besides, the Jews and Romans knew exactly who Jesus was, along with the disciples. They'd know if a "fake" was taking Jesus' place. C. The disciples lied. Jesus never appeared to them. i. This has been answered here. Since the NT writers were biased, can we trust what they wrote? Jesus ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9). A. Only the disciples saw this. Therefore, they fabricated the ascension. i. It is possible that they lied, but then we are still stuck with explaining why they would lie, why they would continue in the lie, why they would preach and teach honesty and truth based upon a lie, why they would suffer persecution for a lie, and why they would die for a lie. It just doesn't make sense.

447

Are the New Testament themes found in the Old Testament?

The concepts in the New Testament were not derived out of thin air. Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." What is mentioned in the New Testament is revealed in the Old Testament either clearly or in types and figures. Gen. 22 is a great example of the sacrifice of Jesus, the Son in Typology represented by the sacrifice of Isaac. Some critics of Christianity state that Christianity borrowed its concepts from pagan sources like Mitrha, Osiris, Apollonius, etc. Admittedly, there are similarities in some pagan religions with Christianity, but that does not mean Christian writers borrowed from them any more than similarities between Communism and Democracy mean one is from another. Similarities abound in many religions. Hinduism has moral statements similar to Christianity as does Taoism. But they are unrelated to each other. There are, however, several reasons working against the idea that the people who wrote the New Testament copied ideas from pagan myths. First of all, the writers of the New Testament were Jews. As Jews they would have nothing to do with paganism in any form. They knew specifically that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament which is why they followed Him. Second, the Old Testament has almost all the New Testament themes from which a devout Jew would refer when writing the New Testament. Third, there is no proof at all that the New Testament writers borrowed from pagan sources and incorporated them into the New Testament. It is up to the critics to supply reasonable evidence for this if they want to hold the position. Just saying it happened doesn't mean anything. Fourth, so what if there are similarities? What does it prove? If two writers in the same city both write similar articles about the President of the U.S., does it mean one used another's concepts? Not at all. Similarities happen all the time when dealing with similar subjects. Besides, it makes sense that common themes would be around an area at the same time in history when all nations served various gods. Undoubtedly, some similarities will occur, but that doesn't mean one was borrowed from another. Finally, there is another possibility worth examining. The concepts of redemption, the incarnation, resurrection, etc., are prophesied in the Old Testament and these documents were around for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is quite possible that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagans who incorporated Old Testament concepts since these documents existed prior to many of these pagan myths. Nevertheless, following is a chart that exemplifies many of the themes that were revealed in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New. It is easy to see that there is no need at all for the Christians to borrow from any source outside the Old Testament. John 5:39, "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me."

448

New Testament themes found in the Old Testament Theme Ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God Atonement by blood Baptism Begotten Son, Jesus Creative work Crucifixion Damnation and Salvation Eternal Son First and Last God among His people Incarnation of God Monotheism Only Begotten Son Priesthood of Jesus Resurrection of Christ Return of Christ Sacrifice of the Son Salvation by grace Sin offering Sin offering made outside the camp Sin offering without defect Son of God Substitutionary Atonement Old Testament Reference Ps. 110:1 Lev. 17:11 Exodus 40:12-15; Lev. 16:4; Gen. 17:10; Ezek. 36:25 Psalm 2:7 Gen. 1; 1:26 Psalm 22:11-18; Zech. 12:10 Dan. 12:2 Micah 5:1-2; Psalm 2:7 Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12 Isaiah 9:6; 40:3 1)Ex 3:14; 2)Ps. 45:6 Isaiah 9:6; Zech. 12:10 Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5 Gen. 22:2. See Typology Psalm 110:4 Zech. 14:1-5; Mic. 1:3-4 Gen. 22. See Typology 1)Gen. 12:3; 2)15:6; Hab. 2:4 Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:3 Ex. 29:14 Ex. 12:5; Lev. 22:20; Deut. 17:1 Psalm 2:7 Isaiah 53:6-12; Lev. 6:4-10,21 1)Gen. 1:1,26; Job 33:4; 2) Gen. 17:1; 18:1; Ex. 6:2-3; 24:9-11; 33:20; Num. 12:6-8; Psalm 104:30; 23)Gen. 19:24 with Amos 4:10-11; Is.48:16 Isaiah 7:14 Psalm 97:7 New Testament fulfilled in Jesus Matt 26:64; Acts 7:55-60; Eph. 1:20 Heb. 9:22 Matt. 3:16; 28:19; Col. 2:11-12; Heb. 10:22 Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5 John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17 Luke 23:33-38 Matt. 25:46 Heb. 1:5; 5:5 Rev. 1:8,17; 22:13 John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Matt. 3:3 1)John 8:58; 1:1,14; 2)Heb. 1:8; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-3 John 10:30; Eph. 4:5 John 3:16; Heb. 11:7 Heb. 6:20; 7:25 Matt. 16:27-28; Acts 1:11; 3:20 Heb. 9:27 1)Gal. 3:8-11; 2)Rom. 4:9 Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:18; 13:11 Heb. 13:12-13 Heb. 9:14 John 5:18 Matt. 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1)John 1:1-3; 2)John 1:18; 6:46; 3)Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14 Matt. 1:25 Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6

Psalm 16:9-10; 49:15; Is. 26:19 John 2:19-21

Trinity

Virgin Birth Worship of Jesus

449

Apollonius of Tyana also did miracles and rose. What about him?

Apollonius of Tyana (a c ity south of Turkey) is sometimes offered as a challenge to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. It is said that Apollonius, who lived in the first century, also performed miracles, had disciples, died, and appeared after his death the same as Jesus. Therefore, critics conclude, what Jesus did isn't unique. Some even say that this is evidence that the Christian account of Christ's healings, miracles, and post death appearances were merely copied from the accounts of Apollonius. Are these accusations supportable? No, they aren't. First of all, the accounts of Apollonius were written well after he is supposed to have lived by a man named Philostratus (170 - 245 A.D.). This is long after the New Testament was written. Therefore the written accounts of Apollonius were not written by eyewitnesses as were the gospels. If critics want to maintain that the New Testament is full of myth and must be discredited, then so must the accounts of Apollonius since the writings are written several generations after the fact. By contrast the New Testament was written by the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life. Logically, it is the New Testament accounts that are far more reliable than those of Apollonius. Also, this would mean that if any borrowing was done, it was done by Philostratus, not by the gospel writers. Second, the eyewitness accounts of the New Testament writers were written before the close of the first century. For example, we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts do not contain the account of the fall of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 A.D. This fall included the destruction of the Jerusalem temple which was prophesied by Jesus in Matt. 24:1, Mark 13:1, and Luke 21:5. Such an incredibly major event in Jewish history would surely have been included in Acts and the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) if they were written after 70 A.D. since they would verify Jesus' predictive abilities. But, it is not included. Therefore, it is safe to say that they were written by the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, unlike the accounts of Apollonius. Third, Philostratus is the only source for the accounts of Apollonius where the Bible is multisourced. In other words, we have different writers writing about Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc., are different writers who's epistles were gathered by the Church and assembled into the Bible. That means that there is no verification for Apollonius other than the single writing of Philostratus. Fourth, Philostratus was commissioned by an empress to write a biography of Apollonius in order to dedicate a temple to him. This means that there was a motive for Philostratus to embellish the accounts in order satisfy the requirement of the empress. 6 6 It is not likely in the slightest that the gospels borrowed from Apollonius. It is most probably the other way around, especially since Philostratus had a motive to satisfy the empress who had commissioned him to write a biography of the man for whom a temple had been constructed.

66

Strobel, Lee, The Case for Christ; Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998, p. 120.

450

Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false?

Some critics of Christianity teach that the Christian religion was not based upon divine revelation but that it borrowed from pagan sources, Mithra being one of them. They assert that the figure of Mithra has many commonalities with Jesus, too common to be coincidence. Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire which was derived from the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. The cult of Mithraism was quite prominent in ancient Rome, especially among the military. Mithra was the god of war, battle, justice, faith, and contract. According to Mithraism, Mithra was called the son of God, was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind, and returned to heaven. Therefore, the critics maintain that Christianity borrowed its concepts from the Mithra cult. But is this the case? Can it be demonstrated that Christianity borrowed from the cult of Mithra as it developed its theology? First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exists in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (Hab. 2:4). Also, the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses (or directed by eyewitnesses as were Mark and Luke) who accurately represented the life of Christ. So, what they did was write what Jesus taught as well as record the events of His life, death, and resurrection. In other words, they recorded history, actual events and had no need of fabrication or borrowing. There will undoubtedly be similarities in religious themes given the agrarian culture. Remember, an agriculturally based society, as was the people of the ancient Mediterranean area, will undoubtedly develop theological themes based upon observable events, i.e., the life, death, and seeming resurrection of life found in crops, in cattle, and in human life. It would only be natural for similar themes to unfold since they are observed in nature and since people created gods related to nature. But, any reading of the Old Testament results in observing the intrusion of God into Jewish history as is recorded in miracles and prophetic utterances. Add to that the incredible archaeological evidence verifying Old Testament cities and events and you have a document based on historical fact instead of mythical fabrication. Furthermore, it is from these Old Testament writings that the New Testament themes were developed.

Theme Ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God Atonement by blood Begotten Son, Jesus is Crucifixion Eternal Son God among His people Incarnation of God Only Begotten Son Resurrectio n of Christ Sin offering Son of God Substitutionary Atonement Virgin Birth

Old Testament Reference Ps. 110:1 Lev. 17:11 Psalm 2:7 Micah 5:1-2; Psalm 2:7 Isaiah 9:6; 40:3 Gen. 22:2. See Typology Psalm 16:9-10; 49:15; Is. 26:19 Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:3 Psalm 2:7 Isaiah 53:6-12; Lev. 6:410,21 Isaiah 7:14

New Testament fulfilled in Jesus Matt 26:64; Acts 7:55-60; Eph. 1:20 Heb. 9:22 Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5 Heb. 1:5; 5:5 John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; John 3:16; Heb. 11:7 John 2:19-21 Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:18; 13:11 John 5:18 Matt. 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18; Matt. 1:25

Psalm 22:11-18; Zech. 12:10 Luke 23:33-38

1)Ex 3:14; 2)Ps. 45:6 Isa 9:6 1)John 8:58; 1:1,14; 2)Heb. 1:1-8

451

As you can see, there is no need for any of the Christian writers to borrow from anything other than the Old Testament source in order to establish any Christian doctrine concerning Jesus. If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be truth that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are! Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament. Think about it, the idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animal skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah. Furthermore, those who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament were Jews (or under the instruction of Jews) who were devoted to the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and possessed a strong disdain for pagan religions. It would have been blasphemous for them to incorporate pagan sources into what they saw as the fulfillment of the sacred Old Testament scriptures concerning the Messiah. Also, since they were writing about Jesus, they were writing based upon what He taught: truth, love, honesty, integrity, etc. Why then would they lie and make up stories and suffer great persecution, hardships, ridicule, arrest, beatings, and death all for known lies and fabrications from paganism? It doesn't make sense. At best, Mithraism only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism) which were recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts. "Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithrais m have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth -- at least during its early stages...During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook...Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians."6 7 What is more probable is that with the explosive nature of the Christian church in the 1st and 2nd century, other cult groups started to adapt themselves to take advantage of some of the teachings found in Christianity. "While there are several sources that suggest that Mithraism included a notion of rebirth, they are all post-Christian. The earliest...dates from the end of the second century A.D."6 8 Therefore, even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the critics to prove that one borrowed from the other. But, considering that the writers of the New Testament was written by Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity.

67

R. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World" as quoted in Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Norman Geisler; Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1999, p. 492. 68 Wilson, Bill, compiled by; The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense; Nashville, Tenn., Thomas Nelson Publishers; 1993, p. 167.

452

Why believe in Christianity over all other religions?

Critics often ask why Christianity is any better than any other religion in the world. After all, of all the religions that exist how can it be that only Christianity is true? If God exists, why can't God use different religions? Don't all paths lead to God? These kinds of questions are asked all the time of Christians and unfortunately the answers aren't always very good ones particularly when dealing with people who have a relativistic truth base and don't believe in absolutes. Therefore, in an attempt to demonstrate why Christianity is true and all other religious systems are false, I've prepared the following list of reasons for Christianity's superiority. There are such things as absolute truths If truth is relative, then the statement that truth is relative is an absolute truth and would be self defeating statement by proving that truth is not relative. But, if truth is absolute, then the statement "truth is absolute" is true and not self defeating. It is true that truth exists. It is true that truth will not contradict itself as we have just seen. In fact, it is absolutely true that you are reading this paper. If we can see that there is such a thing as truth in the world, then we could also see that there can be spiritual truth as well. It is not absurd to believe in spiritual absolutes anymore than physical or logical absolutes. Even the statement that all religions lead to God is a statement held to be a spiritual absolute by many people. This simply demonstrates that people do believe in spiritual truth. Why? Because truth exists. However, not all that is believed to be true actually is true. Therefore, all belief systems cannot be true since they often contradict each other in profound ways. Religions contradict each other; therefore, they cannot all be true. Mormonism teaches that there are many gods in existence and that you can become a god. Christianity teaches that there is only one God and you cannot become a god. Islam teaches that Jesus is not Go d in flesh where Christianity does. Jesus cannot be both God and not God at the same time. Some religions teach that we reincarnate while others do not. Some teach there is a hell and others do not. They cannot all be true. If they cannot all be true, it cannot be true that all religions lead to God. Furthermore, it means that some religions are, at the very least, false in their claims to reveal the true God (or gods). Remember, truth does not contradict itself. If God exists, He will not institute mutually exclusive and contradictory belief systems in an attempt to get people to believe in Him. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there can be an absolute spiritual truth and that not all systems can be true regardless of whether or not they claim to be true. There must be more than a mere claim. Fulfilled Prophecy concerning Jesus Though there are other religions that have prophecies in them, none are 100% accurate as is the Bible and none of them point to someone like Jesus who made incredible claims and performed incredible deeds. The Old Testament was written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Yet, the Old Testament prophesied many things about Jesus. This is undoubtedly evidence of divine influence upon the Bible. Please consider some of the many prophecies of Jesus in the following chart.

453

Prophecy Born of a virgin Born at Bethlehem He would be preceded by a Messenger Rejected by His own people Betrayed by a close friend His side pierced Crucifixion Resurrection of Christ

Old Testament Prophecy Isaiah 7:14 Micah 5:2 Isaiah 40:3 Isaiah 53:3 Isaiah 41:9 Zech. 12:10 Psalm 22:1, Psalm 22:11-18 Psalm 16:10

New Testament Fulfillment Matt. 1:18,25 Matt. 2:1 Matt. 3:1-2 John 7:5; 7:48 John 13:26-30 John 19:34 Luke 23:33; John 19:23-24 Acts 13:34-37

Fulfillment of prophecy can have different explanations. Some state that the NT was written and altered to ma ke it look like Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy (but there is no evidence of that). Others state that the prophecies are so vague that they don't count (but many of the prophecies are not vague at all). Of course, it is possible that God inspired the writers and Jesus, who is God in flesh, fulfilled these prophecies as a further demonstration of the validity of Christianity. The Claims and Deeds of Christ Christianity claims to be authored by God. Of course, merely making such a claim does not make it true. Anyone can make claims. But, backing up those claims is entirely different. Jesus used the Divine Name for Himself (John 8:58), the same Divine Name used by God when Moses asked God what His name was in (Exodus 3:14). Jesus said that He could do whatever He saw God the Father do (John 5:19), and He claimed to be one with God the Father (John 10:30; 10:38). Likewise, the disciples also called Him God (John 1:1,14; John 10:27; Col. 2:9). By default, if Jesus is God in flesh, then whatever He said and did would be true. Since Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one can find God without Him (John 14:6), this all becomes incredibly important. Again, making a claim is one thing. Backing it up is another. Did Jesus also back up His words with His deeds? Yes, He did. Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus changed water into wine (John 2:6-10). cast out demons (Matt. 8:28-32; 15:22-28). healed lepers (Matt. 8:3; Luke 17:14). healed diseases (Matt. 4:23,24; Luke 6:17-19) healed the paralytic (Mark 2:3-12). raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44). restored sight to the blind (Matt. 9:27-30; John 9:1-7). restored cured deafness (Mark 7:32-35). fed the multitude (Matt. 14:15-21; Matt. 15:32-38). walked on water (Matt. 8:26-27). calmed a storm with a command (Matt. 8:22-27; Mark 4:39). rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27). appeared to disciples after resurrection (John 20:19).

The eyewitnesses recorded the miracles of Jesus and the gospels have been reliably transmitted to us. Therefore, we can believe what Jesus said about Himself because Jesus performed many convincing miracles in front of people who testified and wrote about what they saw Him do.

454

Christ's resurrection Within Christianity, the resurrection is vitally important. Without the resurrection, our faith is useless (1 Cor. 15:14). It was the resurrection that changed the lives of the disciples. After Jesus was crucified, the disciples ran and hid. But when they saw the risen Lord, they knew that all that Jesus had said and done proved that He was indeed God in flesh, the Savior. No other religious leader has died in full view of trained executioners, had a guarded tomb, and then risen three days later to appear to many people. This resurrection is proof of who Jesus is and that He did accomplish what He set out to do: provide redemption for mankind. Buddha did not rise from the dead. Muhammad did not rise from the dead. Confucius did not rise from the dead. Krishna did not rise from the dead, etc. Only Jesus has physically risen from the dead, walked on water, claimed to be God, and raised others from the dead. He has conquered death. Why trust anyone else? Why trust anyone who can be held by physical death when we have a Messiah who is greater than death itself? Conclusion Why should anyone trust in Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, or anything else? It is because there are absolute truths, because only in Christianity is there accurate fulfilled prophecies of a coming Messiah. Only in Christianity do we have the extremely accurate transmission of the eyewitness documents (gospels) so we can trust what was originally written. Only in Christianity do we have the person of Christ who claimed to be God, performed many miracles to prove His claim of divinity, who died and rose from the dead, and who said that He alone was the way the truth and the life. All this adds to the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity above all other religions -- all based on the person of Jesus. If follows that if it is all true about what Jesus said and did, then all other religions are false because Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). It could not be that Jesus is the only way and truth and other religions also be the truth. Either Jesus is true and all other religions are false or other religions are true and Jesus is false. There are no other options. I choose to follow the risen Lord.

455

If God is all powerful and loving, why is there suffering in the world?
It is often asked why is there suffering in the world if God is all powerful and loving. Why doesn't He stop it? Can He or is He weaker than we think? Suffering can fall into three simple categories: emotional, mental, and physical suffering. But, there are a variety of causes for suffering: morally corrupt (evil) people, disease, earthquakes, floods, famine, etc. There are different explanations for why God allows suffering, but none of them can satisfy everyone. Therefore, I will simply list various reasons offered to account for suffering and evil in the world. 1. Free will A. God has given us freedom of choice. Having this freedom means that we can rebel against God and make choices that are contrary to His desires. Since we can say that evil is anything contrary to God's perfect and holy will, then anyone who chooses anything contrary to God's perfection is committing evil. But this is the risk of being able to have freedom of choice. Evil and suffering are the result of making bad free choices. B. But how could this account for natural disasters and sickness that brings suffering? Biblically, Adam represented not only all of his descendents, but he was also the head of the created order since he was given dominion over the earth. Therefore, when he fell, sin entered into the world (Rom. 5:12) and with it the effects of being fallen spread to the earth as well as to humanity. God cannot stop evil and suffering because He is powerless A. Of course, this does not stand up to biblical truth. God allows evil to occur partly for reasons we do know and partly for those we do not. We know that God uses evil to discipline people (Prov. 3:11) and to teach them (Prov. 15:32). But we cannot know all the reasons that God has for allowing evil and suffering in the world. It is not logically necessary that since God has not stopped evil and suffering in the world, that He cannot. God could be using suffering for His divine plan, in order to teach, for discipline, because people are free, etc. The existence of suffering does not at all mean that God cannot stop all of it. It means that He simply has chosen not to do so. How much evil should be stopped? A. The question of stopping evil means that if God is to stop evil, then He must stop all evil. This means that the murderer must be stopped along with the thief. But it also means that thinking evil, which is in rebellion against God, must also be stopped as well; that is, if all evil is to be stopped. Therefore, for God to stop evil and suffering may very well mean that He must remove the ability for people to freely choose what they want to do. So, if God is going to stop evil, is He required to stop all of it or just some of it? If only some of it, then the question would still stand. If He stops all of it, would we be free? Prevention of further evil A. It is possible that human suffering (cancer, disease, etc.) can be a means that God uses to remove the person from further suffering, worse suffering, or future suffering. Of course, this not seem to be a very good option because if God or intending to stop further suffering, why would He use suffering to stop it? Also, what about floods and earthquakes that cause suffering? How would they fit into God decreasing or stopping suffering except perhaps by people's deaths which ends suffering? This is difficult to answer. Though it may be that God might use some suffering to prevent even greater suffering, this explanation cannot answer all issues concerning it.

2.

3.

4.

456

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

For the greater plan A. Undoubtedly, God has a plan. Since God knows all things He is not surprised by the presence of evil and sin in the world that brings about suffering. But if God knows all things from all eternity, then He is perfectly capable of using suffering in the world in His greater plan. The best and simplest example of this is the suffering of Christ at the hands of evil men. It is by Christ's suffering and death on across that we are able to be redeemed. It was God's plan from all eternity that Christ die for our sins yet Christ was crucified by evil people (Acts 4:27-28). This means that God had incorporated into His divine plan the reality of evil and suffering in order to accomplish His will. Of course, this does not mean that God is the author of evil, but it does mean that God is above it all and can use it to accomplish a greater good. If this is true on a large-scale, why cannot it also be true on a smaller one in each of our individual lives? For discipline and instruction A. The Bible tells us that God disciplines those whom He loves (Heb. 12:6) and that no true child of God is without discipline and instruction. It is obvious that the result of our rebellion against God brings suffering and it is also true that we can learn through our suffering that such rebellion is bad. We then could glorify God during and after our suffering by proclaiming the truth of His word that urges us to follow God and His ways. Sometimes we learn our greatest lessons after having suffered the consequences of our actions -- and this is good. If we see that there are consequences through the acts of suffering in this world, it is logical to conclude that there will be suffering in the next as a consequence of our rebellion now. This could easily lead us to conclude that we need to be delivered from our rebellion against God. Of course, Jesus is the answer to this. It is the result of sin A. Biblically speaking, pain and suffering are the results of sin in the world. Adam, who represented all humanity as well as creation, rebelled against God and brought suffering into the world (Rom. 5:12). Sin is more than simple rebellion and breaking of God's law. It is permeating throughout all of God's creation bringing imbalance, famine, earthquakes, disease, etc. This does not mean that God created evil. Instead, it is God who is allowing evil and suffering to continue for His divine plan. To serve as a warning A. Evil and suffering in the world can serve as a warning against breaking God's law and then people can see the necessity of following God's truth. God's ways are right and good and following them leads to security and safety. The consequences of disobeying God's word are manifested in suffering. Therefore, suffering in the world easily serves as a demonstration of the need to follow God's words thereby vindicating what God has said To make a point A. It is possible that God is simply allowing evil and suffering in the world to prove that rebellion against Him brings pain and suffering. God may be allowing sin to take its natural course in the world so that on the Day of Judgment God can say "Do you see what rebellion against my words brings?" This may seem overly simplistic but it may prove to be one of the reasons that God allows pain and suffering. After all, did He not make us in His image and give us the freedom to choose? And in our freedom have we not rebelled? Yes, we have. Should God then make us robots or restrict our freedom so much that we have no choices at all? Of course not. But since we are limited in our knowledge and have used our freedom to rebel, God allows us to have what we desire and in the end, our sins will prove that God's way is the right way.

457

10.

11.

To serve as a means to bring the Son A. The death of the Son is the means by which God has redeemed those who would receive Jesus. This death cannot occur if Jesus were not a man. In order to be a man he had to be born as one. But since Jesus was sinless, death has no power over Him. Therefore, in order to die and in order to redeem us, His death must be at the hands of evil people. But, without sin, suffering, and evil in the world, Jesus could not have been sent to the cross. So, it could be said that suffering in the world is necessary in order to bring about the cross which in turn demonstrates the great and awesome love of God. Jesus said that the greatest act of love is to lay one's life down for another (John 15:13). If God is love (1 John 4:8) and love gives (John 3:16), can it be that God must demonstrate the greatest act of love? If so, it can only be done through suffering in the world. We don't know. A. Biblically speaking, pain and suffering are the results of sin in the world. Adam, who represented all humanity as well as creation, rebelled against God and brought suffering into the world. This sin is more than simple rebellion and breaking of God's law. It is an offense against a holy God. Sin is permeating throughout all of God's creation bringing imbalance, famine, earthquakes, disease, etc. This is not have God created things but it is God who is allowing them to continue for his divine plan. Ultimately, we can't know all the reasons why God allows suffering, we just know that He does.

What does the Bible tell us that God has done about evil? It tells us that he sent to his son Jesus to die for our sins and to deliver us from pain and suffering. Ultimately, God is allowing evil in the world for a purpose; otherwise, He would not let it exist. Therefore, we must trust Him that He knows what He is doing.

458

A loving God would never send anyone to hell

The idea of a loving God sending people to hell for eternity is not easy to accept. Why would God, who is full of mercy and grace, send people to a place of torment for ever and ever for not trusting in Jesus even though they are nice people, or never heard of Jesus, or were sincerely trying to find God? Is that fair? Is that right? When people ask these questions, they are appealing to what they perceive as fairness. They are looking at the issue from their human perspective. But this perspective is not necessarily the right one. If God exists, and He does, then it is He who is the One who says what is right and fair, not us. So, we need to see what the Bible says about what is right regarding sin and salvation and make a decision afterwards. The Bible tells us that God is holy, "You shall be holy, for I am holy," (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness is incorruptibility, perfection, purity, and the inability to sin, all of which are possessed by God alone. Holiness is the very nature of God's character. His character is perfect, without flaw, and He is the standard of all that is right and good. The Bible also says that God is infinite, "Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite," (Psalm 147:5). If God's understanding is infinite, then God is infinite in nature. The Bible tells us that God is love. "And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him," (1 John 4:16). God cares about us and seeks our well being and security. His thoughts about us are infinite and His love is too. This is why God does not desire that anyone go to hell, but that all come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). The Bible tells us that God is righteous. "God is a righteous judge," (Psalm 7:9). His righteousness is part of His character just as are mercy and love. Righteousness deals with justice and justice deals with the Law. This means that God will always do that which is right and He does so according to the righteous Law that He has set forth. God cannot do anything wrong. God must do that which is right; otherwise He would not be righteous. Jesus said that "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks," (Matt. 12:34), so too with God. He speaks out of the abundance of His heart. God spoke the universe into existence, "Let their be light," (Gen. 1:3) and He also spoke forth the Law (Exodus 20 - the Ten Commandments, etc.). Therefore, the Law of God is a reflection of God's character, because it comes out of what He is, holy, perfect, righteous, and good. Therefore, the Law is a standard of perfection. It is perfect and if we do not keep it perfectly, then we have offended the God who gave it; after all, it is a reflection of His character. To break God's Law is to offend (sin against) God. Since it is law, there is punishment because there is no Law that is a law without a punishment. This means that when we break the Law of God, we fall under the judgment of the Law of God. Since He is infinite, our offense against Him is takes on an infinite quality because we have offended an infinitely holy and righteous God. Must God punish? Yes, God must punish those who break His law because it is the right thing to do. Just as a parent should punish a child for doing something wrong (intentionally), so God must punish those who do wrong. You see, if God did not punish the person who does wrong, then He would be unjust and unrighteous. He would be breaking His own law -- which He cannot do. But, someone might say that the punishment of a parent on a child is temporary whereas God's punishment is eternal. Why the difference? The answer is two fold. First, God is infinite and a parent is not. Second, God is the standard of all righteousness and the parent is not. Because God is infinite, when we sin, we are offending an infinite God. This is incredibly significant. The reason sin is so bad is not so much because of the one committing the sin, but because of the One who is offended. In other words, sin is so incredibly bad because it takes on a horrible quality by the very fact of who it is against: an infinitely pure, holy, and righteous God.

459

A parent is not the standard of righteousness. God is. A parent is (or should be) using the righteous standard of God in raising children. Therefore, though a parent's punishment is temp orary because it is instruction and correction, the punishment of God is eternal because our sin is against an eternal God. There is a big difference. Can we please God on our own? Is it possible to earn one's place before God by what we do (being good, etc.)? Is it possible for a finite being to please an infinite one? If so, then that means a sinner who has offended an infinite God, is able please God by his efforts. But, if he is a sinner, then aren't those "good" things he does also touched by sin since they are motivated out of the heart of a sinner? Yes. This is what the Bible declares since it says that our hearts are deceitful and not to be trusted (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23). But then someone might say that if the person is sincere when he does the good works, then that should be acceptable to God. But, saying it should be acceptable doesn't mean it is. Remember, according to the Bible we cannot trust our own hearts (Jer. 17:9). This means that we cannot even trust our own sincerity. God is the judge, not us. If we could please God by our efforts or sincerity, then it would mean that a finite person can appease an infinite God by doing good works. It further means that sincerity becomes a meritorious condition of the heart. It would be like saying, "God, I am worthy to be with you because of the good works I have done and the good and sincere condition of my heart." Can any mortal who has fallen into sin ever do anything good enough to please an infinite God? The answer is no. Gal. 2:21 says, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. In other words, if we could get to heaven by what we do, then Jesus didn't need to die on the cross. Therefore, God has established that our works and sincerity cannot be good enough. Finally, for those who still maintain that we can please God by our efforts, we must ask how many good works must he perform in order to undo an offense against an infinitely holy God? Is there a standard by which we can judge which sin requires how many goods works to cancel out? There is none. Therefore, he is left in a predicament. Since God must punish the sinner for offending Him (breaking His holy and righteous law), and our works cannot undo the offense against God, then how are we going to escape so great a righteous judgment? The way of escape The only way to escape the righteous judgment of God is to trust in the provision He has made. This provision is found in Jesus. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life," (John 3:16). Jesus is the only way to salvation (John 14:6). Jesus is also God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9). Therefore, Jesus' life is of infinite value. This means that His sacrifice is sufficient to cleanse you of your sins. It is capable of satisfying the infinitely righteous standard of God that is required to match His infinite holiness. Jesus' sacrifice is the only provision acceptable to God the Father. If you want to escape the eternal judgment of God, you must put your trust in Jesus and what He did on the cross and in nothing else. Without Him, there is no hope of escape on the Day of Judgment. How do you do this? You receive Jesus (John 1:12). You trust in Him alone. You can ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins (John 14:14). Trust Him alone.

460

It is intolerant to say that Christianity is the only true religion.

Yes it is intolerant. In fact, it is very intolerant to say that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that no one can get to God except through Him as Jesus Himself said in John 14:6. It is also intolerant to state that there is no other name under heaven other than Jesus by which a person can be forgiven of his sins as Peter said in Acts 4:12. It is intolerant to say that there is only one true God as Jesus said in John 17:3. It is also intolerant to say that trying to enter into heaven by any other way than Jesus is to be a thief and a robber as Jesus said in John 10:1. Jesus was intolerant when He said that He is the one who reveals God to people (Luke 10:22). Jesus was even more intolerant of religious hypocrisy when He condemned the religious know-it-alls and called them hypocrites and deceivers (Matt. 23:25-26). Jesus was extremely intolerant of the buying and selling in the temple when He drove the people out of it by force and overturned their money tables (John 2:13-16). Jesus was intolerant of hatred when He said "love your enemies" (Luke 6:27). Jesus was intolerant of ignorance when He taught the people truth (Matt. 5). Jesus was intolerant of prejudice when He gave the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). Yes, Christianity is intolerant because its founder, Jesus, was intolerant. Christianity is intolerant of false gods and false gospels. Why is it so intolerant, because it is shaped after Jesus. It is intolerant because there is a hell and Jesus, who is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), who died for our sins (1 Pet. 2:24), has made the only way to forgiveness a reality: through Him alone (John 14:6) and without Him comes damnation. On the other hand, Christianity is very tolerant. It teaches to be very forgiving (Matt. 18:21-22), to be patient and kind (Gal. 5:22-23), and to be honest and wholesome (Phil. 4:6-8). Jesus taught us to love and to heal and to be examples of kindness and truth in the world. Jesus was intolerant of religious hypocrisy and bigotry. He was very intolerant of false teachers. He was intolerant of pride, rebellion, sin, covetousness, adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, fornicating, and murder. He was intolerant of husbands treating their wives poorly. He was intolerant of pain and was saddened by suffering. Yet, at the same time He demonstrated the greatest love and patience with those who were guilty of all these things. Why? Because He is God in flesh, incarnate love, incarnate righteousness, incarnate humility. The whole issue of whether or not Christianity is intolerant lies in who Jesus is, what He claimed, and what He did. If what Jesus said and did is true, then Christianity isn't intolerant. It is simply true and it is the world that is intolerant of that truth. Likewise, it is true that Jesus lived. It is true that Jesus walked on water (Matt. 8:26-27). It is true that Jesus healed the sick (Matt. 8:5-13). It is true that Jesus calmed a storm with a command (Mark 4:39). It is true that Jesus raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44). It is true that Jesus claimed to be God (John 5:18; 8:24; 8:58 -- see Exodus 3:14). It is true that Jesus was killed on a cross (Luke 24:20). It is true that Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27). These are not feeble claims made by crazy people who wanted to gain power and fame. These are the claims of Christ Himself and of those who followed Him and suffered for Him and died for Him. Either it is all true or it is not. Either Jesus performed miracles or He did not. Either Jesus rose from the dead or He did not. Based solely and completely on who Jesus is and what He did, Christianity is the truth and by necessity all other religions that disagree with Jesus are wrong. Truth is, by nature, intolerant of falsehood. If Christianity is not true, then Jesus was not God, then Jesus did not do miracles, then Jesus did not heal the sick, then Jesus did not walk on water, then Jesus did not die and rise from the dead after three days. But, if He did do these things, then Christianity alone is true since in all the religions in the world, only Christianity has the person of Jesus and Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Christianity is only as intolerant as Jesus is true

461

Why did animals have to die for the sins of Adam and Eve and others?
In the Old Testament, animal sacrifices were a representation of the true future sacrifice of Jesus. These Old Testament animal sacrifices were not able to cleanse anyone of their sins (Heb. 10:4). Yet, they were offered as a predictive representation. In other words, they were a type, a representation, a picture of the final and real sacrifice that was to occur when Jesus died on the cross bearing our sins in His body (1 Pet. 2:24). In the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve sinned, God covered them with animal skins (Gen. 3:21). This was the beginning of the animal sacrifice system and it was instituted by God. The amazing thing is that it is also God who is the one who fulfilled this sacrificial requirement by becoming one of us (John 1:1,14), bearing our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), and cleansing us of our sins (1 John 1:7). All of the Old Testament sacrifices pointed ahead to the real one offered by Jesus. This way, the Old Testament saints could, by faith, trust in God's provision: "The just shall live by faith," (Hab. 2:4), and "Then he [Abraham] believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness," (Gen. 15:6). So, it really wasn't that the animals were dying for anyone's sins. They simply were a type of the true sacrifice made by Christ.

462

Why would God have to die to save people from Himself?

Why would God have to die to save people from Himself, because there is no other way to save anyone from their sins. Because God is holy and righteous, He must punish anyone who breaks His law. Since He is the one who administers the punishment, we then need to be saved from His righteous judgment. But, since we are not capable of pleasing God by our mere works, the only one left who can cleanse us is God Himself. The one offended is the one who must pardon. If I offend you, I do not ask forgiveness from your neighbor. I have to ask you. The same goes with God. If we sin against Him we have to go to Him to be forgiven. But, simply asking for forgiveness isn't enough. The reason is because when we sin, we sin against a holy and infinite God. But, God is also righteous and He must do what is right. Therefore, it is right to punish those who defy Him. But the problem is that since God is infinite and we are not, we cannot do enough to please an infinite God. An analogy Let's say I am at your house or apartment with my wife. We are talking about church and in my zeal I accidentally knock over your lamp. Now, this lamp is special. A dear friend gave it to you and it has great sentimental value, and besides, you need a light in your room. After a moment or two you realize that the damage is done and decide to forgive. You say to me, "That is alright, Matt. I forgive you for breaking the lamp, but give me ten dollars." Is asking for ten dollars after you've just forgiven me, true forgiveness? Certainly not! When God forgives our sins, He says He will remember them no more (Jer. 31:34). Forgive and forget are similar in spelling and similar in meaning. If you forgive me can you demand payment from the one forgiven? No, because a forgiven debt does not exist. Let's say that instead of asking me for ten dollars you turn to m wife and say, "Matt broke my y lamp. You give me ten dollars for it." I ask you again. Is that true forgiveness? No. You are simply transferring the debt to someone who was not involved in the original offense. But, we have a problem. The lamp needs to be replaced. In true forgiveness, then, who pays for its replacement? (Think about this a bit before you go on to read the answer.) Who pays? You do! You're the only one left. Remember, if you've forgiven me the debt, how can you demand payment? Now, who was my offense against? You. Who forgives? You do. Who pays? You do. When we sin, who do we sin against? God. Who forgives? God. Who pays? God! Did you get that? God pays! How does He do that? Simple. 2000 years ago on a hill outside the city of Jerusalem He bore our sins in His body and died on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). He took our punishment: "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried... He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him..." (Isaiah 53:4-5). God is just. God is merciful. God is gracious. In the justice of God, He took our place. In the mercy of God we don't get punished. In the grace of God, He gives us eternal life. Even though we are unworthy of salvation, even though we are unworthy of God's love, even though we are unworthy of mercy, even though we are worthy of wrath, God saved us. He did so not because of who we are, but because of who He is, not because of what we do, but because of what He did. God is love (1 John 4:16). God is holy (1 Peter 1:16). God is good (Psalm 34:8). We could never fathom the depths of His purity and kindness (Rom. 11:33). We could never, through our own efforts, attain Him. There is only one thing left for us. We must worship Him, love Him, and serve Him. He alone is worthy. Blessed be the name of the Lord.

463

If God is not the author of confusion, what about the Tower of Babel?
This isn't a difficult issue at all. On one hand, God is not the author of confusion: "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints," (1 Cor. 14:33). The context of this verse is dealing with the gift of tongues as were spoken in Christian churches in its early years. Foreigners would attend these churches and hear their own languages being spoken. There would often be interpretations of these tongues. Also, Christians would be over eager in their use of various tongues and this would often lead to confusion as people did not do things in order. Therefore, in the immediate verses prior to (1 Cor. 14:33), Paul had just given instruction on the proper use of the tongues in the church, a use which stated order and sequence. The goal was not to produce confusion among the hearers so that they would not understand the gospel. Instead, it was to produce an orderly service of worship. The context of the Tower of Babel is quite different. The people of the earth were attempting to build a tower that would "...reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name; lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth." (Gen. 11:4). The sin of the people was their great pride. They were seeking to remain one group in one location under their own efforts. Ultimately, this was a defiance of God's proclamation to fill the earth (Gen. 9:1). God wanted them to spread out. "So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. 9Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth," (Gen. 11:6). Therefore, there is no contradiction since each is a different context and a different subject.

If babies die when they go to heaven, why is abortion wrong?

There is debate on whether or not all babies go to heaven when they die. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that all babies go to heaven when they die. If that is so, then why would abortion be wrong since it would be sending the person to heaven? The reason abortion is wrong is because it is taking the life of the unborn child who has committed no wrong. In other words, the child is not being put to death for a sin that it has committed. It is simply being put to death to make someone else's life more convenient.1 It is God who gives life and takes it away. There is an exception though where God makes allowance for capital punishment. "For it [governing authorities] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil," (Rom. 13:4). This latter condition is, of course, carried out under due process of law and is reserved for those who "practice evil," i.e., murderers, rapists, kidnappers, etc. The unborn do not fall under this category deserving capital punishment. They are simply unborn, human lives. When people have abortions they are taking into their own hands the taking life that is not permitted by God. Whether or not aborted babies go to heaven is not the issue because the ends do not justify the means. God is the taker of life, not man.

464

Bible Difficulties
Introduction

There are difficulties in the Bible due to copyist errors and lack of understanding of biblical culture and context. It is important to be familiar with some of them and to have answers.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Are the copies of the original bible documents inspired? p. 466 Where did Cain get his wife? p. 469 Should you make graven images or not? p. 473 Does Isaiah 7:14 support the virgin birth? Why or why not? p. 486 Why did God not destroy Nineveh when He said He was going to? p. 489 Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3? p. 490 Was John the Baptist really Elijah? p. 502 How did Judas die, by hanging or falling down? p. 508 Can you be forgiven of all sins or not? p. 511 Did Jesus or Simon of Cyrene carry the cross? p. 516 What are the last words of Jesus? p. 518 Is the ending of Mark really scripture? p. 522 Shall we obey God's Law or human law? p. 525 Are we saved by faith or by baptism? p. 527 Are we saved by grace or works? p. 531

465

Introduction to Bible Difficulties and Bible Contradictions

Bible difficulties, or apparent Bible contradictions, exist. The opponents of Christianity often use them in their attempts to discredit Christianity. Sometimes these attacks undermine the faith of Christians who either don't understand the issues or don't have the resources to deal with them. Opponents of Christianity will cite what they consider a Bible contradiction or difficulty by comparing one verse to another (or more) that seems to disagree with the first. In doing this, several verses are often referenced as being contradictory or problematic. Therefore, to make this section of CARM easy to use, it is arranged by verse for easy lookup. Since many of the same "difficulties" deal with one verse in opposition to another or even several others, I have listed all the verses addressed in the same answer. This makes the initial list look larger than it really is. For example, how many animals did Noah bring into the ark? Genesis 6:19-20 says two while Gen. 7:2-3 mentions seven. Therefore, both verses are listed and both links point to the same answer. The Originals are Inspired, not the copies. What a lot of Christians don't know is that the autographs (original writings) are inspired, not the copies. The autographs are the original writings, the original documents penned by the biblical writers. The copies are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired"; that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. But don't worry, the Bible manuscripts are 98.5% textually pure and only are very small amount of information is in question due to repetitive facts, instructions, and information found elsewhere in the Bible. Nevertheless, through the copying method over the years, various textual problems have arisen. Following is a list of the types of errors that have occurred in copying the manuscripts. I've used English as examples instead of going into the original languages for examples. 1. 2. 3. 4. Dittography - Writing twice what should have been written once. A. A good example would be writing "latter" instead of "later." "Latter" means nearest the end. "Later" means after something else. Fission- Improperly dividing one word into to words. A. Example: "nowhere" into "now here." Fusion - Combining the last letter of one word with the first letter of the next word. A. "Look it is there in the cabinet... or Look it is therein the cabinet." Haplography - Writing once what should have been written twice. A. A good example would be "later" instead of "latter." "Later" means after something else. "Latter" means nearest the end. Homophony - Writing a word with a different meaning for another word when both words have the exact same pronunciation. A. Meat and meet have the exact same sound but different meanings. Also, there and their and they're are another example. Metathesis - An improper exchange in the order of letters. A. Instead of writing "mast," someone writes "mats," or "cast" and cats."

5.

6.

Does this mean that the Bible we hold in our hand is not inspired? Not at all. Inspiration comes from God and when He inspired the Bible, it was perfect. Our copies of the original documents are not perfect, but they are very close to being so. The critics often erringly assume that even the copies are supposed to be perfect. But when I point out that God never said the copies would be perfect, they then ask how can the Bible be trusted at all? Quite simply, it is redundant in its facts and information. The copyist errors present no problems doctrinally. Compared to other ancient documents, the New Testament, for example, has far more textual evidence in its favor than any other ancient writing. Please consider the chart below.

466

Author Homer (Iliad) Ceasar (The Gallic Wars) Plato (Tetralogies) Aristotle Herodotus (History) Euripedes New Testament

When Written 900 BC 100 - 44 BC 427 - 347 BC 384 - 322 BC 480 - 425 BC 480 - 406 BC 50 - 90 A.D.

Earliest Copy 400 BC 900 AD 900 AD 1,100 AD 900 AD 1,100 AD 130 AD

Time Span 500 years 1,000 years 1,200 years 1,400 years 1,300 years 1,500 years 30 years

No. of Copies 643 10 7 49 8 9 24,000

This chart was adapted from charts in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell, 1979, pages 42 and 43. If the Bible cannot be trusted as being reliable because it has only a small percentage of copyist errors, then neither can the above documents be trusted that have far less textual support. Therefore, we can see that the Bible is an ancient document that has withstood thousands of years of transmission with remarkable accuracy and clarity. We can trust it to be what it says it is: the word of God.

Don't Gen. 1 and 2 present contradictory creation accounts?

1. Genesis 1 - Day one - heavens and earth are created. "Let there be light." Day and Night. - Day two Atmospheric waters separated from earth waters. - Day three - Land appears separating the seas. Vegetation is made. - Day four - Sun, moon, stars are made. - Day five - Sea life and birds are made. - Day six - Land animals, creeping things, and man (male and female) are made. Genesis 2 States heaven and earth were created. No plant yet on earth, no rain yet, no man. But, a mist rose watering the surface of the ground. Then the Lord formed man from dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Then God made Eve.

2.

There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

467

How many Gods are there, one or many?

Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8 and Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; 1 Cor. 8:5; I John 5:7

1. One God A. (Deuteronomy 6:4) - "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!" (Isaiah 43:10) - ". . . Before Me [YHWH] there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me." B. (Isaiah 44:6) - ". . . there is no God besides Me." C. (Isaiah 44:8) - ". . . And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none." 2. Many gods A. (Genesis 1:26) - "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . . ." B. (Genesis 3:22) - "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil . . ." C. (Genesis 11:7) - "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." D. (1 Corinthians 8:5) - "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords")." E. (1 John 5:8) - "For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

The Bible tells us that there is only one God in all existence (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). However, it also mentions "other gods." For example there is Adrammelech and Anammelech (2 Kings 17:31), Asherah (1 Kings 18:19), Baal (Judges 3:1), Chemosh (Num. 21:29), Dagon (1 Sam. 5:2), Molech (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5), etc. The Bible is not contradicting itself. When the Bible speaks of other gods it is speaking of false gods that have no true existence. Gal. 4:8 says, "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods." See also, Isaiah 37:19 and Jeremiah 2:11. God tells us that he alone is the true God and that all of the invented gods of man do not exist except in their own minds. So, we can see that the Bible does not contradict itself regarding how many gods there are in existence. There is only one. Note: in the verses in Genesis that have God saying "Let us make..., Let us go down . . . , etc." are clues to the Trinitarian nature of God. God is a Trinity of persons: a Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There are not three Gods, but one. There are those who insist that the Trinity is polytheistic. But it is not. Trinitarians believe in a single being who is God.

468

Doesn't God saying "Adam where are you?" show God didn't know something?
Genesis 3:9
(Genesis 3:9) - "Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" The context of this verse is immediately after Adam had sinned. "And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" 10And he said, "I heard the sound of Thee in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself," (Gen. 3:8-10). Does this mean that God didn't know something? Not at all. Someone can easily ask a question to which they know the answer. Usually, the reason to do that is to point something out or teach something. Obviously, Adam and Eve had sinned. God asked, "Adam where are you?" Where was Adam? He was hiding from God. Adam's sin had destroyed his fellowship with the Lord. God knew this and He was pointing it out to Adam. It is a question we need to ask of ourselves? Where am I? Am I in fellowship with God or in rebellion against Him?

Where did Cain get his wife?

Genesis 4:17
(Gen. 4:17) - "Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 17And Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son," (NASB). We see in the Bible in Genesis 3 where Adam and Eve were cursed and sent out of the Garden of Eden. In Genesis 4, Cain kills Abel. In Genesis 4:17 above we see that Cain had relations with his wife. Where did he get his wife? The answer is simple. Cain married one of his sisters. Genesis 5:4 says, "Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters." We see that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. The genetic lineage of Adam and Eve was perfect so marrying a sister wasn't going to cause birth defects. It wasn't until much later, during the time of Moses, that incest was forbidden as the genetic pool became less and less able to stand interbreeding. "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD," (Lev. 18:6).

469

Did people really live hundreds of years according to Genesis?

Genesis 5
1. Adam lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5) - "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." 2. Seth lived 912 years (Gen. 5:8) - "And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died." 3. Methuselah lived 969 years (Gen. 5:27) - "And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died." After the fall, the genetic line of Adam and his descendents was very pure, so their health would have been incredible. Living that long would not have been a problem. Also, some theologians think that there was a canopy of water that engulfed the entire earth and that it was released at the time of the flood. "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life , in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened," (Gen. 7:11). The "floodgates of the sky" are sometimes alluded to as great amounts of water suspended in the sky. Also, no rain is recorded in the Bible until after the flood which seems to support this idea. This canopy, if it is true, might have provided some sort of protection from the sun's harmful rays. We can't know for sure and it is only a theory. Nevertheless, after the flood, the lifespan of people on earth was drastically reduced. "Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years," (Gen. 6:3). Whether or not this reduced canopy had any affect on human lifespan may never be known.

Does the Lord change or not?

Malachi 3:6; and Genesis 6:6,7; Exodus 32:14; Jonah 3:10
1. God does not change A. (Malachi 3:6) - "For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." God does change A. (Genesis 6:6,7) - "And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7And the Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." B. (Exodus 32:14) - "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." C. (Jonah 3:10) - "When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it."

2.

When God says that He does not change, He is speaking about His nature and character. But this does not mean that He cannot change how He works with people throughout history. When we see God changing His mind, we are seeing it from a human perspective. Since God knows all things from all eternity, He as always known the ultimate plan that He would carry out; even the plan to "change His mind." As we have seen in Jonah's account of Nineveh. They repented and God relented from the destruction that was to come upon the inhabitants. Of course, God knew this would happen and instituted the warning to them in order to bring about their repentance. There is no mystery here.

470

How many kinds did Noah bring into the ark, two or seven?
Genesis 7:2-3 and Genesis 6:19-20
1. Two (Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive." 2. Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth." Genesis 6:19-20 simply instructs Noah to preserve two of every kind. Genesis 7:2-3 is additional information where seven of the clean animals were to be taken and two of every other kind. The reason for this is that the extra animals were for sacrifice. "Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar," (Gen. 8:20). Logically, to have seven pairs also means that there are two pairs, since the two are included in the seven. If one verse said take only one pair and another verse said seven pairs, that would be a contradiction.

Who purchased Joseph, the Ishmaelites or the Midianites?

Genesis 37:28, 37:36 and 39:1

1. Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28) - "Then some Midianite traders passed by, so they pulled him up and lifted Joseph out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. Thus they brought Joseph into Egypt." 2. Midianites (Genesis 37:36) - "Meanwhile, the Midianites sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, Pharaohs officer, the captain of the bodyguard." 3. Ishamaelites (Genesis 39:1) - "Now Joseph had been taken down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an Egyptian officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the bodyguard, bought him from the Ishmaelites, who had taken him down there." According to Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985, the term "Ishamelite" was synomous with the term "Midianites." They were probably references to the same general group known to have decended from Abraham. Ishmael was born to Abraham through Hagar (Genesis 16), the hand maiden. The Midianites were descendants of Midian, a son of Abraham and his concubine Keturah (Genesis 25:1-2). Additionally, "The term Midianite probably identified a confederation of tribes that roamed far beyond this ancestral homeland, a usage that explains the biblical references to Midianites in Sinai, Canaan, the Jordan Valley, Moab, and Transjordans eastern desert. (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary)

471

God kills a man for spilling his seed on the ground.

Genesis 38:9

(Genesis 38:9) - "And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brothers wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother." Why did God kill Onan for spilling his seed on the ground? The reason God did this is not because Onan wasted his seed on the ground, but because Onan refused to perform his familial duties of producing offspring for his brother's. This was a great offense at the time. Now, we must realize that the culture was very different than ours is today. In that culture, when a man died and left no children, the next of kin was sometimes obligated to "go into" the wife and produce children. These children were then considered to be the descendents of the original late husband and would be raised as such. This way, the offspring would be able to take care of the mother, provide more people for the community, and thereby raise their own children, continuing the name of that family. Onan knew this and refused to take part in furthering the honor and name of the brother's wife and thereby also risking provision for her in the future. To this, God was very displeased and took Onan's life.

Has anyone seen God or not?

Exodus 24:9-11, Exodus 33:11; Exodus 6:2-3, John 1:18
1. Has seen A. (Gen. 17:1) Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty ; Walk before Me, and be blameless; B. (Gen. 18:1) Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. C. (Exodus 6:2-3) God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD; 3and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty , but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them. D. (Exodus 24:9-11) Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. 11Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank. E. (Num. 12:6-8) He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. 7"Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; 8With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses?" F. (Acts 7:2), "And he [Stephen] said, "Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran..." Has not seen A. (Exodus 33:20) But He [God] said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live !" B. (John 1:18) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. C. (John 5:37) "And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. D. (John 6:46) - "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. E. (1 Tim. 6:15-16) He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

2.

It is evident above that God was seen. But, considering the "can't-see-God" verses, some would understandably argue that there would be a contradiction. Once explanation is that the people were

472

seeing visions, or dreams, or the Angel of the LORD (Num. 22:22-26; Judges 13:1-21) and not really God Himself. But the problem is that the verses cited above do not say vision, dream, or Angel of the LORD. They say that people saw God (Exodus 24:9-11), that God was seen, and that He appeared as God Almighty (Exodus 6:2-3). At first, this is difficult to understand. God Almighty was seen (Exodus 6:2-3) which means it was not the Angel of the Lord, for an angel is not God Almighty, and at least Moses saw God, not in a vision or dream, as the LORD Himself attests in Num. 12:6-8. If these verses mean what they say, then we naturally assume we have a contradiction. Actually, the contradiction exists in our understanding, not in the Bible--which is always the case with alleged biblical contradictions. All you need to do is accept what the Bible says. If the people of the OT were seeing God, the Almighty God, and Jesus said that no one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46), then they were seeing God Almighty, but not the Father. It was someone else in the Godhead. I suggest that they were seeing the Word before He became incarnate. In other words, they were seeing Jesus. If God is a Trinity, then John 1:18 is not a problem either because in John chapter one, John writes about the Word (Jesus) and God (the Father). In verse 14 it says the Word became flesh. In verse 18 it says no one has seen God. Since Jesus is the Word, God then, refers to the Father. This is typically how John writes of God: as a reference to the Father. We see this verified in Jesus own words in John 6:46 where He said that no one has ever seen the Father. Therefore, Almighty God was seen, but not the Father. It was Jesus before His incarnation. There is more than one person in the Godhead and the doctrine of the Trinity must be true.

Exodus 20:4-5, Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 5:8; 27:15 and Exodus 25:18; 37:7-8
1. Shall not make graven images A. (Exodus 20:4-5) - "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." B. (Leviticus 26:1) - "You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down to it; for I am the Lord your God." C. (Deuteronomy 5:8) - "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth." D. (Deuteronomy 27:15) - "Cursed is the man who makes an idol or a molten image, an abomination to the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and sets it up in secret. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen." 2. Shall make graven images A. (Exodus 25:18) - "And you shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat." B. (Exodus 37:7-8) - "And he made two cherubim of gold; he made them of hammered work, at the two ends of the mercy seat; 8one cherub at the one end, and one cherub at the other end; he made the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at the two ends." See also, Exodus 26:1,31; 36:8; 1 Kings 6:23-35. The context of the "Thou shall not make a graven image" passages is dealing with worship of false things. Exodus 20:4 states that no one is to make an image of what is in heaven so that you may not worship them or bow down to them (20:5). This is reiterated in Leviticus 26:1. The Deuteronomy passages, contextually, are dealing with the same thing: an admonition against worshipping a false image. God does not want people bowing down before idols and worshiping false gods. The instruction by God to make cherubim, which are angels in heaven, is not for the purpose of worship at all. Instead, it is a representation of the heavenly realm where God dwells and the angels

Should you make graven images or not?

473

are about the throne (1 Samuel 4:4; Hebrews 9:5). The Cherubim were placed on the Ark of the Covenant, in the Holy of Holies in the temple (2 Chron. 3:10). There, they would never become objects of worship because they were not public artifacts to which the general populace would become familiar and thereby risk falling into idol worship.

Exodus 20:8; 23:12; 31:15; Deuteronomy 5:12; Leviticus 26:2

Should we keep the Sabbath or not?

and Romans 14:5; Colossians 2:16

1. Keep the Sabbath A. (Exodus 20:8) - "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, B. (Exodus 23:12) - "Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor in order that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves." C. (Exodus 31:15) - "For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death." D. (Deuteronomy 5:12) - "Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you." E. (Leviticus 26:2) - "You shall keep My sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary; I am the Lord." 2. Don't keep the Sabbath A. (Romans 14:5) - "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind." B. (Colossians 2:16) - "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day." It was the custom of the Jews to come together on the Sabbath, which is Saturday, cease work, and worship God. Of the 10 commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, only nine of them were reinstituted by in the New Testament. (Six in Matthew 19:18, murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, honor parents, and worshiping God; Romans 13:9, coveting. Worshiping God properly covers the first three commandments) The one that was not reaffirmed was the one about the Sabbath. Instead, Jesus said that He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8). In creation God rested on the seventh day. But, since God is all powerful, He doesnt get tired. He doesnt need to take a break and rest. So, why did does it say that He rested? The reason is simple: Mark 2:27 says, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." In other words, God established the Sabbath as a rest for His people, not because He needed a break, but because we are mortal and need a time of rest, of focus on God. In this, our spirits and bodies are both renewed. The O.T. system of Law required keeping the Sabbath as part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied Gods requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to "remain" in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished (Ezekiel 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Deut. 13:1-9; Num. 35:31; Lev. 20:2, etc.). But with Jesus atonement, and justification by faith (Rom. 5:1), we no longer are required to keep the Law and hence the Sabbath which was only a shadow of things to come (Col. 2:16-17). We are not under Law, but grace (Rom. 6:14-15). The Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus because in Him we have rest (Matt. 11:28). We are not under obligation to keep the Law and this goes for the Sabbath as well.

474

Do the sons bear the sins of the fathers or not?

Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9 and Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20
1. Yes they do A. (Exodus 20:5) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," B. (Deuteronomy 5:9) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," C. (Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations." D. (1 Cor. 15:22) - "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." 2. No they don't A. (Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." B. (Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the fathers iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the sons iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." Exodus 20:5 is, of course, among the Ten Commandments. The T en Commandments are arranged in covenant form. The Suzerain-Vassal treaty pattern of the ancient near east is followed in the Ten Commandments. This arrangement included an introduction of who was making the covenant (Exodus 20:2), what the covenant maker had done (20:2), laws (20:3-17), rewards (20:6,12), and punishments (20:5,7). Covenantally, when a father misleads his family, the effects of that misleading are often felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful and God has stipulated that there are punishments to breaking the covenant with God. That is the case with these verses that deal with the sins visited upon the children. If a father rejects the covenant of God and takes his family into sin and rejects God, the children will suffer the consequences, often for several generations. Whether or not this is fair is not the issue. Sin is in the world consequences of sin effected many generations. On the other hand, Deuteronomy 24:16 is dealing with legal matters as the context 24:6-19 shows. Ezekiel 18:20 is merely recounting the Law of the Pentateuch. Therefore, the context of second set of verses is dealing with the legality aspect within the Jewish court system. The previous set of verses deal with God visiting upon the descendents of the rebellious the consequences of the rebellious fathers' sins. Federal Headship

As a further note on this issue, there is a concept in the Bible called Federal Headship. This means that the male, the father, represents the family. We see this in the garden of Adam and Eve. He was the first one to eat of the fruit; she was the first one to sin. However, the Bible states that sin entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5), not Eve. This is because Adam was the Federal Head of all mankind. Furthermore we see in the Hebrews 7:7-10 the following: "But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he

475

lives on. 9And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." In the verses in Hebrews we see that Levi, who was a descendant of Abraham, paid tithes to Melchizedek while still in the loins, "seed," of his father Abraham, even though Levi was not yet alive. In other words, Abraham, the father, represented his descendants. As Abraham paid tithes, so also did Levi. Therefore, we can see the concept of Federal Headship represented in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. We can conclude that God will visit the inequities of the fathers upon the descendents because the fathers have failed to be covenantally faithful. Yet, we see in the other verses a declaration of legality in dealing with people. There is no contradiction.

Did or did not Saul know who David was?

1 Samuel 16:19-23 and 1 Samuel 17:55-58
1. Yes, Saul knew David (1 Samuel 16:19-23) - "So Saul sent messengers to Jesse, and said, "Send me your son David who is with the flock." 20And Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread and a jug of wine and a young goat, and sent them to Saul by David his son. 21Then David came to Saul and attended him, and Saul loved him greatly; and he became his armor bearer. 22 And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, "Let David now stand before me; for he has found favor in my sight." 23So it came about whenever the evil spirit from God came to Saul, David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him," (NASB). 2. Saul asked "Whose son are you?" (1 Samuel 17:55-58) - "Now when Saul saw David going out against the Philistine, he said to Abner the commander of the army, "Abner, whose son is this young man?" And Abner said, "By your life, O king, I do not know." 56And the king said, "You inquire whose son the youth is." 57So when David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul with the Philistines head in his hand. 58And Saul said to him, "Whose son are you, young man?" And David answered, "I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite," (NASB). Several possible explanations exist to explain this problem ranging from textual error to the method of the ancient writers to write about themes and then come back to fill in the gaps later. I think the best explanation can be found by looking at the context. There is no contradiction. Saul was simply asking David whose son he was. He knew David but probably didn't know who was David's father. Since David has just saved Israel, Saul wanted to know who his father was, probably to show the father proper respect for his son David. In 1 Samuel 16, the Spirit of the Lord had left Saul (16:14) and an evil spirit came and afflicted Saul (16:23). David came and then played for Saul to sooth him. Chapter 17 begins the well known story of David and Goliath with no mention of how much time passes between David playing the harp and Goliath's challenge. It may very well have been many months or even years. Nevertheless, David was the youngest of the sons of Jesse (17:14), who was a youth (17:33), and who tended the flocks (17:15). David is then known as a young musician and a sheep herder, not a warrior as were his three oldest brothers (17:13-14). Saul and David have conversations about David doing battle with Goliath and Saul offers David his armor (17:38). David refuses the armor and goes out to kill Goliath. Saul then asks Abner, "Whose son is this young man?" And Abner said, "By your life, O king, I do not know," (17:55). In verse 58 Saul says, "Whose son are you, young man?" And David answered, "I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite."

476

Who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan?

1 Samuel 17:50 and 2 Samuel 21:19

1. David did (1 Samuel 17:50) - "Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in Davids hand." 2. Elhanan did (2 Sam. 21:19)- "And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weavers beam." The answer lies in two areas. 1 Chronicles 20:5 says, "And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weavers beam." This is the correct answer; namely, that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother. Second, it appears there was a copyist error in 2 Samuel 21:19. According to Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties on page 179, it says, 1. The sign of the direct object, which in Chronicles comes just before "Lahmi," was '-t; the copyist mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got Bet hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite") out of it. He misread the word for "brother" ('-h) as the sign of the direct object ('-t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath"). Thus he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" (wayyak), instead of the "brother" of Goliath (as the Chronicles passage does). The copyist misplaced the word for "weavers" ('-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after "Elhanan" as his patronymic (ben Y-'-r-y'-r--g-ym, or ben ya 'arey 'ore -gim -- "the son of the forests of weavers" -- a most unlikely name for anyone's father!). In Chronicles the 'ore grim ("weavers") comes right after menor ("a beam of ") -- thus making perfectly good sense.

2.

3.

Therefore, we see that 2 Samuel 21:19 had a copyist error and 1 Chronicles 21:5 is the correct information.

Who killed Saul, Saul or the Amalekite?

1 Samuel 31:4 and 2 Samuel 1:8-10
1. Saul did (1 Samuel 31:4) - "Then Saul said to his armor bearer, "Draw your sword and pierce me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and pierce me through and make sport of me." But his armor bearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. So Saul took his sword and fell on it." 2. The Amalekite did (2 Samuel 1:8-10) - "And he said to me, Who are you? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. 9"Then he said to me, Please stand beside me and kill me; for agony has seized me because my life still lingers in me. 10"So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown which was on his head and the bracelet which was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord."

1 Samuel 31:4 gives what actually happened while 2 Samuel 1:8-10 only gives what the Amalekite said happened. Most probably, the Amalekite took the opportunity to benefit from the King's death, gathered his crown and bracelet and then brought them to David. Unfortunately for the Amalekite, David said in 2 Samuel 1:13-16, "And David said to the young man who told him, "Where are you from?" And he answered, "I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite." 14Then David said to him, "How is it you were not afraid to stretch out your hand to destroy the Lords anointed?" 15And David called one of

477

the young men and said, "Go, cut him down." So he struck him and he died. 16And David said to him, "Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, I have killed the Lords anointed.'" The Amalekite probably thought he'd benefit from bringing the King's possessions to David, but his plan backfired.

Did Michal have any children or not?

(2 Samuel 6:23 and 2 Samuel 21:8)
1. No children (2 Samuel 6:23) - "And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death." 2. Five sons (2 Sam. 21:8) - "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite" (KJV). (2 Samuel 21:8, NASB) - "So the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, Armoni and Mephibosheth whom she had born to Saul, and the five sons of Merab the daughter of Saul, whom she had born to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite." (2 Samuel 21:8, NIV) - "But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiahs daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Sauls daughter Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite." Saul had two daughters: Merab and Michal. 1 Samuel 14:49, says "Now the sons of Saul were Jonathan, and Ishui, and Melchishua: and the names of his two daughters were these; the name of the firstborn Merab, and the name of the younger Michal." Since 2 Samuel 6:23 states that Michal had no children, we can conclude that this is a copyist error that should have read Merab. "Many scholars substitute Merab for Michal in 2 Sam. 21:8, regarding it as an ancient scribal error, saying that after her death her sons were hanged to atone for Sauls slaughter of the Gibeonites, a breaking of Israels covenant."6 9

How many charioteers were killed, 700 or 7000?

2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18
1. 700 charioteers (2 Samuel 10:18) - "But the Arameans fled before Israel, and David killed 700 charioteers of the Arameans and 40,000 horsemen and struck down Shobach the commander of their army, and he died there." 2. 7,000 charioteers (1 Chronicles 19:18) - "And the Arameans fled before Israel, and David killed of the Arameans 7,000 charioteers and 40,000 foot soldiers, and put to death Shophach the commander of the army." This is most probably a copyist error. Notice how the number is off by a single zero; that is, by a single notation of a digit. According to "Alledged Discrepencies of the Bible," page 382, regarding the characters used to designate numbers, "Nun final , was mistaken for dotted Zayin ," would account for the copyist error in the text. Most probably, the correct number is 7,000 charioteers.

69

The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962.

478

Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? God or Satan?
2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1

1. God did (2 Samuel 24:1) - "Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah." 2. Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1) - "Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel." Is this a contradiction? Not at all. In 2 Samuel 24:1, God incited David to number Israel because God was angry with David. Ultimately, God wanted to teach David not to trust in his number of fighting men, but to trust in Him. So, He moved to let David count the fighting men of Israel. He used Satan to do it which is why in 1 Chronicles 21:1, it says Satan moved David to count the men. Both are true. God most probably either sent Satan or allowed Satan to do incite David. God's authority extends even over Satan. God can use Satan to accomplish His ultimate will. We see this in the crucifixion of Christ where evil men brought Jesus to death. Yet, at the same time, it was the predetermined plan of God that this be done. "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28, NASB). Furthermore, we see in Job that God allowed Satan to test Job and demonstrate Job's character (Job 1:8-13). We see in John 13:25-27 that Satan entered into Judas to betray Jesus, but it was the plan of God that Jesus be betrayed as Acts 4:27-28 above tells us. God allows the evil one to work His evil yet that word is ultimately used for the glory of God. All this is done without God sinning and it demonstrates God's absolute sovereignty over all creation.

How many fighting men were found in Judah and Israel?

2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5

1. Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9) - "And Joab gave the number of the registration of the people to the king; and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men." 2. Four hundred and seventy thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5) - "And Joab gave the number of the census of all the people to David. And all Israel were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword; and Judah was 470,000 men who drew the sword." Israel 800,000 "valiant" men 1,100,000 men Judah 500,000 470,000 men

2 Sam 24:9 1 Chron. 21:5

Regarding Israel's number difference: The solution to the difference in counts for Israel seems to be answered in the Hebrew word for "valiant," which is "chayil" found in 2 Samuel 24:9. It means, "men of valor, army, host, etc." It seems to mean that the men numbered in 2 Samuel 24:9 were those with battle experience where the men of 1 Chronicles 21:5 were not. It was most probably true that there were an additional 300,000

479

men ready for battle who had not yet experienced it. Therefore, 2 Sam. 24:9 numbers only the experienced men, where 1 Chronicles 21:5 numbers all men of battle ready age. Regarding Judah's number difference: The solution seems to provided for us in the following verse six which says, "But he did not number Levi and Benjamin among them, for the kings command was abhorrent to Joab," (NASB). Verse six states that the numbering process had not yet been completed since the tribes of Levi and Benjamin had not been numbered.

God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
2 Samuel 24:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:12
1. Seven years (2 Samuel 24:13) - "So Gad came to David and told him, and said to him, "Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days pestilence in your land? Now consider and see what answer I shall return to Him who sent me," (NASB). 2. Three years (1 Chronicles 21:11-12) - "So Gad came to David and said to him, "Thus says the Lord, Take for yourself 12either three years of famine, or three months to be swept away before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you, or else three days of the sword of the Lord, even pestilence in the land, and the angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the territory of Israel. Now, therefore, consider what answer I shall return to Him who sent me," (NASB). There are two possible explanations for the discrepancy. First, it is possible that the duration of the famine was reduced from seven to three years after David prayed for mercy from the Lord. Thought the text does not specifically state this, we can infer it from the differences between the accounts. In 2 Samuel 24:13, David is asked which of the three options that he could take. In 1 Chronicles 21:11-12, there is no question asked. David is told to ma ke a choice. Therefore, it may be that the Prophet Gad first asked David "Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land?" and later told David to make a choice when he said, "take for yourself either three years of famine..." The second, it is probably a copyist error and the better preserved text renders the famine as three years

How many stalls of horses did Solomon have, 4,000 or 40,000?

1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25
1. 40,000 (1 Kings 4:26) - "And Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen." 2. 4,000 (2 Chron. 9:25) - "Now Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots and 12,000 horsemen, and he stationed them in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem." There are two possible explanations for this discrepancy. 1) a copyist error. 2) the difference is due to time; that is, one account is at the beginning of Solomon's reign (1 Kings 4:26), and the other at the end (2 Chron. 9:25). I believe the most probable is a copyist error since we can see that Chronicles does have copyist errors in other areas. Therefore, it is probable that the same thing occurred here. "In general it can be said that the books of Chronicles furnish approximate numerical estimates in the form of round numbers, frequently designed, as has been remarked, to express the magnitude of the occasion....Some estimates in Chronicles which appear to be particularly inflated can be corrected or scaled down by reference to the books of Samuel and Kings...However, it is not always the case

480

that the figures in Chronicles exceed their counterparts in Samuel and Kings."7 0 The correct answer is probably 4,000 since 40,000 seems extraordinarily large. Furthermore, it seems likely that a single "10's" place was copied incorrectly accounting for the discrepancy.

How many supervisors were there? 3,300 or 3,600?

1 Kings 5:16 and 2 Chronicles 2:2
1. 2. 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16) - "besides Solomons 3,300 chief deputies who were over the project and who ruled over the people who were doing the work." 3,600 (2 Chronicles 2:2) - "So Solomon assigned 70,000 men to carry loads, and 80,000 men to quarry stone in the mountains, and 3,600 to supervise them."

Either this is a copyist error or the people are being counted differently. If the people are being counted differently, it is interesting to note that the total number of supervisors is the same when we add the numbers from 1 Kings 5:16 and 1 Kings 9:23 together and also add 2 Chronicles 2:2 and 2 Chronicles 8:10 together. Verse "besides Solomons 3,300 chief deputies who were over the project and who ruled over the people who were doing the work," (1 Kings 5:16) Verse "These were the chief officers who were over Solomons work, five hundred and fifty, who ruled over the people doing the work," (1 Kings 9:23). 3,850 Total

1 Kings

3,300 + 550 "So Solomon assigned 70,000 men "And these were the chief officers of to carry loads, and 80,000 men to King Solomon, two hundred and fifty quarry stone in the mountains, and who ruled over the people," 3,600 to supervise them," (2 Chronicles 8:10). (2 Chronicles 2:2). 3,600 + 250

2 Chronicles

3,850

However, the interesting problem is that in both places, the numbers are different, yet the totals are the same. A comment worth noting is "In general it can be said that the books of Chronicles furnish approximate numerical estimates in the form of round numbers, frequently designed, as has been remarked, to express the magnitude of the occasion....Some estimates in Chronicles which appear to be particularly inflated can be corrected or scaled down by reference to the books of Samuel and Kings...However, it is not always the case that the figures in Chronicles exceed their counterparts in Samuel and Kings."7 1

70

Harrison, R. K., Introduction to the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company) 1969, page. 1165.
71

Harrison, R. K., Introduction to the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company) 1969, page. 1165.

481

How many baths, 2000 or 3,000?

1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 1. 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26) - "And it was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom; it could hold two thousand baths." 2. 3,000 baths (2 Chronicles 4:5) - "And it was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like a lily blossom; it could hold 3,000 baths." It appears that the difference in numbers is do to a copyist error. The characters used for the numbers 2,000 and 3,000 are similar. = 2,000 and = 3,000. A tired copyist could easily mistake one for another. 7 2

How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2
1. Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26) - "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mothers name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri king of Israel," (NASB). 2. Forty-two (2 Chron. 22:1) - "Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mothers name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri," (NASB). Note: the NASB corrects the copyist error and inserts 22 years. It has, however, a note saying the Hebrew states 42 years. For clarity purposes, I quoted the NASB and kept the original Hebrew number of 42. The correct age of Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem is 22. 2 Kings 8:17 tells us that Ahaziah's father Joram ben Ahab was thirty-two when he became king and he died eight years later, at the age of forty. Therefore, Ahaziah could not have been forty-two at the time of his father's death at age forty." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page. 206-207.) The discrepency in ages is due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference in ages is 20 years. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented decades. would equal the number 14 where would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyrus, then the dates would be off by ten years or a factor of ten. The fact that this is a copyist error does not invalidate the inspiration or authority of Scripture. Remember, God inspired the originals. They were without error. The copies have problems, though very very few. The copies are copies of inspired documents and, unfortunately, some copyist errors did creep into the manuscripts. However, they do not affect any doctrinal areas and are very rare.

72

Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, page 382.

482

How long did Jehoiachin rule over Jerusalem?

2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9

1. Three months (2 Kings 24:8) - "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem; and his mothers name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem," (NASB). 2. Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9) - "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem, and he did evil in the sight of the Lord," (NASB). The discrepancy in duration is due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference time is 10 days. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented decades, or "tens." would equal the number 14 where would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyrus, then the dates would be off by a value of ten. Therefore, most probably, the correct value was three months and ten days since the hook could easily have flaked off in a copy. Does this mean the Bible is not trustworthy? Not at all. Inspiration is ascribed to the original writings and not to the copies. Scribes made errors. However, the errors were very infrequent and from other information in the Bible, we can easily ascertain what the correct age is.

Who was King Abijah's mother?

2 Chronicles 11:20 and 2 Chronicles 13:2
1. Maacah (2 Chronicles 11:20) - "And after her he took Maacah the daughter of Absalom, and she bore him Abijah, Attai, Ziza, and Shelomith." 2. Micaiah (2 Chronicles 13:2) - "He reigned three years in Jerusalem; and his mothers name was Micaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. And there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam." This is a very simple answer. Maacah was simply another spelling for Micaiah. They are one and the same. 7 3

How old was Jehoiachin when he became king? 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8
1. Eight years old 2 Chron. 36:9, "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem, and he did evil in the sight of the Lord." 2. Eighteen years old 2 Kings 24:8 "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem; and his mothers name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem." The correct age of Jehoiachin was 18, not 8. Obviously, Jehoiachin was 18 when he began his rule since it says he did evil in the site of the Lord which suggests maturity and responsibility. The discrepancy in ages is due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference in ages is 10 years. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented values of ten. would equal the number 14 where would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyrus, then the dates would be off by values of 10 years.
73

Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, page 317. and, Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.

483

Does this mean the Bible is not trustworthy? Not at all. Inspiration is ascribed to the original writings and not to the copies. Scribes made errors. However, the errors were very infrequent and from other information in the Bible, we can easily ascertain what the correct age is.

Why are the statistics in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 different?

Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7
Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 are listings of numbered people from different families. The chapters represent the statistics of the same families. But they are not identical. I have produced a grid below that lists the families that do not match. If you would like to see the grid comparing all families in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, go here. Of 39 entries (verses), 17 do not match. They are listed below. Ezra 2 the sons of Arah, 775 the sons of Pahath-moab of the sons of Jeshua and Joab, 2,812 the sons of Zattu, 945 the sons of Bani, 642 the sons of Bebai, 623 the sons of Azgad, 1,222 the sons of Adonikam, 666 the sons of Bigvai, 2,056 the sons of Adin, 454 the sons of Bezai, 323 the men of Bethel and Ai, 223 the sons of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, 725 the sons of Senaah, 3,630. The singers: the sons of Asaph, 128 The sons of the gatekeepers: the sons of Shallum, the sons of Ater, the sons of Talmon, the sons of Akkub, the sons of Hatita, the sons of Shobai, in all 139 and 60 list several names with one total of 652 besides their male and female servants, who numbered 7,337; and they had 200 singing men and women. Nehemiah 7 the sons of Arah, 652 the sons of Pahath-moab of the sons of Jeshua and Joab, 2,818 the sons of Zattu, 845 the sons of Binnui, 648 the sons of Bebai, 628 the sons of Azgad, 2,322 the sons of Adonikam, 667 the sons of Bigvai, 2,067 the sons of Adin, 655 the sons of Bezai, 324 the men of Bethel and Ai, 123 the sons of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, 721 the sons of Senaah, 3,930. The singers: the sons of Asaph, 148 The gatekeepers: the sons of Shallum, the sons of Ater, the sons of Talmon, the sons of Akkub, the sons of Hatita, the sons of Shobai, 138 and 62 list numerous names with one total of 642 besides their male and their female servants, of whom there were 7,337; and they had 245 male and female singers. Difference 123 6 100 6 5 1,100 1 11 201 1 100 4 300 20 1

5 6

10 11

13 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 32 37

10 11 12 13 14 15 17 28 33

35 41

38 44

42

45

59

61

10 45 (singers)

65

67

17 discrepancies It is obvious from the above table, that there were many statistical differences between Ezra and Nehemiah. Though most of them are identical, some do not match. Why? The answer is simple.

484

Ezra was written no later than 450 B.C. 7 4 Nehemiah should be dated during the reign of Artexerxes 1 (464-423 B.C.). 7 5 According to the book, "Talk Thru the Bible," Ezra was written about 538-516 B.C. 7 6 where Nehemiah was written around 444-425 B.C.7 7 Therefore, the dates of writing are different and the statistical differences can easily be accounted for by considering that during the difference of years, people died, families grew, etc. I must note that there is a small percentage of copyist errors in numbers throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. It is certainly possible that some of the numbers differ due to copyist mistakes. Nevertheless, the difference in dates of writing can certainly account for the difference in numbers.

If Job was blameless, why did God allow Satan to afflict him?
Job 1:1 and Job 1:12
1. (Job 1:1) - "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job, and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil." 2. (Job 1:12) - "Then the Lord said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him." When the Bible says that Job was blameless, it does not mean that he was absolutely sinless. It means that he was a God-fearing man who sought to do what was right before the Lord. Job's awareness of his own sins is acknowledged by the fact that he sacrificed animals to the Lord as atonement for his sins in chapter 1. As the story goes, the "sons of God", angels, presented themselves before God. Satan was there and a conversation ensued about Job's goodness. Satan challenges God by stating that Job will denounce God if afflicted. God gives permission to Satan to afflict Job. Of course, Job doesn't denounce God. So, the question is why would God allow Satan to do this? The reason is so that God may be vindicated at His word and so that we might understand that trials and tribulations will come to those who are godly. In the former, we see the righteousness of God. After all, none are righteous before God (Rom. 3:10-12). In the latter we see the perfection of Job's faith (James 1:2-4).

John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:7-8 and Psalm 5:5; 11:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Hosea 9:15
1. God loves A. (John 3:16) - "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." B. (Rom. 5:8) - "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." C. (1 John 4:7-8,16)- "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love...16God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God... " God hates A. (Psalm 5:5) - "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity." B. (Psalm 11:5) - "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates."

Does God hate people or love them?

2.

74

Harrison, R. K., Introduction to the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company) 1969, page 1143. 75 Harrison, R. K. page 1146. 76 Wilkinson, Bruce and Boa, Kenneth, Talk Thru the Bible, (New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers) 1983, page 116 77 Wilkinson, Bruce and Boa, Kenneth, page 123.

485

C.

D.

(Proverbs 6:16-19) - "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wic ked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers." (Hosea 9:15) - "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."

God both loves and hates. His nature is love (1 John 4:8), but He is also righteous (Psalm 7:9) and holy (Isaiah 6:3). The very fact that He does not incinerate all of humanity for its sin against Him is due to his loving kindness. God doesn't owe anyone anything. We are sinners and as such, we have offended Him because we have broken His laws -- and His laws are a reflection of His character. But, God in His great mercy, sent His Son to die for our sins so that we might have eternal life by receiving Christ as Savior (John 1:12; Rom. 10:9-10). Does God hate? Yes. Does God love? Yes. This is not a contradiction. This is simply the truth.

Isaiah 7:14, in Hebrew means maiden, not virgin. Therefore, it is not a prophecy.
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel," (Isaiah 7:14). Isaiah 7:14 says that a virgin will bear a son. The problem is dealing with the Hebrew word for virgin, which is "almah." According to the Strong's Concordance it means, "virgin, young woman 1a) of marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married." Therefore, the word "almah" does not always mean virgin. The word "occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Genesis 24:43 (maiden); Exodus 2:8 (girl); Psalm 68:25 (maidens); Proverbs 30:19 (maiden); Song of Songs 1:3 (maidens); 6:8 (virgins)."7 8 Additionally, there is a Hebrew word for virgin: bethulah. If Isaiah 7:14 was meant to mean virgin instead of young maiden, then why wasn't the word used here? The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. This translation was made around 200 B.C. by 70 Hebrew scholars. In Isaiah 7:14, they translated the word "almah" into the Greek word "parthenos." According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,79 parthenos means "virgin." This word is used in the New Testament of the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:27) and of the ten virgins in the parable (Matt. 25:1, 7, 11). If the Hebrews translated the word into the Greek word for virgin, then they understood what the Hebrew text meant here. Why would the Isaiah choose to use the word almah and not bethulah? It was probably because he wanted to demonstrate that the virgin would also be a young woman. Is it still a prophecy? Of course.

78

Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985. 79 Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.

486

Is the Lord good or bad to people?

Psalm 145:9; Lamentations 3:38 and Isaiah 45:7;Jeremiah 18:11; Ezekiel 20:25,26
1. Good A. (Psalm 145:9) - "The Lord is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works." B. (Lamentations 3:38) - "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth?" Bad A. (Isaiah 45:6-7) - "I am the Lord, and there is no other, 7The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these." B. (Jerermiah 18:11) - So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds. C. (Ezekiel 20:26) - "and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their first-born to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the Lord."

2.

God's nature is good. He is not evil. He cannot sin and He can do no wrong. All that the Lord does is right and just. But, that does not mean that we always understand what God does or why He does it. After all, His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways. So, does God do good or bad to people? First of all, good and bad are relative. He is good to all in that He gives them rain, air, food, and life (Matt. 5:43-48). He is good to all in that He provided His Son as a sacrifice for sin so that we could escape the judgment to come (John 3:16-17). But, when He sends a plague to wipe out a crop (Pharaoh in Egypt), is that good or bad? From our perspective, it would seem bad to allow such a terrible thing to happen, let alone cause it to happen. But since God is not bad, what He does, though tough to understand sometimes, is right. For example, it was right to send the plague upon the Egyptians. They were holding the Jewish people prisoner. Was it loving to the Egyptians? Not really? Was it the right thing to do? Absolutely. God moves through history carrying out various judgments. Doing so does not mean He is not good or loving. Consider a judge who is a very kind and forgiving man. When a criminal is found guilty, he must pass the judgment upon him, even if that punishment is harmful to the criminal. Does it mean that the judge is not loving or any less loving? Not at all. It means that the judge has acted righteously, according to the Law. So too with God. He is right and just. He acts according to Law. The Laws that He has given are a reflection of His holy and righteous character. That is why it is wrong to lie, steal, etc. To sin against God is to incur His wrath since that sin is an affront to His holy character. The very fact that He so often withholds His judgment upon us is a very loving and good thing to do. However, when He does allow judgment to come through, He is just as good and loving. But, He is exercising His righteousness for a purpose. In His sovereign will to carry history to its designed conclusion (Acts 4:28), He delivers righteous judgment to those who oppose Him in sinfulness. This is good and right to do. Does God bring good and bad upon people? Yes He does. The problem is our perspective. To us it sometimes appears as bad. To God it is righteous.

487

Did Coniah have children or not?

Jeremiah 22:28-30 and Matt. 1:12 1. Childess (Jeremiah 22:28-30) - Is this man Coniah a despised, shattered jar? Or is he an undesirable vessel? Why have he and his descendants been hurled out And cast into a land that they had not known? 29O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! 30Thus says the Lord, Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah. 2. Had a son (Matthew 1:12) - "And after the deportation to Babylon, to Jeconiah was born Shealtiel; and to Shealtiel, Zerubbabel." Coniah is a shortened form of the spelling of Jehoachin who is also called "Joiachin, Jeconiah, Jechoniah, and Coniah), one of the last two kings of Judah."8 0 Matthew 1:12 states that Jeconiah bore Shealtiel. If Jeremiah 22:30 is true, then how could a childless man have a child? Quite simply, the context tells us what is meant by Jeremiah's term "childless." He tells us that none of his descendants will proper sitting on the throne of David. In Matthew's genealogy, Joconiah is included. But, Matthew gives the legal line through Solomon down to Joseph. Luke gives the biological lineage from Mary through Nathan, brother of Solomon, upwards. Therefore, no descendent of Coniah (Jeconiah) has ever sat on the thrown of David.

Is the Lord omnipotent or not?

Jeremiah 32:27 and Judges 1:19

1. (Jeremiah 32:27) - ""Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?" 2. (Judges 1:19) - "Now the Lord was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots." 3. (Titus 1:2) - "in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago," In Jeremiah 32:27 God is speaking about His might and sovereignty. God can do anything He wants to do. In Judges 1:19, the Lord was indeed with Judah, but the fact that Judah could not drive out the inhabitants of the Land does not mean that God couldn't do it. God often uses people and takes their failures into account when carrying out His ultimate plan. Titus 1:2 tells us that God cannot lie. Of course, this is not a contradiction since God cannot violate His own nature of purity. So when God says he can do anything, He does not mean that He can do those things that are contrary to what He is.

80

Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.

488

Did God destroy Nineveh or not?

Jonah 3:4 and Jonah 3:10 1. God will destroy Nineveh (Jonah 3:4) - "Then Jonah began to go through the city one days walk; and he cried out and said, "Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown." 2. God won't destroy Nineveh (Jonah 3:10) - "When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the c alamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it." The solution to this apparent contradiction is very simple. When we examine the Bible, we must look at all of what it says on a subject. If we focus on a small area we will not have the full picture and cannot see the answer that is so often before us. God says in Jeremiah 18:8, "if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it." We see that the Lord has said He will not bring judgment if that nation turns from its sin. Nineveh did turn from its sin after Jonah gave them the warning from God. "Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them. 6When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat on the ashes. 7And he issued a proclamation and it said, "In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water. 8"But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. 9"Who knows, God may turn and relent, and withdraw His burning anger so that we shall not perish?" (Jonah 3:5-9). Therefore, we that because Nineveh repented, God turned from the destruction He had earlier declared.

Malachi 3:6; and Genesis 6:6,7; Exodus 32:14; Jonah 3:10

Does the Lord change or not?

1.

2.

God does not change A. (Malachi 3:6) - "For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." God does change A. (Genesis 6:6,7) - "And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7And the Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." B. (Exodus 32:14) - "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." C. (Jonah 3:10) - "When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it."

When God says that He does not change, He is speaking about His nature and character. But this does not mean that He cannot change how He works with people throughout history. When we see God changing His mind, we are seeing it from a human perspective. Since God knows all things from all eternity, He as always known the ultimate plan that He would carry out; even the plan to "change His mind." As we have seen in Jonah's account of Nineveh. They repented and

489

God relented from the destruction that was to come upon the inhabitants. Of course, God knew this would happen and instituted the warning to them in order to bring about their repentance. There is no mystery here.

Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?
Matthew 1:16 - Luke 3:23
Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side). There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary. Adam, the father of Seth, the father of Enosh, the father of Cainan, the father of Mahaleleel, the father of Jared, the father of Enoch, the father of Methuselah, the father of Lamech, the father of Noah, the father of Shem, the father of Arphaxad, the father of Cainan, the father of Shelah, the father of Heber, the father of Peleg, the father of Reu, the father of Serug, the father of Nahor, the father of Terah, the father of Abraham, the father of Isaac, the father of Jacob, the father of Judah, the father of Perez, the father of Hezron, the father of Ram, the father of Admin, the father of Amminadab, the father of Nahshon, the father of Salmon, the father of Boaz, the father of Obed, the father of Jesse -- the father of David Nathan Mattatha Menna Melea Eliakim Jonam Joseph Judah Simeon Levi Matthat Jorim Eliezer Joshua Er Elmadam Cosam Addi Solomon Rehoboam Abijah Asa Jehoshaphat Joram Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amon Josiah Jeconiah Shealtiel Zerubbabel Abihud Eliakim

490

Melchi Neri Shealtiel Zerubbabel Rhesa Joanan Joda Josech Semein Mattathias Maath Naggai Hesli Nahum Amos Mattathias Joseph Jannai Melchi Levi Matthat Eli supposedly of Joseph (Mary) JESUS

Azor Zadok Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph

Joseph Adopted Jesus as his own son giving him all legal rights involving heirship.

491

Where did the devil take Jesus first, the pinnacle or somewhere else?
Matthew 4:5,8 and Luke 4:5,9
1. (Luke 4:5) - "And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time." 2. (Matt. 4:5) - "Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple," 3. (Luke 4:9) - "And he led Him to Jerusalem and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple..." 4. (Matt. 4:8) - "Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory." There is no contradiction or difficulty here. All we need to do is put the verses from each Gospel side by side to see the order of events. When we do that, we see that Jesus was led to high places three times. Take a look at the chart below. We quickly see that Luke 4:5 is the first mention of Jesus being taken anywhere and it simply says, "And he [the devil] led Him [Jesus] up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time." It isn't until later in Luke 4:9 that Jesus is lead to the pinnacle on top of the temple. Therefore, the answer is simple. Jesus was "led up" and was shown the kingdoms of the world. Later He was led to the pinnacle. To see the entire context of each of the verses, in order, and compared to each other, please see the grid below. Event Matthew 4:1-11 Luke 4:1-13 1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness 2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry.

Jesus in 1 Then Jesus was led up by the wilderness Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 40 day fast turn stones to bread "not by bread alone" 2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.

3 And the tempter came and said 3 And the devil said to Him, "If You are the to Him, "If You are the Son of God, Son of God, tell this stone to become bread." command that these stones become bread." 4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'" 4 And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.'"

devil showed Jesus the kingdoms devil to give domain to Jesus false worship true worship

5 And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

6 And the devil said to Him, "I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 "Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours." 8 Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.' "

492

devil took Jesus to pinnacle of temple throw yourself down

5 Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'"

9 And he led Him to Jerusalem and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here; 10 for it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU TO GUARD YOU,' 11 and, 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE."

don't test God

7 Jesus said to him, "On the other 12 And Jesus answered and said to him, "It hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT is said, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.' " TEST.' " 8 Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; 9 and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me." 10 Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.' " 11 Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him. 13 When the devil had finished every temptation, he left Him until an opportune time.

took Jesus to high mountain devil to give domain worship and serve God only

493

Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew?

Matthew 4:18-19 and John 1:42-43
There is no contradiction here at all. The chronology of events becomes evident when viewing the grid below. In John 1:35ff, John the Baptist was with his disciples. He tells them that Jesus is the "Lamb of God" (v. 36) and they stay with Jesus a while (v. 37). In John 1:40-42, Andrew goes and gets Simon-Peter and they follow Jesus. Why? Because Andrew had spent time with Jesus and told Simon that Jesus was the Messiah (v. 41). Later, in Matt. 4:18, Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee and he sees Simon-Peter and Andrew as they were fishing. He had not asked them to follow Him until this point in verse 4:19. They do (4:20). There is no contradiction. Event John Baptist sees Jesus "Lamb of God" John tells his disciples to come see the lamb. Andrew followed Jesus. First, Andrew got Simon/Peter Andrew brings Simon to Jesus Jesus by sea of Galilee, sees Andrew Jesus says to Andrew and Simon, "Follow Me..." 18 Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. 19 And He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." 4:20 Immediately they left their nets and followed Him. Matthew 4:18-20 John 1:35-42 35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and he looked at Jesus as He walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" 39 He said to them, "Come, and you will see." So they came and saw where He was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. 40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 41 He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah " (which translated means Christ ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas " (which is translated Peter ).

494

Who did Jesus tell the Lord's Prayer to?

Matthew 5:1; 6:9-13; 7:28 and Luke 11:1-4
I fail to see even why these verses are sometimes viewed as a problem. Matthew 5 begins the beatitudes and later in them, Jesus teaches the multitude how to pray in Matt. 6:6-13. In another instance (Luke 11:1-4), the disciples ask Him to teach them and He does. There is certainly no time conflict at all. Jesus can teach the same thing more than once. Matthew 5:1-3; 6:9-13 1 When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. 2 He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying, 3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven, etc. --- Matt. 5:1 begins the beatitudes that go through to Matt. 7:29 9 "Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10 'Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. 11 'Give us this day our daily bread. 12 'And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 'And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]' 2 And He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. 3 'Give us each day our daily bread. 4 'And forgive us our sins, For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.' " Luke 11:1-4 1 It happened that while Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, "Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples."

495

Should or should we not let our good works be seen?

Matthew 5:16; I Peter 2:12 and Matthew 6:1-4; Matthew 23:3,5
1. Show good works A. (Matthew 5:16) - "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." B. (1 Peter 2:12) - "Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation." Don't show good works A. (Matthew 6:1-4) - "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. 2So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 3"But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." B. ( Matthew 23:3,5) - "therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them...But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments."

2.

As with any piece of literature, to best understand its statements you must read them in context. The Bible is no different. Matthew 5:16 is in the context of the beatitudes (Matt. 5:1 - 7:29) where Jesus is teaching proper, good, and moral behavior. Disciples of Jesus are to be lights; that is, doers of good. 1 Peter 2:12 is where Peter is admonishing the Christians to live godly and holy lives before the unbelievers. We Christians live in the world among unbelievers and they are going to see how we live. Peter is telling us to act properly with unbelievers so that false accusations will not stand against us because we have lived with integrity among them. By contrast, Jesus in Matthew 6:1-4, which is still in the same beatitudes where He told people to let their light shine before people (5:16) is stating that if the motive of doing something good is to be noticed by people, then don't do that. Don't boast about how "good" you are before people. That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with doing good works that will be seen before people, after all, we live among unbelievers. But, when you do good things, don't do them for the purpose of drawing attention to how "good" you are. Likewise in Matthew 23:3,5 Jesus is addressing the crowds and teaching them about the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees and how they do their deeds in order to be noticed and admired. Jesus condemned this as is right. People are supposed to notice your good works because your good character permeates them, not because of your attempt to have them see how "good" and "great" you are. The former is humility. The latter is prideful and wrong. The context of each verse tells us this.

496

Can we call someone a fool or not?

Matthew 5:22 and Matthew 23:17; Psalm 14:1

1.

2.

Do not call someone a fool A. (Matthew 5:22) - "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." Calling someone a fool A. (Psalm 14:1) - "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good" B. (Matthew 23:17) - "You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?"

When Jesus said in Matthew 5:22 that you should not call anyone a fool, contextually, He was speaking of those who were unrighteously angry. That is why Jesus mentions anger in this verse. There is a righteous anger which is not sinful (Eph. 4:26 - "Be angry and do not sin . . ." ) as well as unrighteous anger that is sinful (James 1:20 - "for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God."). When God is angry with someone, He is always righteous in His anger. Jesus, being God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9;), can righteously be angry with people and pronounce upon them the foolishness of their deeds which He did (Matt. 23:17). Also, undoubtedly, Jesus knew Psalm 14:1 which says, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God . . ." Jesus didn't forget the well known verse and God is not wrong for calling someone a fool, especially when it is true. So, we see that the condemnation by Jesus in regards to calling someone a fool is in the context of doing it out of unrighteous anger which does not fit the later citations of Jesus labeling the hypocritical Pharisees as fools.

Who brought the Centurion's request to Jesus?

Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10
It clearly states that the Centurion came to Jesus in Matt. 8:5. But it also says that the Jewish elders came to Jesus also. The order of events seems to be that the Centurion first sent the Jewish elders (Luke 7:3). Jesus then agreed to go. Then the Centurion came to Jesus (Matt. 8:5). Jesus walked everywhere he went. Centurions commanded hundred- man groups in the Roman legion. "Such men were prestigious members of a relatively small class governing the military."8 1 Therefore, the centurion most probably had a horse upon which to ride to and from Jesus. If this is so, then he probably returned to his home, checked on the servant and then sent friends (Luke 7:6) to speak to Jesus saying that the Centurion was not worthy for Jesus to even enter his home. Jesus continued on. Then, as Jesus neared the home, the Centurion himself approached Jesus (Matt. 8:8) to tell Jesus that he was not worthy for Him to enter his house.

81

Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.

497

Event The slave is sick Jewish elders entreat Jesus

Matthew 8:5-13

Luke 7:2-10 2 And a certain centurions slave, who was highly regarded by him, was sick and about to die. 3 And when he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders asking Him to come and save the life of his slave. 4 And when they had come to Jesus, they earnestly entreated Him, saying, "He is worthy for You to grant this to him; 5 for he loves our nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue."

Centurion approaches Jesus Jesus goes Centurion sent friends to Jesus

5 And when He had entered Capernaum, a cent urion came to Him, entreating Him, 6 and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain." 7 And He *said to him, "I will come and heal him." 6 Now Jesus started on His way with them; and when He was already not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to Him, "Lord, do not trouble Yourself further, for I am not worthy for You to come under my roof; 7 for this reason I did not even consider myself worthy to come to You, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed.

Centurion 8 But the centurion answered and said, says he is not "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come worthy under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. the Centurion 9 "For I, too, am a man under authority, speaks of with soldiers under me; and I say to this authority one, Go! and he goes, and to another, Come! and he comes, and to my slave, Do this! and he does it." Jesus' words and the servant is healed. 10 Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled, and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. 11 And I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; 12 but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13 And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go your way; let it be done to you as you have believed." And the servant was healed that very hour." 8 "For I, too, am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, Go! and he goes; and to another, Come! and he comes; and to my slave, Do this! and he does it." 9 Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that was following Him, "I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith."

10 And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

498

Was the taxman named Matthew or Levi?

Matthew 9:9 and Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27

1. Matthew (Matthew 9:9) - "And as Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man, called Matthew, sitting in the tax office; and He *said to him, "Follow Me!" And he rose, and followed Him." 2. Levi (Mark 2:14) - "And as He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax office, and He *said to him, "Follow Me!" And he rose and followed Him." 3. Levi (Luke 5:27) - "And after that He went out, and noticed a tax-gatherer named Levi, sitting in the tax office, and He said to him, "Follow Me." The answer is very simple. Both are true because Matthew and Levi are the same person. Matthew is the Greek name and Levi was the Hebrew name. As a tax-collector, Matthew worked for the Romans who spoke Greek. He gathered taxes from the Jews who spoke Hebrew. We see, as an example, Peter also being called Simon (Matt. 16:16).

Was Jairus' daughter alive or dead when he came to Jesus?

Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:23
1. Daughter was dead (Matthew 9:18) - "While He was saying these things to them, behold, there came a synagogue official, and bowed down before Him, saying, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live." 2. Daughter at point of death (Mark 5:23) - "And one of the synagogue officials named Jairus *came up, and upon seeing Him, *fell at His feet, 23and *entreated Him earnestly, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death; please come and lay Your hands on her, that she may get well and live." 24And He went off with him; and a great multitude was following Him and pressing in on Him." This is a difficult discrepancy. There are no textual variations in any of the Greek manuscripts so there is no copyist error. The best explanation I can offer is that both statements were uttered by Jairus. Jairus probably said his daughter was dying and then finally admitted that she was dead. He probably had traveled, in desperation, to find Jesus and said that his daughter was ill. Most probably, someone informed in that his daughter had died and then he told Jesus this. The problem with this explanation is that it is not based on anything revealed in the text. Instead, it is conjecture. For now, this is the best explanation I can come up with. Does the lack of an airtight explanation mean that the Bible is to be discarded? Not at all. We do not discard physics because we cannot understand something in it. Nor do we abandon science because of some unexplainable phenomena. As with so many other "discrepancies" in the Bible, given time, archaeological discover of more manuscripts, etc., more and more biblical difficulties clear up.

499

When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah?

Matthew 11:2-3; Luke 7:18-22 John 1:29-34,36
1. In prison (Matthew 11:2) - "Now when John in prison heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples, 3and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" 2. In prison (Luke 7:18-21) - "And the disciples of John reported to him about all these things. 19 And summoning two of his disciples, John sent them to the Lord, saying, "Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?" 20And when the men had come to Him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?" 21At that very time He cured many people of diseases and afflictions and evil spirits; and He granted sight to many who were blind." 3. While baptizing (John 1:29-31) - "The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him, and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30"This is He on behalf of whom I said, After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me. 31"And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water." Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the synoptic gospels. Synoptic means "similar." They are very similar in their approach to writing about Jesus. They are more chronological than John is and contain a majority of common information. The intent of the Gospel of John was not to present a detailed chronological account of Jesus' life. Rather, the intent was to demo nstrate that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31). John is thematic in emphasis and he brings out those issues that demonstrate Christ's divine nature (John 1:1,14;8:24,58; 10:30-33; 20:28). When we read the accounts of the Synoptic Gospels, we see that they mesh very well. John, on the other hand, ignores the details of the chronology and simply presents Jesus as the Christ, picking and choosing the issues in Christ's life in order to demonstrate his goal. For example, John doesn't even mention that John the Baptists was arrested as do the other gospels (Matt. 4:12; Mark 1:14; Luke 3:19-20). Why? It isn't the intent of John to present the chronological events about John the Baptist. It is meant to convince people that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31). Therefore, what we see in John is a synopsis of the prophetic revelation of God regarding Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. John, therefore, summarizes Jesus' baptism account in order to portray Him as the Christ. Strictly speaking, if we were to force a chronological harmony of Matthew, Luke, and John, we would see something like the chart below. Matthew Luke John 1 "The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him, and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 "This is He on behalf of whom I said, After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me. 31 "And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water." 32And John bore witness saying, "I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He rema ined upon Him. 33 "And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. 34 "And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

Event

Jesus comes Matt. 3:13, Then to John. Jesus *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to John says Jesus is the be baptized by him. Lamb of God.

500

Jesus is baptized

3:16 And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, 4:12 Now when He heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee; 11:2 "Now when John in prison heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples, 3:20 he added this also to them all, that he [Herod] locked John up in prison. 7:18 "And the disciples of John reported to him about all these things. 7:19 And summoning two of his disciples, John sent them to the Lord, saying, "Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?" 20 And when the men had come to Him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?"

John is arrested

John in prison heard of Christ's works

"Are you the 11:3 and said to One? Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?"

501

Was John the Baptist really Elijah?

Matthew 11:13-14 and John 1:19-21
1. Yes, he was Elijah (Matthew 11:13-14) - "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14"And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to come." 2. No, he was not Elijah (John 1:19-21) - "And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 20And he confessed, and did not deny, and he confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he *said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." The teaching of reincarnation is against the Lld Testament. Therefore, Jesus was not teaching that John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnated. So, what did Jesus mean when He said that John the Baptist was Elijah? We see in Malachi 4:5 this prophecy, "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord." Jesus is referring to the prophecy concerning Elijah. We see that the coming of Elijah was in the spirit of Elijah, which is so stated in Luke 1:13-17. The context is when Zecharias, John's father-to-be, was performing his priestly duties in the temple (Luke 1:8ff). An angel of the Lord appeared to Zacharias and said, "Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John. 14"And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mothers womb. 16"And he will turn back many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God. 17"And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord," (Luke 1:13-17). So, we see that John the Baptist was in the spirit of Elijah, but not actually Elijah reincarnated. There is, however, a little more information that might prove interesting. Elijah wore, most probably, a came l's hair girdle. "And they answered him, "He was a hairy man with a leather girdle bound about his loins." And he said, "It is Elijah the Tishbite," (2 Kings 1:8). According to the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, in reference to 2 Kings 1:8, Elijah . . . "he wore a rough garment, either made of camels hair, as that of John Baptist, or of a skin, dressed with the hair on. Sir J. Chardin informs us, in a MS. note on this place, cited by Mr. Harmer, that the eastern dervishes and fakeers are clothed just as Elijah was, with a hairy garment, girded with a leathern girdle." Concerning John the Baptist, it says in Matthew 3:4, "Now John himself had a garment of camels hair, and a leather belt about his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey." It may be that Zecharias, who had access to the temple and things in the temple, may have acquired Elijah's camel hair garment and given it to John the Baptist to wear. This is speculation, but it is an interesting possibility.

502

How long was Jesus in the tomb?

Matthew 12:40 and Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1
1. 2. Three days and three nights A. (Matthew 12:40) - "for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Less than three days and three nights A. (Matt. 28:1) - "Now after the Sabbath [SABBATHS -PLURAL], as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave." B. (Mark 16:2) - "And very early on the first day of the week, they *came to the tomb when the sun had risen." C. (Luke 24:1) - "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared." D. (John 20:1) - "Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb."

The Jewish day was measured from sun down to sun down. If Jesus was in the grave for three 24 hour periods, then He could not have been raised on the third day because the third day had not yet been completed. He would have to be raised on fourth day for three 24 hour periods to have been completed and that wouldn't make sense to then say He was raised on the third day. So, what is going on? DAY 1 THU starts at sundown on Wed. Night THU FRI ends at starts at sundown sundown on Thu.. Day Night DAY2 DAY 3 SUN ends at sundown Day

FRI SAT ends at starts at sundown sundown on Fri. Day Night

SAT SUN ends at starts at sundown sundown on Sat. Day Night

Crucifixion

Sabbath

He rose

The solution is simple when we learn that according to Jewish custom any part of a day, however small, is included as part of a full day. 8 2 "Since the Jews reckoned part of a day as a full day, the three days and three nights could permit a Friday crucifixion."8 3 This phenomena is exemplified in scripture in the book of Esther. "Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way," (Esther 4:16 ). Then, in Esther 5:1 it says, "Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the kings palace in front of the kings rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace." We can see that even though the three days and nights had not been completed, Esther went in to see the King on the third day even though she said to fast for three days and nights. We see that "on the third day" is equivalent to "after three days." Additionally, Mark 8:31 says, "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again." Yet, 1 Cor. 15:4 says, "and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." Also, Luke 24:5-7, "and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1998.
82

83

And also, Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985,

503

the dead? 6"He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." Here we can see that "after three days" is equivalent to mean "on the third day." Therefore, we can see that because of the Jewish usage of counting any part of a day as the whole of the day, the term "three days and nights" is idiomatic and not literal. Another possible solution In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the Lords Passover. 6 Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. 7On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any laborious work," (Lev. 23:5-7). The verses above tell us that the Passover occurred on the 14th day of the first month of the Jewish Calendar year; this corresponds to our months of March-April. It is possible, then, that this Passover could have occurred during the week with the Saturday Sabbath following. Since Lev. 23:5-7 tells the people to rest on the first day (not the last day Saturday), this is a type of Sabbath occurrence. Therefore, perhaps the following chart could represent a Thursday crucifixion and a subsequent set of three "night and days" before the Sunday resurrection. Day 1 13th of Nisan THU starts at sundown on Wed. Night THU ends at sundown Day Day 2 14th of Nisan Day 3 16th of Nisan

15th of Nisan

FRI FRI SAT SAT SUN SUN starts at ends at starts at ends at starts at ends at sundown sundown sundown sundown sundown sundown on Thu.. on Fri. on Sat. Night Day Night Day Night Day Sabbath He rose

Passover/Crucifixion

Something worth mentioning concerning this is that in the Greek in Matthew. 28:1, it says "Now after the Sabbaths [PLURAL], as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave." It is possible that there may have been two "sabbaths" during that week. The first may have been the Passover related "Sabbath" and the second may have been the Saturday Sabbath. If we look at Lev. 23:5-7 quoted above it says "On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any laborious work." Another clue that this may be the case is found in a comparison of two more verses that I have arrange in a before-and-after-the-Sabbath pattern. "And they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment," (Luke 23:56 ). "And when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him," (Mark 16:1).

SABBATH

I would need to do more research on this, but it is possible that this arrangement can also be an answer to the three nights and three days scenario.

504

After how many days did Jesus take the three men up the mountain?
Matthew 17:1; Mark 9:2 and Luke 9:28
1. Six Days later A. (Matthew 17:1) - "And six days later Jesus *took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and *brought them up to a high mountain by themselves." B. (Mark 9:2) - "And six days later, Jesus *took with Him Peter and James and John, and *brought them up to a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them;" 2. Eight Days later A. (Luke 9:28-29) - "And some eight days after these sayings, it came about that He took along Peter and John and James, and went up to the mountain to pray. 29And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming." In the Greek in both Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2, it says, "And after six days..." The word "after" in Greek is "meta." According to the Enhanced Strongs Lexicon "meta" means, "with, after, or behind." In Luke 9:28, it says something different. It says "And some eight days after these sayings . . ." (NASB). The Greek word "some" is "hosei" which means "about" or "nearly." Other translations render it the same way. "About eight days after Jesus said this . . ." (Luke 9:28, NIV). ". . .about an eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, KJV). ". . .about eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, NKJV). "Now about eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, RSV). ". . . about eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, 1901 AS)

Luke 9:28 is an approximation evidenced by it saying "about eight days after . . ." Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 are more precise. They say "after six days." Logically, eight days is after six days, so there is no logical contradiction. But, the key lies in Luke saying "about eight days later." Luke was giving an approximation. Matthew and Mark were more precise.

Who made the request to sit beside Jesus in His kingdom?

Matthew 20:20-21 and Mark 10:35-37

1. (Matthew 20:20-21) - "Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Him with her sons, bowing down, and making a request of Him. 21And He said to her, "What do you wish?" She *said to Him, "Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left." 2. (Mark 10:35-37) - "And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. 36And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? 37They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory." Both are correct. Most probably, the mother first approached Jesus and asked Him about her sons. Later, they approached Jesus with the same question. Neither statement excludes the possibility of the other.

505

Did Jesus cleanse the Temple on the first or second day?

Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:11-12,15-16; Luke 19:45

1. (Matthew 21:12) - "And Jesus entered the temple and cast out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves." 2. (Mark 11:11-12,15-16) - "And He entered Jerusalem and came into the temple; and after looking all around, He departed for Bethany with the twelve, since it was already late. 12And on the next day, when they had departed from Bethany, He became hungry. 15And they *came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to cast out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves; 16and He would not permit anyone to carry goods through the temple." 3. (Luke 19:45 ) - " And He entered the temple and began to cast out those who were selling." There are two possible explanations. The first is that Matthew and Mark purposely arranged their material in different patterns. Matthew is more topical in his presentation of the material than is Mark. Therefore, it may be that Matthew condensed the information into a thematic arrangement. The other explanation is that Jesus cleansed the temple twice. This is possible, but is disputed. For more information on this, go to the Chronology of the Temple Cleansing and see a possible arrangement of the gospels.

Did the cock crow once or twice before Peter's third denial?
Matthew 26:34-35,74-75; Luke 22:34,60-62; John 13:38 and Mark 14:30

1.

2.

Denies before cock crows A. (Mathew 26:34,74-75) - "Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a cock crows, you shall deny Me three times . . . 74Then he began to curse and swear, "I do not know the man!" And immediately a cock crowed. 75And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, "Before a cock crows, you will deny Me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly." B. (Luke 22:34,60-62) - "And He said, "I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow today until you have denie d three times that you know Me . . . .60But Peter said, "Man, I do not know what you are talking about." And immediately, while he was still speaking, a cock crowed. 61 And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, "Before a cock crows today, you will deny Me three times." 62And he went out and wept bitterly." C. (John 13:38) - "Jesus *answered, "Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a cock shall not crow, until you deny Me three times." before cock crows twice A. (Mark 14:30) - "And Jesus *said to him, "Truly I say to you, that you yourself this very night, before a cock crows twice, shall three times deny Me..."

If a cock crows a second time, then it has crowed once before. The problem is that in Mark, after Peter denies the Lord for the third time (Mark 14:71), immediately a cock crows a second time (v. 72). The other gospels tell us that after Peter's third denial a cock then crows. How do we reconcile this difficulty?

506

Mark does not mention when the cock crowed the first time. Therefore, it is possible that after Peter's third denial, the cock then crowed twice; that is, two times in a row. This is logically possible. Peter's Denial of Christ
Event Jesus predicts Peter's denial Mathew 26:34-35, 69-75 34 Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a cock crows, you shall deny Me three times." 35 Peter *said to Him, "Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You." All the disciples said the same thing too. 69 Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a certain servant-girl came to him and said, "You too were with Jesus the Galilean." Mark 14:30, 66-72 30 And Jesus *said to him, "Truly I say to you, that you yourself this very night, before a cock crows twice, shall three times deny Me." Luke 22:34, 55-62 34 And He said, "I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me." John 13:38 & 18:25-27 38 Jesus *answered, "Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a cock shall not crow, until you deny Me three times.

first inquiry

66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest *came, 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and *said, "You, too, were with Jesus the Nazarene."

55 And after they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter was sitting among them. 56 And a certain servant-girl, seeing him as he sat in the firelight, and looking intently at him, said, "This man was with Him too."

18:25a Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him, "You are not also one of His disciples, are you?"

1st 70 But he denied it before denial them all, saying, "I do not know what you are talking about." second inquiry

68 But he denied it, saying, "I 57 But he denied it, saying, neither know nor understand "Woman, I do not know Him." what you are talking about." And he went out onto the porch. 58a And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"

25b He denied it, and said, "I am not."

71 And when he had gone out 69 And the maid saw him, to the gateway, another and began once more to say servant-girl saw him and to the bystanders, "This is *said to those who were one of them!" there, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth."

26 One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, *said, "Did I not see you in the garden with Him?"

2nd 72 And again he denied it denial with an oath, "I do not know the man." third inquiry 73 And a little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Surely you too are one of them; for the way you talk gives you away."

70a But again he was denying 58b But Peter said, "Man, I am it. not!" 70b And after a little while the 59 And after about an hour had bystanders were again saying passed, another man began to to Peter, "Surely you are one insist, saying, "Certainly this of them, for you are a man also was with Him, for he is Galilean too." a Galilean too."

3rd 74 Then he began to curse 71 But he began to curse and 60a But Peter said, "Man, I do denial and swear, "I do not know the swear, "I do not know this not know what you are talking man!" man you are talking about!" about." cock crowed Peter weeps 74 And immediately a cock crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, "Before a cock crows, you will deny Me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly. 72a And immediately a cock crowed a second time. 72b And Peter remembered how Jesus had made the remark to him, "Before a cock crows twice, you will deny Me three times." And he began to weep. 60b And immediately, while he was still speaking, a cock crowed. 61 And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, "Before a cock crows today, you will deny Me three times." 62 And he went out and wept bitterly. Luke 12 John 13 & 18 27 Peter there fore denied it again; and immediately a cock crowed.

Event

Matthew 26

Mark 14

507

How did Judas die, by hanging or falling down?

Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:16-19
1. By hanging (Matthew 27:3-8) - "Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" 5And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6And the chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." 7And they counseled together and with the money bought the Potters Field as a burial place for strangers. 8 For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day." 2. by falling (Acts 1:16-19) - "Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17"For he was counted among us, and received his portion in this ministry." 18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)" There is no contradiction here at all. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another yet both are supposed to be true. In fact, what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then fell down. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.

Was the vinegar given to Jesus on the cross mingled with gall or myrrh?
Matthew 27:34 and Mark 15:23
1. Gall (Matthew 27:34) - "they gave Him wine to drink mingled with gall; and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink." 2. Myrhh (Mark 15:23) - "And they tried to give Him wine mixed with myrrh; but He did not take it." Gall is bile secreted by the liver. Biblically, it is used to denote bitterness of spirit (Acts 8:23; Lam. 3:19). Myrrh is an aromatic gum that grows in Arabia, Abyssinia, and India. It was used to sweeten the smell and taste of various foods. It was also used in embalming (John 19:39). According to "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" by Haley, page 28, there were two times that Jesus was offered the vinegar. "The first time, the wine drugged with bitter narcotics, the effect of which would be to stupefy him, he did not receive. Afterward, some drink free from drugs was given him, which he accepted." In other words, they were of two different times and different things were offered. Though it is a hopeful explanation, it does not fit the text. Please take a look at the table where I have put the verses in order from Matthew and Mark and included the two times Jesus was offered drink.

508

Matthew At the beginning of the crucifixion . . .

Mark

27:34 - "they gave Him wine to drink mingled 15:23 "And they tried to give Him wine mixed with gall; and after tasting it, He was with myrrh; but He did not take it." unwilling to drink." (Greek "wine" is "oinos" which means (Greek "wine" is "ozos" which is a mixture of simply, wine.) sour wine or vinegar and water.) . . . several hours pass . . . 27:48, "And immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink." (Greek "sour wine" is "ozos", or vinegar as above). 15:36 "And someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink." (Greek "sour wine" is "ozos", or vinegar).

Possible solutions Most probably, both gall and myrrh were added to the vinegar. The text does not explicitly state this, nor does it exclude the possibility. Nevertheless, "The ancients used to infuse myrrh into wine to give it a more agreeable fragrance and flavour."8 4 This means that it is quite possible that the vinegar already had myrrh in it, as would be expected among Roman soldiers, and gall was later added. Each writer focused on a different aspect. Furthermore, these verses do not necessitate a contradiction if we understand a contradiction to be the condition when the statement of one verse negates the possibility of the other being true. Technically, the inclusion of both gall and vinegar is very possible. A second explanation could be that that Matt. 27:34 and Mark 15:23 are describing different events. Textual evidence supporting this would be that different Greek words are used: "ozos" in Matthew for "wine" while Mark has the Greek "oinos" as wine. That, combined with different Greek words "chole" for "gall" in Matthew and "smurna" for "myrrh" in Mark, may be a clue that these are different events. However, this explanation, though possible, is not very likely since the context of the verses strongly suggest that each is a description of the same event. Third, there may be an unknown copyist error. I say unknown because I could find no record of any textual variation in Matthew and Mark regarding these verses in question. This does not mean that we might not find one in the future which could shed more light on the issue. However, the weakness with this explanation is that it is an argument of silence and is not favored. I conclude that the most likely explanation is the first one, that both myrrh and gall were present in the vinegar.

What did Jesus do after encountering John the Baptist?

Mark 1:7-13; John 1:27-40

After His baptism, Jesus spent some time with the disciples and then went into went into the desert. John the Apostle's account of the baptism of Jesus is not a focus on chronological events. Instead, it is focusing on the ministerial aspect of Christ's mission. John focuses on the issue of baptism and the commission of Christ and the blessing of the Father. Mark simply states that Jesus went into the wilderness after His baptism. Each account is about the same thing, but each addresses the issue in a very different manner and extracts different information from the events. Mark is
84

Enhanced Strongs Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

509

succinct and mentions events several more events than John. There is no contradiction because there is no conflict in what is said. For more information see the Chronology of Jesus' Baptism and Temptation.

Mark 1:7-13 7 And he was preaching, and saying, After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals. 8 I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.

John 1:27-40 27It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie. 28 These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

29 The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him, and *said, Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He on behalf of whom I said, After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me. 31 And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water. 9 And it came about in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 32 And John bore witness saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. 33 And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. 34 And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. 35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and he looked upon Jesus as He walked, and *said, Behold, the Lamb of God! 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

10 And immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; 11 and a voice came out of the heavens: Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well-pleased. 12 And immediately the Spirit *impelled Him to go out into the wilderness. 13 And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him. 38 And Jesus turned, and beheld them following, and *said to them, What do you seek? And they said to Him, Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying? 39 He *said to them, Come, and you will see. They came therefore and saw where He was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. 40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peters brother.

510

Can you be forgiven of all sins or not?

Matthew 12:31; Mark 3:29 and Acts 13:39; Titus 2:13-14; 1 John 1:9
1. All sins not forgiven A. (Matthew 12:31) - "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven." B. (Mark 3:29) - "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin. 32And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come." All sins forgiven A. (Acts 13:39) - "and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses." B. (Titus 2:13-14) - "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; 14who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." C. (1 John 1:9) - "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

2.

When interpreting the Bible context is everything. Anyone can take a verse out of context in one place and compare it to another verse out of context in another place. Such is often the case when critics quote these types scriptures listed above as criticism of the Bible. The answer is simple. We are to take all of God's word into account, in context, when developing a teaching. Therefore, the Bible teaches us that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. All other sins are forgivable. However, this does not mean that all sins will be forgiven. It means that all these other sins can be forgiven. We are forgiven only when we trust in Christ and Him alone for the forgiveness of our sins. Those who have committed blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will never seek Christ because the Holy Spirit will not work on them. For more information, please see the paper on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Did Jesus tell His disciples to take a staff or not?

Mark 6:8 and Matthew 10:9-10; Luke 9:3
1. Can take a staff A. (Mark 6:8) - "and He instructed them that they should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belt." Cannot take a staff A. (Matthew 10:9-10) - "Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, 10or a bag for your journey, or even two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support." B. (Luke 9:3) - "And He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece."

2.

There are no textual variants in these verses in the Greek manuscripts that would bear upon this issue regarding the staff. The word for "take" in both Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3 is "airo." In Matthew 10:9, the word for "acquire" is "ktaomai." Each account is preceded by the raising of the dead girl so the context of each is the same. It is possible that there is a textual variation not yet known. But, this is not an acceptable explanation I would take since it is based a lack of proof. How then can this difficulty be reconciled?

511

The best explanation I can offer is that Matthew clarifies the issue by telling the disciples to not acquire anything more than what they already had. It is possible that the "take" of Mark and Luke can be interpreted to mean acquire, but I think this is a weak explanation. Nevertheless, each verse is saying that the disciples are to go as they are, to not take provisions. Just trust the Lord. I must note that I am not completely satisfied with this explanation and I wait further clarification should it arise.

How many blind men did Jesus encounter when leaving Jericho?
Matthew 20:29-30; Mark 10:46-47; Luke 18:35
1. Two blind men (Matthew 20:29-30) - "And as they were going out from Jericho, a great multitude followed Him. 30And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!" 2. One blind man (Mark 10:46-47) - "And they *came to Jericho. And as He was going out from Jericho with His disciples and a great multitude, a blind beggar named Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the road. 47And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" 3. One blind man (Luke 18:35,38) - "And it came about that as He was approaching Jericho, a certain blind man was sitting by the road, begging...38And he called out, saying, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" There is no contradiction. Matthew 20:29-30 makes it clear that as Jesus was leaving Jericho that there were two blind men sitting by the road. If there are two blind men, then there is certainly at least one there as well. The one focused on was Bartimeaus. Both called out for healing (Matthew 20:29-30). But, Mark and Luke focus on Bartimeaus' account maybe because he was the loudest and most determined, a point worth focusing on for spiritual reasons because God wants us to be persistent in laying our needs before Him.

Were one or two animals brought to Jesus?

Matthew 21:2-7 and Mark 11:2-7; Luke 19:30
1. Donkey and colt (Matthew 21:2-7) - "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them, and bring them to Me. 3And if anyone says something to you, you shall say, The Lord has need of them, and immediately he will send them. 4Now this took place that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 5Say to the daughter of Zion, Behold your King is coming to you, gentle, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden. 6And the disciples went and did just as Jesus had directed them, 7and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid on them their garments, on which He sat." 2. A colt (Mark 11:2-7) - "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here. 3"And if anyone says to you, Why are you doing this? you say, The Lord has need of it; and immediately he will send it back here." 4And they went away and found a colt tied at the door outside in the street; and they *untied it. 5And some of the bystanders were saying to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" 6And they spoke to them just as Jesus had told them, and they gave them permission. 7And they *brought the colt to Jesus and put their garments on it; and He sat upon it." 3. A colt (Luke 19:30) - "Go into the village opposite you, in which as you enter you will find a colt tied, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it, and bring it here."

512

There is no contradiction. Matthew 21:2-7 tells us that there was both a donkey and a colt. Mark and Luke focus on the colt only and mention that no one had ever sat upon it. Mark and Luke are focusing on this detail while Matthew focuses on the prophetic fulfillment (Matthew 21:4-5). Logically, if there are two animals, then there is also, at least, one animal. To say there was one does not mean there weren't two. Zechariah 9:9 is the scripture that Matthew refers to. It says, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; he is just and endowed with salvation, humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey." We can see that Matthew is simply including both animals as was prophesied in Zechariah.

Did the tree that Jesus cursed wither immediately or overnight?

Matthew 21:19 and Mark 11:14,20
1. Immediately (Matthew 21:19) - "Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, "No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you." And at once the fig tree withered. 2. Overnight (Mark 11:14,20) - "He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again!" And His disciples were listening. . .20As they were passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots up." This "contradiction" is one of the more problematic. If you look at the chart below you will see that that the areas in blue are difficult to reconcile if we look at them in a strictly chronological manner. One answer I have discovered says that Matthew writes thematically, often grouping topics together without a detailed focus on chronology, where Mark does not. In other words, Matthew simply compressed the event to a single instance in order to make the point about the necessity of bearing fruit. Therefore, Matthew's account is not meant to be chronological, but thematic and that it is Mark's account that presents the chronological order. This is certainly a possible solution. However, the weakness of this answer is in Matthew's use of the phrase "at once the fig tree withered" in 21:19. If Matthew's account is not intended to be chronologically precise, that is one thing that I can accept since it does indeed occur in Matthew. But, the phrase which tells us the fig tree withered "at once" is stating it was immediate. This doesn't leave much room for the fig tree to wither overnight. But, if Matthew were compressing the incident, then the immediacy would be evident. Another possibility is that there are two different fig trees that were cursed. I don't think this is a viable option if you look at the chart below. But it is a possibility. Jesus was obviously using the Fig Tree as a symbol as He taught. His condemnation of the fig tree for not bearing fruit is actually a condemnation upon the Jewish leadership and their spiritual deadness. Note the context of Christ cleansing the temple (Mark 11:15-17) and His quote from Isaiah 56:7 and Jer. 7:11. The fig tree was used elsewhere in scripture symbolically for leaders (Judges 9:10-11), fortifications (Nahum 3:12), in parables (Matt. 24:32ff), etc. If Jesus were using the Fig Tree as a symbol, then either Matthew or Mark could easily take liberties in focusing on the issue of the meaning of the story rather than recounting a chronological event. Nevertheless, the account does pose a challenge to the doctrine of inerrancy. But, does this mean that the Bible is not trustworthy or not inspired? Not at all. We do not give up on physics or mathematics or astronomy if we find things we cannot easily explain. The Bible is a wondrous and beautiful book and it will always stand the test of time. As archaeology continues and older and better manuscripts are found, then, as has happened in the past, more and more biblical discrepancies will be answered.

513

Matthew

Mark 11:12 On the next day, when they had left Bethany, He became hungry.

Curse of the fig tree

"May no one ever eat fruit from you again!" at the temple and over turns tables 21:12 And Jesus entered the temp le and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. 21:13 And He said to them, "It is written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER '; but you are making it a ROBBERS' DEN."

11:13 Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 11:14 He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again!" And His disciples were listening. 11:15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves; 11:16 and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple. 11:17 And He began to teach and say to them, "Is it not written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE NATIONS'? But you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN." 11:18 The chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking how to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching.

they wanted to kill Him.

21:14 And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. 21:15 But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David ," they became indignant 21:16 and said to Him, "Do You hear what these children are saying ?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes ; have you never read, 'OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF'?"

out of the city Next Day in the morning

21:17 And He left them and went out of 11:19 When evening came, they would the city to Bethany, and spent the night go out of the city. there. (Matthew) 21:18 Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry. (Mark) 11:20 As they were passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots up.

No longer shall 21:19 Seeing a lone fig tree by the there ever be any road, He came to it and found nothing fruit from you." on it except leaves only; and He said to it, "No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you." And at once the fig tree withered. 21:20 Seeing this, the disciples were

514

amazed and asked, "How did the fig tree wither all at once?

the tree withered

11:21 Being reminded, Peter said to Him, "Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered." 21:21 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. 11:22 And Jesus answered saying to them, "Have faith in God. 11:23 "Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him.

faith, mountain be moved

all things you ask 21:22 "And all things you ask in prayer, 11:24 "Therefore I say to you, all things believing.... believing, you will receive." for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

Who arrested Jesus?

Matthew 26:47; Mark 14:43; Luke 22:47; John 18:12
1. A multitude A. (Matt. 26:47,50) - "And while He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came up, accompanied by a great multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and elders of the people . . And Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him." B. (Mark 14:43) - "And immediately while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, came up, accompanied by a multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders." C. (Luke 22:47) - "While He was still speaking, behold, a multitude came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him." Roman cohort, commander, and Jewish officers. A. (John 18:12) - "So the Roman cohort and the commander, and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him,"

2.

This is obviously no biblical contradiction. Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us that a multitude approached Jesus in the garden and they seized Him. John tells us that the arresting party was "the Roman cohort and the commander, and the officers of the Jews..." Obviously, the multitude included those who were actually doing the arresting.

515

Did Jesus or Simon of Cyrene carry the cross?

Matthew 27:31-32; Mark 15:20-21; Luke 23:26 and John19:17
1. Simon of Cyrene A. (Matthew 27:31-32) - "And after they had mocked Him, they took His robe off and put His garments on Him, and led Him away to crucify Him. 32And as they were coming out, they found a man of Cyrene named Simon, whom they pressed into service to bear His cross." B. (Mark 15:20-21) - "And after they had mocked Him, they took the purple off Him, and put His garments on Him. And they *led Him out to crucify Him. 21And they pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross." C. (Luke 23:26) - "And when they led Him away, they laid hold of one Simon of Cyrene, coming in from the country, and placed on him the cross to carry behind Jesus." Jesus A. (John 19:17) - "They took Jesus therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha."

2.

The answer to this discrepancy is very simple when we look at the context. Jesus had undergone a very physically traumatic few hours. Please consider the following verses placed in order of His ordeal and pay attention to the physical trauma he received before He ever arrived at the cross. Sweat like blood "And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground," (Luke 22:44). He was struck "And when He had said this, one of the officers standing by gave Jesus a blow, saying, "Is that the way You answer the high priest?" 23Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?" (John 18:22-23). He was beaten with fists "And some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say to Him, "Prophesy!" And the officers received Him with slaps in the face," (Mark 14:65). He was scourged "Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he delivered Him to be crucified," (Matt. 27:26). Crown of thorns on head and beaten "And after weaving a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they kneeled down before Him and mocked Him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews! 30"And they spat on Him, and took the reed and began to beat Him on the head. 31And after they had mocked Him, they took His robe off and put His garments on Him, and led Him away to crucify Him," (Matt. 27:29-31).

The accused would carry the cross beam to the place of crucifixion. Jesus simply couldn't carry it very far after all the physical trauma He had just gone through. He collapsed. That is when the Romans drafted Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross the rest of the way.

516

At what hour was Jesus crucified?

Mark 15:25 and John 19:14-16
1. The third hour (Mark 15:25) - "And it was the third hour when they crucified Him." 2. The sixth hour (John 19:14-15) - "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!" 15They therefore cried out, "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!" Pilate *said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." Most probably, John was using the Roman measurement of time when dealing with the crucifixion. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for the most part, used the Hebrew system of measuring a day: from sundown to sunup. The Roman system was from midnight to midnight. "John wrote his gospel in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia, and therefore in regard to the civil day he would be likely to employ the Roman reckoning. (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason Archer, page 364.)

What was written on the sign on the cross?

Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19
1. (Matthew 27:37) - "And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS." 2. (Mark 15:26) - "And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS." 3. (Luke 23:38) - "And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS." 4. (John 19:19) - "And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin." The Inscription above the cross of Christ was written in four different languages: Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic , and Latin. We see this when we look at Luke 23:38 and John 19:20. Luke 23:38 clearly states it was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. In John the word for "Hebrew" is hebraisti. "John 19:20 uses for this the adverbial form Hebraisti, which in gospel usage did not mean "in Hebrew" but in the Jewish dialect of Aramaic. We know this because wherever Hebraisti is used elsewhere, as in John 5:2; 19:13,17; 20:16, the word is given in its Aramaic form, transcribed into Greek letters," 8 5

85

Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page 346.

517

What are the last words of Jesus?

Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34; Luke 23:46; John 19:30
1. (Matthew 27:46) - "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" 2. (Mark 15:34) - "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" 3. (Luke 23:46) - "And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit." And having said this, He breathed His last." 4. (John 19:30) - "When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit." A simple arrangement of the various gospel texts on the Crucifixion Chronology page shows that the last thing Jesus said was "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit," (Luke 23:46) which also states that He breathed his last after saying that.

Were the women close or far from the cross?

Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:40; Luke 23:49; John 19:25
1. At a distance from the cross A. (Matthew 27:55-56) - "And many women were there looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him." B. (Mark 15:40) - "And there were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome." C. (Luke 23:49) - "And all His acquaintances and the women who accompanied Him from Galilee, were standing at a distance, seeing these things." Close to the cross A. (John 19:25) - "Therefore the soldiers did these things. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."

2.

This is no contradiction at all. Quite simply, at one point in the crucifixion chronology, the women were standing at a distance and then later, they were standing closer. You can check the chronology at the Crucifixion Chronology page.

518

How many men or angels appeared at the tomb?

Matt 28:2; Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4; John 20:1-2,12
1. An angel of the Lord on the stone (Matthew 28:1-2) - "Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it." 2. A young man (Mark 16:5) - "And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed." 3. Two men (Luke 24:4) - "And it happened that while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling apparel." 4. Two angels (John 20:1-2,12) - "Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 And so she *ran and *came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him. . 12and she *beheld two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying."

There is no discrepancy at all. An angel of the Lord moved the stone and was sitting upon it outside (Matthew 28:2). The two men (Luke 24:4) were angels (John 20:12). Mark 16:5 presents the only potential issue and it isn't one at all. If there were two angels in the tomb, then there was at least one. This one was on the right. Therefore, we see that there was one angel outside and two on the inside of the tomb.

What did the angels tell Mary?

Matt 28:6-7; Mark 16:6-7; Luke 24:5-7; John 20:13
1. (Matthew 28:6-7) - "He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7"And go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going before you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you." 2. (Mark 16:6-7) - "And he *said to them, "Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7"But go, tell His disciples and Peter, He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He said to you." 3. (Luke 24:5-7) - "and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? 6"He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." 4. (John 20:13) - "And they *said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She *said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him." The different gospel writers recalled, or were told, that which was said. Just like real witnesses who all view the sam event, each says a slightly different version of the same thing. If each sentence e were identical, then the charge of collusion would be raised. But the fact that each writer records the words of the angels in a slightly different manner suggests that they really did witness these events, or heard of them, and recorded them. The slight differences are proof that there were different people seeing the event. In other words, it really happened and each person recalled a slightly, but non contradictory, account of the angel's words. Following is a suggested arrangement of words that might help to harmonize the words of the angels.

519

Matthew 28:6-7 women were afraid Two angels spoke

Mark 16:6-7

Luke 24:5-7
"and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them,

John 20:13

"And they *said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She *said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him." "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? "And he *said to them, "Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; "He is not here, for He is not here; He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place behold, here is the where He was lying. place where they laid Him. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."
7 "But go, tell His disciples and Peter, He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He said to you." 7 6

Two or one angel spoke One angel spoke

"He is not here, but He has risen.

"And go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going before you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."

520

Did or did not the women tell what happened?

Matt 28:8; Mark 16:8; Luke 24:9; John 20:18
1. They told what happened A. (Matthew 28:8) - "And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples." B. (Luke 24:9) - "and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest." C. (John 20:18) - "Mary Magdalene *came, announcing to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord," and that He had said these things to her." They said nothing A. (Mark 16:8) - "And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

2.

The best explanation is that the women initially said nothing (Mark 16:8) and then later told the disciples what they saw (Matthew 28:8; Luke 24:9). It would make sense that they were frightened and didn't know what to do or say. But then later, of course, they spoke up. The John 20:18 account is chronologically later than the other references and is not relevant in this difficulty. Please see the Resurrection Chronology page to see how the verses fit together.

Who saw Jesus first?

Matt 28:9; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:15-18; John 20:14; 1 Cor 15:3-5
1. The three women (Matthew 28:9) - "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him." 2. Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9) - "Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons." 3. The Disciples (Luke 24:15-18) - "And it came about that while they were conversing and discussing, Jesus Himself approached, and began traveling with them. 16 But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him. 17And He said to them, "What are these words that you are exchanging with one another as you are walking?" And they stood still, looking sad. 18And one of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to Him, "Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?" 4. Mary (John 20:14) - "When she had said this, she turned around, and *beheld Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus." 5. Cephas and the twelve (1 Corinthians 15:3-5) - "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." This is no contradiction at all. The answer is simple. The first one to see Jesus after His resurrection was Mary Magdalene just as it says (Mark 16:9). Then the others saw Him afterward. The context of the other verses don't present any problem at all. Please see the Resurrection Chronology page to see how the verses fit together.

521

Is the ending of Mark really scripture?

Mark 16:9-20
There is dispute over Mark 16:9-20 and whether or not it should be included in the New Testament. It is found in many old manuscripts but is omitted in two of the earliest complete copies of the Bible known as the Vaticanus (350 AD) and Sinaiticus (375 AD). Additionally, there is another ending to Mark in some old manuscripts that is substituted for 9-20. The alternate ending reads as follows: "And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." Some scholars have asserted that the ending is in a different style than the rest of the gospel and that it contains 16-22 "non- marcan" words used in a "non- marcan" sense. It seems to suggest that Jesus appeared in a different form (v. 12) which could be problematic since Jesus rose in the same body He died in (John 2:19-21). Also, Mark 16:16 can be interpreted to mean that baptism is part of salvation. It isn't as is testified by verses that teach justification by faith Rom. 5:1; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9, etc.). Whichever the case, the dispute is not settled and may never be. I am not here trying to undermine the authority of God's word nor state that Mark 16:9-20 is not authentic. But, the fact remains that these 12 verses are under dispute and it is necessary to spotlight this issue when dealing with the historic reliability and inspiration of the New Testament manuscripts. The text of Mark 16:9-20 "Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. 10She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping. 11And when they heard that He was alive, and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it. 12 And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country. 13And they went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either. 14 And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. 17"And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." 19 So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed," (NASB).

522

Are we supposed to hate or not?

Luke 14:26 and 1 John 3:15
1. You must hate - (Luke 14:26) - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." 2. You must not hate - (1 John 3:15) - "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." In Luke 14:26, Jesus is drawing a comparison of importance by exaggerating a relationship. He is saying that it is far more important to love Him than anyone else, including your own parents. Of course, He is not telling people to hate their parents. He is saying that by comparison to Him, you must love Him more than all else. In 1 John 3:15, John is writing to the church about abiding in the love of Christ. In fact, in 1 John, the word "abide" occurs 16 times in the NASB and the apostle continually refers to abiding in Christ (1 John 2:4,24,28; 3:6,24, etc.) Therefore, we see that a true Christian will love the Lord Jesus supremely and in so doing he will not abide in hatred towards his brother.

Did anyone ascend into heaven before Jesus or not?

Genesis 5:24; 2 Kings 2:11 and John 3:13
1. Yes A. (Genesis 5:24) - "And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him." B. (2 Kings 2:11) - "Then it came about as they were going along and talking, that behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven." C. (Hebrews 11:5) - "By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God." No A. (John 3:13) - "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man"

2.

The answer is simple when you understand the Jewish concept of the universe. They believed in three heavens. The first was the atmosphere where the trees, clouds, and birds are. The second is the realm of the stars, planets, sun, and moon. And the third heaven was the very dwelling place of God. In the Old Testament in Genesis 5 and 2 Kings 2 above, they were not taken into the very dwelling place of God, but into the heavens; that is, they were taken up into the sky. Exactly where is in debate. It isn't until after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ were those who had died before, in faith, taken into the highest heaven. Ephesians 4:8 is often referred to as a supporting scripture for this belief. It says, "When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men." Furthermore, when Paul said he was caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2), he was referring to the very dwelling place of God.

523

Biblical demonstration of the three heavens 1. First heaven - Earth Atmosphere A. (Deuteronomy 11:17) - "Then the LORD's anger will burn against you, and he will shut the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce...." B. (Deuteronomy 28:12) - "The LORD will open the heavens, the storehouse of his bounty, to send rain on your land in season and to bless all the work of your hands." Second Heaven - Outer Space A. (Psalm 19:4,6) - "In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun... It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other;..." B. (Jeremiah 8:2) - They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of the heavens which they have loved and served...." Third Heaven - Where God dwells A. (1 Kings 8:27) - "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you."

2.

3.

(Psalm 2:4) - The One enthroned in heaven laughs; The LORD scoffs at them."

Was Jesus' witness of Himself true or not?

John 8:14 and John 5:31
1. Not true (John 5:31) - "If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. 32"There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the testimony which He bears of Me is true." 2. Is true (John 8:14) - "Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true; for I know where I came from, and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from, or where I am going." In John 5:31, the context is Jesus speaking about how He depends upon the Father and how He is seeking the will of the Father. John 5:30-32 says, "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 31 "If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. 32"There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the testimony which He bears of Me is true." The word "alone" is not in the Greek but is included in the NASB translation, though not the NIV, the KJV. Contextually, Jesus is not speaking as one alone, but as one dependent on the Father and that His judgments are true because He does the will of the Father. Jesus is reflecting on the Old Testament law that didn't allow the testimony of one person to condemn another to death. Two witnesses were needed to establish the fact: "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established," (Deut. 19:15). and Matthew 8:16 says, ". . . in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." See also 2 Cor. 13:1; Heb. 10:28. In John 8:14, Jesus says, "IF" (kan, in the Greek) I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true. But He was speaking of being the light of the word, v. 12, and the Pharisees accused Him of bearing witness of Himself. Jesus was simply telling the truth that if He did, it would be true.

524

Who did Jesus see first upon His arrest, Annas or Caiaphas?
Matthew 26:57; John 18:19,24
1. Led to Caiaphas (Matthew 26:57) - "And those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together." 2. Led from Annas to Caiaphas (John 18:19,24) - "The high priest therefore questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching . . . 24Annas therefore sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest." At the time of Jesus there were two high priests: Annas and Ciaphas. Luke 3:2 says, "in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness." Also, Acts 4:5-6 says, "And it came about on the next day, that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; 6and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent." John 18:19 says that the high priest questioned Jesus and then in verse 24 it says that Annas (supposedly the high priest of verse 19), sent Jesus to Caiaphas who was, as we have seen, also High Priest. Furthermore, when Matthew 26:57 says that Jesus was led to Caiaphas, it is not denying that He first saw Annas. Therefore, Annas saw Jesus first and then He was sent to see Caiaphas.

Shall we obey God's Law or human law?

Acts 5:29 and Romans 13:1; I Peter 2:13
1. 2. Obey God A. (Acts 5:29) - "But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men." Obey Man A. (Romans 13:1) - "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." B. (1 Peter 2:13) - "Submit yourselves for the Lords sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,"

The simple answer is that Christians are to obey human law except where that human law violates God's Law. Our supreme duty is to obey God. Since God tells us to also obey human laws, we should. But, when they come in conflict, we are to "obey God rather than men."

When Paul saw the light, did all fall to the ground or not?
Acts 9:3-4 and Acts 26:13-14
1. (Acts 9:3-4) - "And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 2. (Acts 26:13-14) - "at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me. 14"And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads. Of course, there is no contradiction here at all. If all fell to the ground, then Paul who was with the group of men, fell to the ground also. Just because one verse says all and the other mentions only Paul does not mean there is a problem.

525

Did the men with Paul hear the voice or not?

Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9
1. They heard the voice A. (Acts 9:7, NASB) - "And the men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one." B. (Acts 9:7, NIV) - "The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone." C. (Acts 9:7, KJV) - "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" They did not hear the voice A. (Acts 22:9, KJV) - "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." B. (Acts 22:9, NASB) - "And those who were with me beheld the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me." C. (Acts 22:9, NIV) "My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."

2.

This is an interesting difficulty to tackle. As you can see from the different translations above, at attempt has been made to harmonize the difficulty by translating Acts 22:9 as "did not understand the voice," (NASB & NIV) where the KJV states "... they heard not the voice.." Literally, the Greek in 22:9 says, "they did not hear the sound." So, did they or did they not hear the sound? Various explanations have been offered but the most common is summed up in the following quotes.

"Literally, that clause in 22:9 may be translated, They did not hear the sound. The NIV correctly translates the verse, because the verb to hear with the genitive case may mean to hear a sound and with the accusative case to hear with understanding. The genitive case is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9)."8 6 Thus in Acts 9:7, hearing the voice, the noun voice is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in 22:9, they heard not the voice, the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived (Cremer). 8 7

86

Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985. 87 Vine, W. E., Vines Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981.

526

Have all people sinned or not?

Romans 3:23; Romans 3:10; Psalm 14:3 and Job 1:1; Genesis 7:1; Luke 1:6
1. All have sinned A. (Romans 3:9-10) - "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one." B. (Romans 3:23) - "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." C. (Psalm 14:3) - "They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." All have not sinned A. (Job 1:1) - "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job, and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil." B. (Genesis 7:1) - "Then the Lord said to Noah, "Enter the ark, you and all your household; for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time." C. (Luke 1:5-6) - "In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6And they were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord."

2.

The Bible clearly teaches that all people have sinned -- except Jesus (1 Peter 2:22). Romans 3:23 clearly condemns all under sin. But when it mentions people like Job, Noah, Zacharias, and Elizabeth as people who were "blameless" and "righteous" it is not saying that they are not sinners. It is saying that they were godly people, who kept the commandments of God and in that sense, they were righteous. But of course, we realize that no one can keep the commandments of God perfectly which is why all people are deserving of damnation (Eph. 2:3) and why we need a savior. If righteousness can come through the Law, then Christ died needlessly (Gal. 2:21).

Are we saved by faith or by baptism?

Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21
1. Saved by faith A. (Romans 5:1) - "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." B. (Ephesians 2:8-9) - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast." Saved by baptism A. (Acts 2:38) - "And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." B. (Acts 22:16) - "And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." C. (1 Peter 3:21) - "And corresponding to that, baptism now saves younot the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good consciencethrough the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

2.

There is much debate within Christianity as to whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. I cannot here exhaustively examine this issue, but I can affirm that baptism is not necessary for salvation. The scriptures teach that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1). It also teaches that baptism is a necessary result of becoming a disciple of Christ (Matt. 28:18-19). Even 1 Peter 3:21 above says that the baptism mentioned is not one dealing with water, but an appeal to God. God works covenantally. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. The New Testament and Old Testaments are New and Old Covenants. The word "testament" comes from the Latin testamentum which means covenant. So, the Bible is a covenant document. If you don't understand covenant you cannot understand, in totality, the issue of baptism because baptism is a covenant sign. Covenant signs do not save. The things they represent are what save.

527

Regeneration occurs by faith (Rom. 5:1). Afterwards, baptism is administered as an outward representation of an inward reality. For example, it represents the reality of the inward washing of Christ's blood upon the soul. That is why it is used in different ways. It is said to represent the death of the person (Rom. 6:3-5), the union of that person with Christ (Gal. 3:27), the cleansing of that person's sins (Acts 22:16), the identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2), and being united in one church (1 Cor. 12:13). Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus. Baptism is not a requirement of salvation, but it is so closely tied to it that some people erringly think it is the actual thing that saves. It isn't. Faith in Christ is what saves. For a more complete analysis of this issue, please see Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Is that right?

Romans 9:17-18
(Romans 9:17-18) - "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." 18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Romans 9:9-23 is some of the most controversial scripture in the Bible. When reading through it, one quickly finds the sovereignty of God in distinction to the free will of man. What is going on? Basically, God has the right to do with His creation as He wills. We see from the Word that God is in control, "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28). In other words, God is in control. God can also move peoples' hearts (Prov. 21:1) and directs history to where He wants it to go. God raised up Pharaoh for a purpose: to demonstrate His power. How was this done? It was done by working miracles through Moses and delivering the Israelites. Does God have the right and ability to harden whom He desires in the process of accomplish His will? Absolutely for that is what it says in 9:18. Does this make God wrong in anyway? Not at all. God can do no wrong. Pharaoh was a sinner who deserved the righteous judgment of God. Some say that God simply strengthened Pharaoh's heart towards its natural tendency. Others maintain that God actively hardened his the heart. Whichever the case, Pharaoh rejected the true and living God and God used him for His own purpose.

Is the Lord a God of Peace or of war?

Romans 15:33; Isaiah 2:4 and Exodus 15:3; Joel 3:9-10
1. God of Peace A. (Isaiah 2:4) - "And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war." B. (Romans 15:33) - "Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen." God of War A. (Exodus 15:3) - "The Lord is a warrior; the Lord is His name." B. (Joel 3:9-10) - "Proclaim this among the nations: Prepare a war; rouse the mighty men! Let all the soldiers draw near, let them come up! Beat your plowshares into swords, 10And your pruning hooks into spears; Let the weak say, I am a mighty man.

2.

Anyone can take verses out of context and compare them to other verses out of context and get a "contradiction." But, context is sacrificed in this manner and along with it, truth is lost. In Isaiah 2:4, God is giving a prophet announcement of a future time when He will be the one who settles disputes and there will be no more war. In Romans 15:33, it is simply said that God is a God of peace. He is. Yet we have the verses that show God's judgmental side. In Exodus 15:3 we see God as a warrior.

528

But the context is the destruction of the Egyptian Army. As we all know, Egypt had enslaved the Israelite nation and God simply became their warrior and delivered them. In Joel 3:9-10 we see a prophetic statement as the book of Joel clearly is prophetic in nature. In other words, there will come a time when it is required to fight. There is no contradiction for God to be both the Lord who battles unrighteousness and also loves peace. This is just as true with people, who are really peaceful by nature, but will fight when the time requires it.

Will wisdom stand or not?

1 Corinthians 1:19 and Proverbs 4:7
1. (Proverbs 4:7) - "The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom; and with all your acquiring, get understanding. 2. (1 Corinthians 1:19) - "For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside." Context is vital here. Proverbs 4:7 is simply stating that a person, on the human level, needs to acquire wisdom. It is good to seek to be wise. Solomon is teaching his son, who is a believer in God and His word, to avoid foolishness and seek wisdom. Of course, true wisdom is acquired from God's word. The context of 1 Corinthians 1:19 deals with comparing the wisdom of God with the wisdom of man. Paul writes that the wisdom of man is foolishness compared to the wisdom of God. It will be destroyed. In other words, the unbelievers who try and defy God or proclaim that God is not true or that the Bible is not true will all be proven false. This will either happen in this life or on the Day of Judgment.

Is baptism for the dead really Christian?

1 Corinthians 15:29
Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79. 8 8 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced. Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we. This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were. Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?

88

Bible Knowledge Commentary on 1 Cor. 15:29. Dallas Seminary Faculty.

529

How many children did Abraham have, one or two?

Genesis 22:2; Hebrews 11:17 and Galatians 4:22
1. One son A. (Genesis 22:2) - "And He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." B. (Hebrews 11:17) - "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son." Two sons A. (Galatians 4:22) - "For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman."

2.

The answer to this apparent contradiction is found in understanding the typological representation of Isaac, Abraham's second born son, as a type of Christ. Abraham had Ishmael by the handmaiden Hagar. But Isaac was the child of promise, not Ishmael: "But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named,'" (Gen. 21:12). If you look at the chart below, you will see the similarities between Isaac and Jesus. In other words, Isaac was a prophetic representation of Jesus. This is why Jesus said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad," (John 8:56). Abraham had, in a very real sense, seen the gospel presentation in the offering of his son, his "only begotten." So, we see here that the term "only begotten" is in reference to the unique son of God and Isaac was acting out the sacrifice of Christ, prophetically. ISAAC Only begotten Son Offered on a mountain, hill Took donkey to place of sacrifice Two men went with him. Three day journey. Jesus: three days in the grave Son carried wood on his back up hill God will provide for Himself the lamb/Jesus Son was offered on the wood/cross Ram in thicket of thorns/crown of thorns The seed will be multiplied/believers Abraham went down, Son didn't, "not mentioned." Servant gets bride for son The bride was a beautiful virgin Servant offered ten gifts to bride* Genesis 22:2 22:2 22:3 22:3 22:4 22:6 22:8 22:9 22:13 22:17 22:19 24:1-4 24:16 24:10 JESUS John 3:16 Matt. 21:10 Matt. 21:2-11 Mark 15:27; Luke 23:33 Luke 24:13-21 John 19:17 John 1:29 Luke 23:33 John 19:2 John 1:12; Isaiah 53:10 Luke 23:46 Eph. 5:22-32; Rev. 21:2,9; 22:17 2 Cor. 11:2 Rom. 6:23; 12; 1 Cor. 12

Also, Abraham had six other sons besides Ishmael and Isaac through his wife Kerturah whom he married after Sarah died. "Now Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. 2And she bore to him Zimran and Jokshan and Medan and Midian and Ishbak and Shuah," (Gen. 25:1-2). Obviously, this was known by the writers of Genesis as well as Hebrews and Galatians.

530

Do we bear one another's burdens or not?

Galatians 6:2 and Galatians 6:5
1. (Galatians 6:2) - "Bear one anothers burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ." 2. (Galatians 6:5) - "For each one shall bear his own load." In Galatians 6:2, the word for "burdens" is baros. It means "heaviness, weight, burden, trouble."8 9 In Galatians 6:5, the word for load is "phortion" and means "of burdensome rites."9 0 The first verse is speaking of helping one another through troubles and the second is speaking of the responsibility each person has in those troubles and sins. "The Christian does in fact test himself by carrying his own load. This does not contradict verse 2 because the reference there is to heavy, crushing, loads (baros)more than a man could carry without help. In this verse a different Greek word (phortion) is used to designate the pack usually carried by a marching soldier. It is the "burden" Jesus assigns to His followers (cf. Matt. 11:30). There are certain Christian responsibilities or burdens each believer must bear which cannot be shared with others. Jesus assured His disciples that such burdens were light."9 1

Ephesians 2:8,9; Romans 3:20,28; Galatians 2:16 and James 2:24; Matthew 19:1621
1. Saved by grace A. (Ephesians 2:8-9) - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, that no one should boast." B. (Rom. 3:20,28) - "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin...28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." C. (Galatians 2:16) - "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified." Saved by works A. (James 2:24) - "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." B. (Matthew 19:1617) - "And behold, one came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" 17And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Are we saved by grace or works?

2.

God does not want a faith that is empty and hypocritical. James 2 is talking about those who "say" that they have faith but have no works. Therefore, people cannot tell if they are true believers or not, because there is no fruit. That kind of a faith is useless and is not a saving faith. True faith results in true works. In Matthew 19:16-17, Jesus was speaking to a Lawyer who was self-righteous since he wanted to put Jesus to the test (Luke 10:25). He asked what he must do in order to obtain eternal life and Jesus responded with the requirements of keeping the commandments. If a person keeps all of the commandments, it would seem that they could obtain eternal life. However, nobody can keep all of the commandments. Therefore, Jesus' comments to this man show this man that justification can only be by faith since no one can keep all of the commandments. This is why it says in Eph. 2:8 that we are saved by grace to faith. Also, Romans 3:20,28 and Galatians 2:16 tells us that no one is justified
89 90 91

Enhanced Strongs Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995. Ibid. The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

531

in this site of God by the law; that is, by the works that he can do. There is no contradiction at all when we examine the contexts. We are justified by faith but that faith must be alive (James 2). The Law cannot save us because we are incapable of keeping it (Matthew 19:16-17). Therefore, salvation is by faith through grace.

Is Jesus or God the creator of all things?

Col. 1:15-17 and Isaiah 44:24
1. God created all alone (Isaiah 44:24) - "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone." 2. All things created by/through Jesus (Colossians 1:16-17) - "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesall things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." There is no difficulty here at all when we realize that the Trinity is involved. The Trinity is the doctrine that God is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son is the Word, which was God and with God (John 1:1), that became flesh in Jesus (John 1:14). Since Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, and He has two natures, divine and human (Col. 2:9), we can then have Jesus being the creator and God being the creator alone. In other words, Jesus is God and God created all things alone.

Did Joseph worship at the head of the bed or leaning on a staff?

Genesis 47:31 and Hebrews 11:21
1. Head of bed (Genesis. 47:31) - "And he said, "Swear to me." So he swore to him. Then Israel bowed in worship at the head of the bed." 2. Top of staff (Heb. 11:21) - "By faith Jacob, as he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, leaning on the top of his staff." This is no contradiction at all. Jacob asked his son Joseph to carry his bones out of Egypt to be buried in Israel. Joseph agreed and then at the head of the bed, he leaned on the top of his staff and worshipped. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes the other impossible. This is not the case here. Both statements are true.

532

Does the earth abide forever or not?

Psalm 104:5; Ecclesiastes 1:4 and Isaiah 65:17; 2 Peter 3:10
1. Abides forever A. (Psalm 104:5) - "He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever." B. (Ecclesiastes 1:4) - "A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever." Does not abide forever A. (Isaiah 65:17) - "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind." B. (2 Peter 3:10) - "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up."

2.

The context of the Ecclesiastes passage is revealed in the previous verse (3) which says, "What advantage does man have in all his work which he does under the sun?" In other words, the perspective of Ecclesiastes is from a completely human standpoint. The same is occurring in the Psalms passage, a description from a human perspective. Therefore, the writers will see the earth abiding forever because that is exactly how it appears. But, in Isaiah 65:17 and 2 Peter 3:10 the contexts are altogether different. They are speaking of the time in the future when the new heavens and new earth will be made. Take a look at 2 Peter. "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells," (2 Peter 3:10-12). Since sin is in the world, the earth and all its works will be destroyed and cleansed and a new heavens and new earth will replace them.

Does God tempt people or not?

Genesis 22:1 and James 1:13
1. God tempted Abraham (Genesis 22:1) - "Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." A. The KJV says, "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am" God tempts no one (James 1:13) - "Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone."

2.

According to the Enhanced Strongs Lexicon, the word "test" (NASB), "tempt" (KJV) is nacah. It means "1) to test, try, 2) to attempt, assay, try, 3) to test, try, prove, tempt." This is why the KJV translated it as "tempt" and NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV, and RSV translate it as "test." Therefore, it was a test that God offered to Abraham, not a temptation to sin.

533

Jude 14 quotes the book of Enoch. Is it scripture?

Jude 14
"And about these also Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones" (Jude 14). There is debate whether or not Jude was actually quoting the apocraphal book of Enoch or something else. This debate aside, if this is a quote from the book of Enoch, it does not affect the doctrine of inspiration nor does it mean that the early church removed the book of Enoch because of its internal inconsistencies. First of all, the book of Enoch was not considered scripture by the Christian Church. There was some discussion on its canonicity by a few people, but the Christian Church did not include it in the Bible. Second, Jude only quoted something that was true in Enoch and it does not mean that Enoch was inspired. In fact, Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean that Epimenides was inspired.

534

Cleansing of the Temple Chart

Event Matthew 21:1-22 Mark 11:1-18 Luke 19:28-38,44-48
28 And after He had said these things, He was going on ahead, ascending to Jerusalem. 29 And it came about that when He approached Bethphage and Bethany, near the mount that is called Olivet, He sent two of the disciples, 30 saying, "Go into the village opposite you, in which as you enter you will find a colt tied, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it, and bring it here. 31 "And if anyone asks you, Why are you untying it? thus shall you speak, The Lord has need of it." 32 And those who were sent went away and found it just as He had told them. 33 And as they were untying the colt, its owners said to them, "Why are you untying the colt?" 34 And they said, "The Lord has need of it." 35 And they brought it to Jesus, and they threw their garments on the colt, and put Jesus on it.

They came 1 And when they had approached Jerusalem and 1 And as they *approached to had come to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Jerusalem then Jesus sent two disciples, Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, He *sent two of His disciples, Retrieving the colt 2 saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them, and bring them to Me. 3 "And if anyone says something to you, you shall say, The Lord has need of them, and immediately he will send them." 4 Now this took place that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 5 "Say to the daughter of Zion, Behold you r King is coming to you, gentle, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden." 6 And the disciples went and did just as Jesus had directed them, 2 and *said to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here. 3 "And if anyone says to you, Why are you doing this? you say, The Lord has need of it; and immediately he will send it back here." 4 And they went away and found a colt tied at the door outside in the street; and they *untied it. 5 And some of the bystanders were saying to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" 6 And they spoke to them just as Jesus had told them, and they gave them permission. 7 And they *brought the colt to Jesus and put their garments on it; and He sat upon it.

garments on colt garments on ground

7 and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid on them their garments, on which He sat. 8 And most of the multitude spread their garments in the road, and others were cutting bran ches from the trees, and spreading them in the road. 9 And the multitudes going before Him, and those who followed after were crying out, saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest!"

8 And many spread their garments 36 And as He was going, they were in the road, and others spread leafy spreading their garments in the road branches which they had cut from the fields. 9 And those who went before, and those who followed after, were crying out, "Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord; 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; Hosanna in the highest!" 37 And as He was now approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen, 38 saying, "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord; Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"

Hosanna!

entered Jerusalem

10 And when He had entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, "Who is this?" 11 And the multitudes were saying, "This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee."

11 And He entered Jerusalem and came into the temple; and after looking all around, He departed for Bethany with the twelve, since it was already late.

535

Jesus 12 And Jesus entered the temple and cast out all cleanses those who were buying and selling in the temple, the Temple and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves. Jesus speaks to the people 13 And He *said to them, "It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you are making it a robbers den." 14 And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. 15 But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were crying out in the temple and saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became indignant, 16 and said to Him, "Do You hear what these are saying?" And Jesus *said to them, "Yes; have you never read, Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes Thou hast prepared praise for Thyself?" 17 And He left them and went out of the city to Bethany, and lodged there. 18 Now in the morning, when He returned to the city, He became hungry. 19 And seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it, and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He *said to it, "No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you." And at once the fig tree withered. 20 And seeing this, the disciples marveled, saying, "How did the fig tree wither at once?" 21 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith, and do not doubt, you shall not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, Be taken up a nd cast into the sea, it shall happen. 22 "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive." 12 And on the next day, when they had departed from Bethany, He became hungry. 13 And seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 And He answered and said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again!" And His disciples were listening.

45 And He entered the temple and began to cast out those who were selling, 46 saying to them, "It is written, And My house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a robbers den." 47 And He was teaching daily in the temple; but the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men among the people were trying to destroy Him, 48 and they could not find anything that they might do, for all the people were hanging upon His words.

leaves city Jesus curses the fig tree

Jesus cleanses the Temple

15 And they *came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to cast out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves; 16 and He would not permit anyone to carry goods through the temple. 17 And He began to teach and say to them, "Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? But you have made it a robbers den." 18 And the chief priests and the scribes heard this , and began seeking how to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for all the multitude was astonished at His teaching.

536

Crucifixion Chronology Chart

Event

Matthew 27:33-56

Mark 15:22-41

Luke 23:33-49

John 19:17-30

took him 33 And when they had come to 22 And they *brought Him to to the a place called Golgotha, which the place Golgotha, which is Place of means Place of a Skull, translated, Place of a Skull. the Skull First Words of Christ Cast lots for His clothes

33 And when they came to the 17 They took Jesus therefore, place called The Skull, there and He went out, bearing His they crucified Him and the own cross, to the place called criminals, one on the right and the Place of a Skull, which is the other on the left. called in Hebrew, Golgotha. 34 But Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves. 35 And the people stood by, looking on. And even the rulers were sneering at Him, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One." (23 The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took His outer garments and made four parts, a part to every soldier and also the tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece. 24 They said therefore to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be"; that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "They divided My outer garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.")

wine mixed with gall and myrrh

34 they gave Him wine to drink 23 And they tried to give Him 36 And the soldiers also mingled with gall; and after wine mixed with myrrh; but mocked Him, coming up to tasting it, He was unwilling to He did not take it. Him, offering Him sour wine, drink. 24 And they *crucified Him, and *divided up His garments among themselves, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. 25 And it was the third hour when they crucified Him. 26 And the inscription of the charge against Him read, "THE KING OF THE JEWS." 37 and saying, "If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself!" 38 Now there was also an inscription above Him, "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS." 18 There they crucified Him, and with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between. 19 And Pilate wrote an inscription also, and put it on the cross. And it was written, "JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS."

sign says 35 And when they had crucified King of Him, they divided up His the Jews garments among themselves, casting lots; 36 and sitting down, they began to keep watch over Him there. 37 And they put up above His head the charge against Him which read, "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS." sign above head in Hebrew Latin and Greek

20 Therefore this inscription many of the Jews read, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek. 21 And so the chief priests of the Jews were saying to Pilate, "Do not write, The King of the Jews; but that He said, I am King of the Jews." 22 Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written." 38 At that time two robbers *were crucified with Him, one on the right and one on the left. 27 And they *crucified two robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left. 28 [And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with transgressors."]

thieves on right and left

537

hurling insults

39 And those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, 40 and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross." 41 In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking Him, and saying, 42 "He saved others; He cannot save Himself. He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross, and we shall believe in Him. 43 "He trusts in God; let Him deliver Him now, if He takes pleasure in Him; for He said, I am the Son of God." 44 And the robbers also who had been crucified with Him were casting the same insult at Him.

29 And those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, 30 save Yourself, and come down from the cross!" 31 In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes, were mocking Him among themselves and saying, "He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 "Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe!" And those who were crucified with Him were casting the same insult at Him.

39 And one of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 "And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 42 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"

Second Words of Christ sixth hour 45 Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" 33 And when the sixth hour had come, darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" 35 And when some of the bystanders heard it, they began saying, "Behold, He is calling for Elijah." 36 And someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down."

43 An d He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." 44 And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour,

Third (or Fourth) Words of Christ.

calling for 47 And some of those who were Elijah standing there, when they heard it, began saying, "This man is calling for Elijah." another drink 48 And immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink. 49 But the rest of them said, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him."

three women standing by the cross

Fourth (or Third) Words of Christ.

25 Therefore the soldiers did these things. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" 27 Then He *said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

538

Fifth Words of Christ.

28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, *said, "I am thirsty." 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop, and brought it up to His mouth. 30a When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two. 46a And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit." 50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth shook; and the rocks were split, 52 and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. 39 And when the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed His last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!" 47 Now when the centurion saw what had happened, he began praising God, saying, "Certainly this man was innocent." 37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. 38 And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 46bAnd having said this, He breathed His last. 30b And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit.

Sixth Words of Christ.

Seventh Words of Christ.

Jesus dies Veil is torn, earth shakes tombs opened and people rise from dead

54 Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when Centurion they saw the earthquake and said... the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!" 55 And many women were there looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, 56 among whom was Mary Magdalene, along with Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

women looking from distance

40 And there were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome. 41 And when He was in Galilee, they used to follow Him and minister to Him; and there were many other women who had come up with Him to Jerusalem.

48 And all the multitudes who came together for this spectacle, when they observed what had happened, began to return, beating their breasts. 49 And all His acquaintances and the women who accompanied Him from Galilee, were standing at a distance, seeing these things.

539

Total statistics of population from Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7

Ezra 2
3 4

Nehemiah 7
8 9

Difference 0 0 123 6 0 100 0 6 5 1,100 1 11 201 0 n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

the sons of Parosh, 2,172 the sons of Shephatiah, 372 5 the sons of Arah, 775 6 the sons of Pahath-moab of the sons of Jeshua and Joab, 2,812
7

the sons of Parosh, 2,172 the sons of Shephatiah, 372 10 the sons of Arah, 652 11 the sons of Pahath-moab of the sons of Jeshua and Joab, 2,818
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

the sons of Elam, 1,254 8 the sons of Zattu, 945 9 the sons of Zaccai, 760 10 the sons of Bani, 642 11 the sons of Bebai, 623
12 13 14 15 16

the the the the the the the the the the

sons sons sons sons sons sons sons sons sons sons

of of of of of of of of of of

Elam, 1,254 Zattu, 845 Zaccai, 760 Binnui, 648 Bebai, 628 Azgad, 2,322 Adonikam, 667 Bigvai, 2,067 Adin, 655 Ater, of Hezekiah, 98

the the the the the

sons sons sons sons sons

of of of of of

Azgad, 1,222 Adonikam, 666 Bigvai, 2,056 Adin, 454 Ater of Hezekiah, 98

the sons of Hashum, 328 the sons of Bezai, 324 the sons of Hariph, 112 the sons of Gibeon, 95

17 18

the sons of Bezai, 323 the sons of Jorah, 112

23

24 25 19 20 21

the sons of Hashum, 223 the sons of Gibbar, 95 the men of Bethlehem, 123 the men of Netophah, 56 Anathoth, 128 Azmaveth, 42 Kiriath-arim, Chephirah, and Ramah and Geba, 621 Michmas, 122 Bethel and Ai, 223 Nebo, 52
27 26

the men of Bethlehem and Netophah, 188 n/a the men of Anathoth, 128 28 the men of Beth-azmaveth, 42 29 the men of Kiriath-jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, 743 30 the men of Ramah and Geba, 621 31 the men of Michmas, 122 32 the men of Bethel and Ai, 123 33 the men of the other Nebo, 52
34 35 36 37

22 23

the men of 24 the sons of 25 the sons of Beeroth, 743 26 the sons of 27 the men of 28 the men of 29 the sons of
30 31 32 34 33

0 0 0 0 0 100 0 n/a 0 0 0 4 300 0 0

the sons of Magbish, 156 the sons of the other Elam, 1,254 the sons of Harim, 320 the sons of the other Elam, 1,254 the sons of Harim, 320

the men of Jericho, 345 the sons of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, 725 35 the sons of Senaah, 3,630. 36 The priests: the sons of Jedaiah of the house of Jeshua, 973
37

the men of Jericho, 345 the sons of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, 721 38 the sons of Senaah, 3,930. 39 The priests: the sons of Jedaiah of the house of Jeshua, 973
40

the sons of Immer, 1,052

the sons of Immer, 1,052

540

38

the sons of Pashhur, 1,247 39 the sons of Harim, 1,017 40 The Levites: the sons of Jeshua and Kadmiel, of the sons of Hodaviah, 74 41 The singers: the sons of Asaph, 128 42 The sons of the gatekeepers: the sons of Shallum, the sons of Ater, the sons of Talmon, the sons of Akkub, the sons of Hatita, the sons of Shobai, in all 139 verses 43 through 58 give numerous names with one total of 392 verses 59 through 60 list several names with one total of 652
64

41 42

the sons of Pashhur, 1,247 the sons of Harim, 1,017 43 The Levites: the sons of Jeshua, of Kadmiel, of the sons of Hodevah, 74 44 The singers: the sons of Asaph, 148 45 The gatekeepers: the sons of Shallum, the sons of Ater, the sons of Talmon, the sons of Akkub, the sons of Hatita, the sons of Shobai, 138 verses 46 through 60 give numerous names with one total of 392 verses 61 through 62 list numerous names with one total of 642
66

0 0 0 20 1

0 10 0 45 (singers)

The whole assembly numbered 42,360

65

besides their male and female servants, who numbered 7,337; and they had 200 singing men and women.
66

The whole assembly together was 42,360, 67 besides their male and their female servants, of whom there were 7,337; and they had 245 male and female singers.
68

Their horses were 736; their mules, 0 245; 67 their camels, 435; their donkeys, 6,720. 69 their camels, 435; their donkeys, 6,720. 0 69 According to their ability they gave to the 70 And some from among the heads of n/a treasury for the work 61,000 gold fathers households gave to the work. The (subjects are drachmas, and 5,000 silver minas, and 100 governor gave to the treasury 1,000 gold different) priestly garments. drachmas, 50 basins, 530 priests garments. 71 And some of the heads of fathers n/a households gave into the treasury of the work 20,000 gold drachmas, and 2,200 silver minas. 72 And that which the rest of the people n/a gave was 20,000 gold drachmas and 2,000 silver minas, and 67 priests garments.

Their horses were 736; their mules, 245;

541

Resurrection Chronology Chart

Event Matt. 28:1-15 Mark 16:1-20
1 And when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, they *came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?"

Luke 24:1-12
1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.

John 20:1-18
1a Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark,

First day of 1 Now after the the week Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary (Sunday) Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his garment as white as snow; 4 and the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men the stone was moved Mary Magdalene ran and told Peter

4 And looking up, they *saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large.

2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb,

1b and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb

Peter at tomb first

2 And so she *ran and *came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." 3 Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and 12 [But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; stooping they were going to the tomb. 4 And the two were running and looking in, he *saw the linen wrappings only; together; and the other and he went away to his disciple ran ahead faster than home, marveling at that Peter, and came to the tomb first; which had happened.] 5 and stooping and looking in, he *saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6 Simon Peter therefore also *came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he *beheld the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the face -cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. 10 So the disciples went away again to their own homes. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a 3 but when they entered, 11 But Mary was standing young man sitting at the right, wearing a they did not find the body outside the tomb weeping; white robe; and they were amazed. of the Lord Jesus. and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb;

three women at the tomb (Mk 16:1)

542

two men (angels) appeared

4 And it happened that while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling apparel; 5And the angel 6 And he *said to them, "Do not be answered and said to amazed; you are looking for Jesus the the women, "Do not be Nazarene, who has been crucified. He afraid; for I know that has risen; He is not here; behold, here is you are looking for the place where they laid Him. Jesus who has been 7 "But go, tell His disciples and Peter, crucified. He is going before you into Galilee; 6 "He is not here, for He there you will see Him, just as He said to has risen, just as He you." said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 "And go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going before you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you." 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they we re afraid. 5 and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? 6 "He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7 saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."

12 and she *beheld two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body o f Jesus had been lying. 13 And they *said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She *said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him."

Angel spoke

women left 8 And they departed tomb quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. they see Jesus 9 And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus *said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they shall see Me."

8 And they remembered His words, 9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 14 When she had said this, she turned around, and *beheld Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. 15a Jesus *said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?"

Jesus speaks to them

Jesus and Mary Magdalene speak. She clings to Jesus.

15bSupposing Him to be the gardener, she *said to Him, "Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away." 16 Jesus *said to her, "Mary!" She *turned and *said to Him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher). 17 Jesus *said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God." 18 Mary Magdalene *came, announcing to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord," and that He had said these things to her. 11Now while they were on their way, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12 And when they had assembled with the See comments on Mark 16:9-20 9 [Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. 10 She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping. 11 And when they heard that He was 10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles. 11 And these words appeared to them as

They returned and reported what they saw.

543

elders and counseled together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 and said, "You are to say, His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep. 14 "And if this should come to the governors ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble." 15 And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

alive, and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it. 12 And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country. 13 And they went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either. 14 And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. 17 "And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." 19 So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.] [And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.]

nonsense, and they would not believe them. 12 [But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he *saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marve ling at that which had happened.]

544

Chronology of Jesus' Baptism and Temptation Chart

Event
Jesus is baptized

Matt. 3:13-4:11
13 Then Jes us *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. 14 But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?" 15 But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he *permitted Him. 16 And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, 17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

Mark 1:9-13 Baptism of Jesus

9 And it came about in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Luke 3:21-4:18
21 Now it came about when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also was baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened,

the Dove and words from the Father

10 And immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; 11 and a voice came out of the heavens: Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well-pleased.

22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well-pleased."

Temptation of Jesus
Jesus goes to the desert 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 12 And immediately the Spirit *impelled Him to go out into the wilderness. 13 And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him. 4:1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, re turned from the Jordan and was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness 2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days; and when they had ended, He became hungry. 3 And the devil said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread." 4 And Jesus answered him, "It is written, Man shall not live on bread alone." 5 And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours. 8 And Jesus answered and said to him, It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only. 9 And he led Him to Jerusalem and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here; 10 for it is written, He will give His angels charge concerning You to guard You, 11 and, On their hands they will bear You up, Lest You strike Your foot against a stone.

40 day fast

2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.

turn stones to bread not by bread alone showed Jesus the kingdoms devil to give domain to Jesus

3 And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." 4 But He answered and said, "It is written, Man shall not live on bread alone, but on eve ry word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

false worship true worship

devil took Jesus to pinnacle of temple

5 Then the devil *took Him into the holy city; and he had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and *said to Him, "If You are the Son of God throw Yourself down; for it is written, He will give His angels charge concerning You; and On throw their hands they will bear You up, Lest You strike yourself down Your foot against a stone."

545

don't test God 7 Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, You shall not put the Lord your God to the test." took Jesus to high mountain devil to give domain worship and serve God only the devil leaves 8 Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain, and *showed Him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory; 9 and he said to Him, "All these things will I give You, if You fall down and worship me." 10 Then Jesus *said to him, "Begone, Satan! For it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only." 11 Then the devil *left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.

12 And Jesus answered and said to him, It is said, You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.

13 And when the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time.

546

Bibliography

The New American Standard Bible, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1977. Aland, Kurt, ed. Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 7th ed., (Stuttgart, Germany: German Bible Society) 1984. Bush, L. Russ, ed., Classical Readings in Christian Apologetics. A.D. 100-1800. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books. 1983. Douglas, J. D., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Douglas, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978. Frame, John. Apologetics to the Glory of God. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1994. -----, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1987. Geisler, Norman. Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1976. -----, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books; 1999. Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1994. Harrison, E. F. ed., Bakers' Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1960. Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. New York: Simon & Schuster. 1996. -----, Mere Christianity. New York. Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc. 1960. McDowell, Josh. Evidence that demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, CA. Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1979 -----, More Evidence that demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, CA. Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1981 McDowell, Josh & Stewart, Don. Answers to Tough Questions skeptics ask about the Christian Faith. San Bernardino, CA. Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1983. Runes, Dagobert, D., ed., Dictionary of Philosophy, Philisophical Library, New York, 1942. Van Till, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, Co. 1976.

547

548

Oneness Pentecostal
Introduction
Oneness Pentecostal theology is growing. It denies the Trinity and adds baptism to salvation. Oneness people are clever in how they use scripture to deny basic Christian theology, so be careful when dealing with them.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

What does Oneness theology teach? pp. 550-551 What are the qualities and attributes of being a person? p. 552 Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? Why or why not? pp. 555-558 What are the textual issues with Mark 16:9-20? p. 559-560 What are some alternative theories about the meaning of John 3:5? p. 567 Does Acts 2:38 teach baptism is necessary for salvation? Why or why not? pp. 569-572 What does Acts 4:7-10 tell us about the phrase "in Jesus' name"? p. 573 Is speaking in tongues a necessary sign of salvation? p. 574 Did Jesus pray to Himself? p. 575 Was God seen in the Old Testament? p. 577 What are some questions you can ask Oneness people? p. 581

549

What is Oneness Pentecostal theology?

Oneness Pentecostal theology affirms that there exists only one God in all the universe. It affirms the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. However, Oneness theology denies the Trinity. The Trinity is the doctrine that there is one God who manifests Himself as three distinct, simultaneous persons. The Trinity does not assert that there are three gods, but only one. This is important because many groups who oppose orthodoxy, will accuse Trinitarians of believing in three gods. But this is not so. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God in three persons. Oneness theology denies the Trinity and teaches that God is a single person who was "manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration."9 2 Another way of looking at it is that God revealed himself as Father in the Old Testament, as the Son in Jesus during Christs ministry on earth, and now as the Holy Spirit after Christs ascension. In addition, oneness theology also maintains that baptism is a necessary part of salvation; that is, in order to be saved, one must be baptized, by immersion. If you are not baptized you cannot be saved. However, not only must baptism be by immersion, it must also be administered with the formula "In Jesus name " rather than the formula "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" which is mentioned in Matt. 28:19. Finally, this baptism must be administered by a duly ordained minister on a church that maintains oneness theology: United Pentecostal, United Apostolic, etc. Oneness churches also teach that speaking in tongues is a necessary manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Since a person cannot be saved without the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9), it follows that only those who have spoken in tongues are really saved. There is, therefore, an emphasis that Oneness church members speak in tongues to "demonstrate" that they are saved and have the truth. Oneness groups are decidedly Arminian in the doctrine of salvation. They deny predestination and maintain that it is completely up to the individual to decide whether or not he wants to be saved. They also teach that it is possible to lose one's salvation. There is within the Oneness movement an attempt to represent themselves in a modest and holy manner. This is to be commended. However, sometimes it tends to become legalistic in that women are required to abstain from wearing makeup and pants. They also must have their heads covered. Likewise, men should be well dressed, preferably in ties (this has been my experience with them). Such practices are not wrong in themselves, and are good examples of propriety. However, when they become requirements for acceptance in a church, it is legalistic. Legalism leads to bondage and the requirements of keeping the law to maintain salvation. It then becomes a means by which a person's spirituality is judged. Oneness churches strongly imply that if you go to movies, or have a TV, or wear makeup, etc., then you are not "really" a Christian. I am not saying that the Oneness Theology necessarily leads to legalism, but it seems to be quite evident that it has taken over much of Oneness practice.

92

http://www.upci.org/about/index.asp

550

What does Oneness Pentecostal teach?

Oneness Pentecostal people are many and varied. The two main groups that hold to Oneness theology are the United Pentecostal Church International (the largest) and the United Apostolic church. There are others like the Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Bible Way Churches of Our Lord Jesus Christ as well as a host of independent Oneness churches scattered throughout the United States. The following points of doctrine are generally held to by the Oneness Pentecostal groups.

1.

2.

Within Orthodoxy A. There is only one God in all existence B. The Bible is God's inerrant word C. Jesus was born of a virgin D. Jesus had two natures. E. Justification by faith F. Baptism must be by immersion.9 3 G. The elements of communion are bread and wine and are only for believers. H. Foot-washing (John 13:4-5), is a divine institution to be practiced by church members.9 4 I. Abstain from joining secret societies (James 5:12; 2 Cor. 6:14-18). J. There will be a future rapture of the Church where the Christians will be transformed (1 Thess. 4:13-17; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; Phil. 3:20-21). Outside of Orthodoxy A. Denies the doctrine of the Trinity. B. Denies justification by faith alone by stating that baptism is also required. C. Jesus is God the Father. D. Jesus is the Holy Spirit. E. The name of God is "Jesus." F. Baptism is necessary for salvation. G. Denies pre-existence of the Word as the Son. Teaches that the He existed as the Father. H. Being born again means repentance, baptism, and speaking in tongues. I. Baptism must be administered by an ordained Oneness minister to be valid. J. Baptism must be administered with the phrase, "In the name of Jesus" instead of the phrase, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). K. Speaking in tongues is a necessary requirement to demonstrate that a person has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and is, therefore, saved. It is claimed to be the initial sign of the infilling of the Holy Ghost. L. Restitution of all things, though the devil and the angels will not be restored. M. Women may be pastors. 9 5 N. Only Oneness people will go to heaven.

93 94

Orthodoxy allows for s prinkling as well within Christianity. Many Christian churches practice foot-washing. But it is not a required practice according to the Bible. 95 Many Oneness people deny that women can be pastors, but the UPCI (United Pentecostal Church International) does. Also, there are many Trinitarian churches that practice women ordination and eldership. But generally speaking, women are not to hold these positions. If you are interested in more on this issue, please see Can women be pastors and elders?

551

Oneness and the word "person"

Oneness theology denies the Trinity doctrine and claims that there is one person in the Godhead who has manifested himself in three different forms: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These "forms" are not three separate persons, but one person who occupied consecutive modes. The Trinity, on the other hand, is the teaching that there is one God who exists in three separate, simultaneous, persons. Please note, though, this is not saying there are three gods. In defending the doctrine of the Trinity and in examining the Oneness doctrine regarding the Godhead, it is first necessary to define the terms that are used. Since the Trinity doctrine states there are three persons in one God, and Oneness Pentecostal theology states there is only one person, we first need to know what a "person" is before we try to discover whether or not God is three persons or one. Therefore, what qualifies someone as having personhood"? I offer the following analysis as an attempt to adequately define personhood. After the outline, I will attempt to show that the definition and/or characteristics of personhood can be applied to both the Father and the Son in a context that shows they both existed as persons at the same time, thereby proving Oneness theology is incorrect. What are the qualities and attributes of being a person? 1. 2. 3. 4. A person exists and has identity. A person is aware of his own existence and identity. A. This precludes the condition of being unconscious. A self aware person will use such a statement as "I am", "me", "mine", etc. A person can recognize the existence of other persons. A. This is true provided there were other persons around him or her. B. Such recognition would include the use of such statements as "you are", "you", "yours", etc. A person possesses a will. A. A will is the capability of conscious choice, decision, intention, desire, and or purpose. A single person cannot have two separate and distinct wills at the same time on the exact same subject. A. Regarding the exact same subject, a person can desire/will one thing at one moment and another at a different moment. B. Separate and simultaneous wills imply separate and simultaneous persons. A person has the ability to communicate -- under normal conditions. Persons do not need to have bodies. A. God the Father possesses personhood without a body, as do the angels. B. Biblically speaking, upon death we are "absent from the body and home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8).

5. 6.

7. 8.

God qualifies as having personhood in that He exists, is self aware, has identity, uses terms such as "Me", "I AM", "My", and possesses a will. The question now becomes whether or not there are more than one "persons" in the Godhead. "Let this cup pass from Me." "And he was withdrawn from them about a stones cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, 42 Saying, 'Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done,'" (Luke 22:42). "And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt,'" (Matt. 26:39).

552

In both Luke 22:42 and Matt. 26:39 (which are parallel passages), the context is Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, right before His betrayal. He was praying to the Father about the ordeal He was about to undergo. Several points are worth bringing out here. First, in this passage, Jesus addresses the Father. He says, "Oh my Father..." Note that Jesus says "my" and "Father." These two words designate a "me and you" relationship. Second, "If it be possible" is Jesus expressing a desire, a hope. What is that hope or desire? It is that "this cup pass from me." The cup Jesus is speaking of is the immanent ordeal of betrayal, scourging, and crucifixion. Jesus did not want to go through this. He was expressing His desire. It was His will not to undergo the severe ordeal ahead of Him. If this was not so, He would not have expressed the desire to have the cup pass from Him. Third, in Matt. 26:39, Jesus says, "Nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done." In Luke 22:42 he says, "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." With this, Jesus is expressing His will and contrasting it to the will of the Father. Yet, He is stating that even though He does not want to undergo what lay ahead, "Nevertheless," He would submit to the will of the Father. This shows that the person of Jesus had a separate and different will than the Father. Since we have two separate simultaneous wills, we have two separate and simultaneous persons and Oneness Pentecostal theology is incorrect. Questions to ask the Oneness person: 1. Is Jesus His own Father? 2. If Jesus' will and the Father's will were identical (in an attempt to demonstrate that there is only one will), then why did Jesus express the desire to escape the cup but resigns Himself not to His own will, but the will of the Father? 3. Was Jesus praying to Himself at this point? 4. Was Jesus saying, "Not My will, but My will be done?" if there is only one person and one will involved?

553

Another look at Jesus, the Father, and two wills

Oneness theology teaches that there is only one person in the Godhead whose name is Jesus. Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit. Regarding His incarnation, oneness people say that He was in heaven at the same time that He was on earth. Logically this would mean that even though Jesus was both in heaven and on earth, He was still one person, not three as the Trinity position holds. Unfortunately, the oneness position presents a serious problem. In the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:42), Jesus prayed to the Father saying, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done." See also, ""And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt,'" (Matt. 26:39). We have two wills, one of the son, one of the Father, at the same time. If this is so, then how can one person can have two separate and opposing wills on the same subject at the same time? The response is generally that Jesus was fully a man and that in his humanity he was not the everlasting Father. But if this is so, then what was Jesus if not God incarnate? If He is not fully God incarnate, then the atonement is void since it isn't God making the sacrifice but a mere man. Sometimes oneness people say that Jesus had another existence outside His existence as a man because he also was existing as the Father. But this implies that there are two beings since each has its own existence different than the other. Furthermore, the Oneness position would have a will of the Father and the Son at the same time that are in opposition to each other -- yet they are one person! If the oneness people state that Jesus' flesh was at odds with His own presence as the Father in heaven, then again we have no true incarnation. The problem with the oneness position is serious and the fact that Jesus' will was separate from the Father's demonstrates that the Father and the Son are different persons within the Godhead. The oneness people are very wrong.

Questions: 1. If it was the flesh side of Jesus speaking to the divine side of Jesus in heaven, then that denies the true incarnation of God in Christ and invalidates the atonement.

554

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

Oneness Pentecostal theology states that baptism is necessary for salvation. It asserts that without it, a person cannot be saved. Is baptism necessary for salvation? No. It is not. The Oneness theologians are in error. Nevertheless, disagreeing with them does not make it so, particularly when we have verses like the following: John 3:5, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Acts 2:38, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 22:16, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 1 Pet. 3:21, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

The problem with baptismal regeneration (the belief that baptism is part of salvation and necessary for it) is that it contradicts other scriptures that state we are justified by faith. Justification is God's declaration upon a sinner that the person is declared righteous in God's site. In other words, only Christians are justified; only Christians are saved. Please consider the following verses: Rom. 4:3, "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Rom. 5:1, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Gal. 3:8, "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." Eph. 2:8, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." See also Rom. 4:5; 9:30; John 5:24; Gal. 2:16; Gal. 3:11-14; and Phil. 3:9.

There are other verses, but these are sufficient to show that we are made right in God's eyes -justified, forgiven -- by faith, not by faith and baptism. If baptism were necessary for salvation, then these verses would state that we are justified by faith and baptism. But they don't. In fact, that is not what Paul says that the gospel is, and it is the gospel that saves us. The Gospel is what saves "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:1-4). The gospel is defined as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins. Baptism is not mentioned here. Paul said that he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-17). If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Additionally, in Acts, Peter was preaching the gospel, people got saved, and then they were baptized. Acts 10:44-46 says,

555

"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God..." These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-46 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This simply isn't an exception. It is a reality. Let's Suppose... Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration. Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. Is that person saved? Of course he is. Let's further suppose that this person confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior and then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)? Yes it does. Saying that baptism is necessary for salvation is dangerous because it is saying that there is something we must do to complete salvation. That is wrong! See Gal. 2:21; 5:4. Alright, so this sounds reasonable. But still, what about those verses that seem to say that baptism is part of salvation? I'll address those now. But, because this subject can become quite lengthy, in fact, sufficient for a book in itself, I'll only address a few verses and then only briefly. Baptism Verses John 3:5, "Jesus answered, I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'" Some say that water here means baptism. But that is unlikely since Christian baptism hadn't yet been instituted. If this verse did mean baptism, then the only kind that it could have been at that point was the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4). If that is so, then baptism isn't necessary for salvation because the baptism of repentance is no longer practiced. It is my opinion that the water spoken of here means the water of the womb referring to the natural birth process. Jesus said in verse three that Nicodemus needed to be born "again." This meant that he had been born once--through his mother. Nicodemus responds with a statement about how he can't enter again into his mother's womb to be born. Then Jesus says that he must be born of water and the Spirit. Then in verse 6 He says that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.." The context seems to be discussing the contrast between the natural and the spiritual birth. Water, therefore, could easily be interpreted there to mean the natural birth process. I would like to add that there are scholars who agree with the position and some who do not. Some believe that the water refers to the Word of God, the Bible, and others claim it means the Holy Spirit. You decide for yourself. Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This verse is a tough one. It seems to say that baptism is part of salvation. But we know, from other scriptures that it isn't, lest there be a contradiction. What is going on here is simply that repentance and forgiveness of sins are connected. In the Greek, "repent" is in the plural and so is "your" of "your sins." They are meant to be understood as being related to each other. It is like saying, "All of you repent, each of you get baptized, and all of you will receive forgiveness." Repentance is a mark of salvation because it is granted by God (2 Tim. 2:25) and is given to believers only. In this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized. Baptism is the manifestation of the

556

repentance, that gift from God that is the sign of the circumcised heart. That is why it says, repent and get baptized. In other words, the phrase "each of you get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" is parenthetical since it is in the singular and "repent" is in the plural as is "your" of "your sins." Therefore, "repent" must go with the purpose of forgiveness of sins. Also, this concept fits with Peters statement in Acts 10:43 where the same phrase "sins may be forgiven" is used. There it is granted on the basis of faith alone. Also, consider this from The Bible Knowledge Commentary: "The preposition used here is eis which, with the accusative case, may mean "on account of, on the basis of." It is used in this way in Matt. 12:41; and Mark 1:4. Though it is possible for this construction to mean "on the basis of," this is not its normal meaning; eis with the accusative case usually describes purpose or direction."9 6 1 Pet. 3:21, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This is the only verse that says that baptism saves. But, the NIV translation of the verse is unfortunate. A better translation is found in the NASB which says, "and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means "copy," "type," corresponding to," "a thing resembling another," "its counterpart," etc. Baptism is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is "Of what is it a type?", or "Baptism corresponds to what?". The answer is found in the previous verse, verse 20: "who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you" (NASB). What does baptism correspond to? Is it the flood? Or, is it the ark? What was it that saved Noah and his family? Was it the water or the ark? Obviously, it was the Ark. Noah built and entered the ark by faith and was saved (Heb. 11:7). The flood waters destroyed the ungodly. Peter, when referring to the flood waters, refers to them as the means of destruction of the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:5; 3:6). It was the Ark that saved. Noah entered the ark by faith. Baptism here, in my opinion, refers to the Ark, not the waters. That is why the rest of the verse says, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God" which is consistent with what Paul said in Col. 2:11-12 where He equates baptism with being circumcised of heart. Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." Is the washing away of sins done by baptism, the representation of the circumcised heart (Col. 2:11-12) which means you are already saved, or is it by the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:14; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7)? Obviously it is the blood of Jesus and the washing here refers to the calling on Jesus' name. Baptism is a picture of Gods inner work of washing away sin (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11; 1 Pet. 3:21). Rom. 6:4, "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." Because the believer is so closely united to Christ it is said that the symbol of baptism is our death, burial, and resurrection. Obviously we did not die -- unless, of course, it is a figurative usage. Titus 3:5, "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." The washing of rebirth can only be that washing of the blood of Christ that cleanses us. It is not the symbol that saves, but the reality. The reality is the blood of Christ. Gal. 3:27, "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." This is speaking of the believer's union with Christ. It is an identification with, a joining to, a proclamation of loyalty to, etc. In 1 Cor. 10:2 the Israelites were baptized into Moses. That means they were closely identified with him and his purpose. The same thing is meant here.
96

Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

557

More on Baptism It is an outward representation of an inward reality. For example, it represents the reality of the inward washing of Christ's blood upon the soul. That is why it is used in different ways. It is said to represent the death of the person (Rom. 6:3-5), the union of that person with Christ (Gal. 3:27), the cleansing of that person's sins (Acts 22:16), the identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2 ), and being united in one church (1 Cor. 12:13). Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus. It is in this sense a sacrament. A sacrament is a visible manifestation of something spoken. It is also said to be a visible sign of an inward grace. For example, the communion elements of bread and wine are called the sacrament of communion. When we take communion we are partaking of the sacrament. The Covenant of Grace is the covenant between God and Man where God promises to Man eternal life. It is based upon the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and the condition is faith in Jesus Christ. As the Communion Supper replaced Passover, baptism, in like manner, replaces circumcision. "They represent the same spiritual blessings that were symbolized by circumcision and Passover in the old dispensation."9 7 Circumcision was the initiatory rite into the Abrahamic covenant; it did not save. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties and that is exactly what the Abrahamic covenant was. God said to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you" (Gen. 17:7, NIV). God later instructed Abraham to circumcise not only every adult male, but also 8 day old male infants as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-13). If the children were not circumcised, they were not considered to be under the promissory Abrahamic covenant. This is why Moses' wife circumcised her son and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet. (Exo. 4:24-25). She knew the importance of the covenant between God and her children. But at the same time we must understand that circumcision did not guarantee salvation to all who received it. It was a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born into the family of God (who were then the Jews). If you understand that baptism is a covenant sign, then you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration. It comes after faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 13:3) and the work of God (John 6:28). Conclusion Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25,26; Ez. 44:7,9) baptism refers to the washing away of sin (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Titus 3:5) and to spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12). The circumcision of the heart is signified by the circumcision of the flesh, that is, baptism (Col. 2:11-12). One last thought: If someone maintains that baptism is necessary for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of Christ? If the answer is yes, then that person would be in terrible risk of not being saved. If the answer is no, then why is baptism maintained as being necessary the same way as the Jews maintained that works were necessary?

97

Berkhoff, Lewis, Systematic Theology, 1988, p. 620.

558

Baptism and Mark 16:16

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned," (Mark 16:16). This verse is frequently used by baptismal regenerationists to show that baptism is necessary for salvation. It says he who believes and is baptized will be saved. Therefore, they conclude that baptism is a necessary part of becoming saved. But, does this verse prove that baptism is necessary for salvation? Not at all. Mark 16:16 does not say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Let me show you why. I could easily say that he who believes and goes to church will be saved. That is true. But it is belief that saves, not belief and going to church. Likewise, if you believe and read your Bible, you'll be saved. But it isn't reading your Bible that saves you. Rather, belief in Christ, in His sacrifice, is what saves. As I've stated in other papers on this subject, there are numerous verses that clearly demonstrate that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 3:9; etc.). Belief in what God has done, not what man can do, is what results in salvation. Baptism is simply a public demonstration of the inner work of regeneration. This is why the rest of the verse says, "...but he who does not to believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16 focuses on the issue of belief, not baptism. A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20 What I will share here may not be very popular with some readers. Therefore, I need to say upfront that I believe in the absolute inspiration and authority of the Bible. It is the word of God and what it says is authoritative. However, the simple fact is that there are textual variations within the biblical manuscripts. The originals are what are inspired, not the copies. We have copies of inspired documents. These copies are not perfect, but they are very close to it. Again, I am not saying the Bible is untrustworthy. It is 98.5% textually pure. The remaining 1.5% of textual variation are almost entirely of insignificant spelling errors and minor word omissions or additions that do not change the meaning of the text. However, Mark 16:9-20 is a significant textual variant. Many scholars, Christian scholars, consider the ending of Mark to lack authenticity. Please consider the following evidence. 1. Mark 16:9-20 doesn't appear in many of the oldest ancient manuscripts. A. The last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are lacking in the two earliest parchment codices, B and Aleph, in the Old Latin manuscript k,, the Sinaitic Syriac, many manuscripts of the Old Armenian version, the Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Old Georgian version, and a number of manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ammonius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; other Church Fathers state that the section is absent from Greek copies of Mark known to them (e.g. Jerome, Epist. cxx. 3, ad hedibiam,)...The original form of the Eusebian sections makes no provision for numbering sections after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack it (so, for example, MSS. 1, 20,22, &c.), and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional sigla used by scribes to indicate a spurious addition to a literary document."9 8 There are other endings to Mark. A. Another ending is found in L, Psi, 099, 0112, and minuscules 274mg 579, k, Syrh and more is as follows: i. "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."

2.

98

"The Text of the New Testament," by Bruce Metzger (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary), 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York, 1968, p. 226.

559

B.

C.

Apparent, theological error. i. Mark 16:12 says, "And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country." This verse may be problematic. Jesus rose in the same body that he died in (John 2:19), though it was a glorified body. This is problematic because it suggests "a different form." Jesus did not appear in a different form. He appeared in the same body he rose in. Evidence against the Mark authorship. i. There are 17 non- marcan words used in a non- marcan sense in these verses.

This information about the ending of Mark is not intended to cast doubt upon God's word. But the fact is that the ending is under a large cloud of doubt as to its authenticity. I would not use it as a defense for baptismal regeneration.

560

Baptism and Roman 6:3-5

Romans 6:3-5 is often used as a proof text for the claim that baptism is essential for salvation. It is a strong comparison between our baptism and Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. On the surface, one could conclude that from these verses, that baptism is part of salvation. "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection," Is this section of scripture teaching us that baptism is necessary for salvation? No, it is not. First, we know from the rest of scripture that salvation is by faith, not by faith and something we do Rom. 3:28-30. Second, we can see from other scriptures that baptism follows faith. Take a look at Acts 16:30-33 where the Jailer specifically asks what he must do to be saved and where baptism fits in. "and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household." 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household," (Acts 16:30-33, NASB). If baptism were part of salvation, then Paul should have said, "Believe and be baptized and you will be saved." But, he did not. Also, consider Acts 10:44-46. "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days," (NIV). These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-46 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This isn't an exception. It is a reality. This proves that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

561

What is Romans 6:3-5 saying? "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection," The phrase "baptized into" occurs five times in the NT in four verses as found in the KJV and the NASB.. 5. Rom. 6:3, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?" 6. 1 Cor. 10:2, "and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 7. 1 Cor. 12:13, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." 8. Gal. 3:27, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." To be baptized "into Christ," "into His death," "into Moses," and "into one body" is to be publicly identified with the thing you are being baptized into. The focus is not the baptism itself, but on the thing the baptism represents. In the case of Rom. 6:3-5, being baptized into Christ is a public identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection which is said to be the gospel that saves in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Baptism then is a public statement proclaiming that the person is trusting in the sacrifice of Christ. Baptism by immersion is a perfect symbol for this work of Christ with which the Christian is identifying himself. As Christ died and was raised to a new life, so to the Christian, in Christ, is said to have died (Rom. 6:11; Col. 3:3) and has a new life. This new life of regeneration is by faith, the internal work. Baptism is the external work of identification with Christ. This is why the reference to baptism in the Bible is dealing more with "our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism."9 9 Baptism Baptism Baptism Baptism Baptism is being identified as a disciple (Matt. 28:18-9). may be compared to a new birth (John 3:5). is compared to Jesus' death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5). is compared to Israel's Exodus and passing through the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:2). is compared to Noah's escaping the flood waters by entering the ark (1 Pet. 3:21).

In each of the references above, baptism is identification with something. When people were baptized into John the Baptist's baptism of repentance, it wasn't the baptism that granted them repentance or made repentance real. Repentance is something that happens internally and is the work of God (2 Tim. 2:25). To participate in John's baptism was to publicly proclaim that the person being baptized was accepting John's message or repentance. Hence, it was called a baptism of repentance. It wasn't the baptism that brought repentance; rather, baptism was the result of repentance. The person had to first decide to repent, and then become baptized as a proclamation of his decision. Likewise, the Christian must first decide to repent, to receive Christ (John 1:12), to rely on the sacrifice of Christ, by faith, and then participate in the public proclamation of identifying with Christ's work.

It is identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that baptism represents. Jesus' shed blood is what cleanses us from our sins (Heb. 9:22), not being washed with water. It is Christ's
Enhanced Strongs Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

99

562

death that is the payment for sin. Jesus' burial is the proof that He, in fact, died. Jesus' resurrection is the proof of God the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ and that death is conquered. Again, for a Christian to be baptized is to make a public proclamation that he is trusting in Christ's work, that he is naming himself with Christ and trusting what Christ has done. This is why it says in Rom. 6:11, "Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus," (NASB). Why? Because "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me," (Gal. 2:20). It is on the cross that Jesus paid for our sins, not in His baptism and not in our baptism. It is our identification with Him, being counted "in Christ" that allows us to say we have been crucified with Christ so that we can say we are dead to sin. We are not dead to sin by our baptism. Rather, we are dead to sin, by faith, in what Jesus did in His sacrifice. Conclusion Romans 6:3-5 speaks to us of Christ's work and our public identification with it. In that ancient world of religious plurality in Roman gods, in the strict Laws of the Jewish system, and in the gods of different cultures, to be baptized was to make a bold statement of commitment to Christ as the risen Lord. It was not the water that saved, but faith in Christ and His work.

563

Baptism and Gal. 3:27

Gal. 3:27 is often used by the baptismal regenerationists to support the idea that you must be baptized to be saved. They maintain that baptism is the place where a person "puts on Christ," where he is "clothed with Christ" and that it means that baptism saves. They teach that being immersed in the baptismal water is the place and time of deliverance from sins. This is simply not true. Gal. 3:27 cannot be understood alone. It must be examined in context. "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahams offspring, heirs according to promise," (Gal. 3:24-29). In Roman society, children were often committed to the care of trusted slaves. This would often happen when the child was between six or seven, and it would last until puberty. "These slaves were severe disciplinarians and were charged with guarding the children from the evils of society and giving them moral training. This was like the Laws function until Christ came and people could be justified by faith in Him."1 0 0 The Law was a harsh master to the Jews. It was very difficult to keep. This is why the Law points to Christ by showing us our inability to keep the Law and by showing us that we must rely on faith instead. That is why justification is by faith (vv. 24-26), because we cannot attain justification by Law (Rom. 3:28-30; Phil. 3:9). "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ," (Gal. 3:27). In Roman society when a child who had been under the care of a tutor and reached a matured enough age, he was given a special robe, or toga. It was symbolic of his full rights in the family. 1 0 1 Therefore, being "clothed with Christ" is a phrase meaning that the Christian moved out from the Law and into the gospel of grace and can enjoy full acceptance before God the Father. It is not saying that baptism is what saves us from our sins.

100

Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985, on Gal. 3:24. 101 ibid, on Gal. 3:27.

564

Baptism and 1 Pet. 3:21

1 Pet. 3:21 says, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This is the only verse that says that baptism saves. Is it teaching that we must be baptized to be saved? No. But, but to rightly understand it, we need to look at its context. "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves younot the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him," (1 Pet. 3:18-22, NASB). The above translation in verse 21 from the NASB is a good translation. "And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means "copy," "type," "corresponding to," "a thing resembling another," "its counterpart," etc. It is what the NIV translates as "symbolizes," the NASB as "corresponding to that," and the KJV as "like figure." Baptism, then, is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is "Of what is it a type?", or "baptism corresponds to what?" If we look at the context, an interesting possibility arises, though I will admit, not the favored interpretation among scholars. What does baptism correspond to? Is it the flood? Or, is it the ark? What was it that saved Noah and his family, the flood or the ark? Obviously, it was the Ark. Noah built and entered the ark by faith and he was saved (Heb. 11:7). The flood waters destroyed the ungodly. Also, Peter consistently refers to the flood waters as the means of destruction of the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:5; 3:6), not the salvation of Noah and his family. Rather, it was the Ark that saved, the ark that Noah entered faith. It may very well be that baptism refers to the Ark, not the waters. That is why the rest of the verse says, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God" which is consistent with what Paul said in Col. 2:11-12 where He equates baptism with being circumcised of heart. The problem with this interpretation is that it doesn't seem to fit the "water for water typology." It would seem more natural to equate the water of baptism with the water of the flood. Furthermore, if we were to look at the flood waters as the thing that removed evil from the land, we could say that "correspondingly," the waters of baptism remove removes the sin from our hearts. Though this reading seems a bit more natural, it too has problems. The water of baptism is not what saves us, the sacrifice of Christ does which we receive by faith. We read numerous verses about justification by faith (Rom. 5:1), salvation by faith (Eph. 2:8), etc., not justification "by faith and baptism," or salvation "by faith and baptism. "1 0 2 The fact is that salvation is received by faith. Peter, not wanting to declare that baptism itself is what saves us, quickly adds, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience." Water baptism, then, must accompany the work of the Holy Spirit in the person. Peter's explanatory comment shows us that the act of physical baptism is not what saves, but the "baptism of appeal to God." This appeal to God is by faith the same as Noah's faith in God led him to build the Ark, enter it, and remain in it. It was the Ark that saved Noah, not the flood waters. The flood was for Noah a type of baptism even as the passage through the Red Sea was a type of baptism for the Israelites. "I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3and all ate the same supernatural food 4and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ," (1 Cor. 10:1-4).
102

Mark 16:16 says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Please see the article on Baptism and Mark 16:16 for an examination of this verse.

565

The "baptisms" of both Noah and the Israelites served as types of a transition; that is, they moved people from the old world to the new, from the old covenant to the new covenant. It is not the water that saves, but the spiritual thing associated with that water that saves. For Noah it was faith in God. For Moses it too was faith in God. But some may say that the work of the Holy Spirit and the act of baptism are simultaneous, that the Holy Spirit works in and through baptism to bring regeneration. But this cannot be the case since the Bible tells us that salvation is by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8). Besides, we have a clear instance in scripture where people are saved before their baptism. Acts 10:44-48 "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days," (Acts 10:44-48). In these verses we see that Peter had been preaching the gospel and the Holy Spirit fell upon the listeners. In verse 45 we read that "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also." This gift manifested itself in speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a signgift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, verse 46 says they were "exalting God." Unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved because they are moving in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and glorifying God. It is the Holy Spirit who gives charismatic spiritual gifts to the church (1 Cor. 12:2728), not to unbelievers. Now, please notice that it was after this movement of the Holy Spirit that the believers are baptized. If baptism is necessary for salvation, then how is it that the people were speaking in tongues and exalting God before they were baptized? If you were to say that the Holy Spirit was simply working upon and through those not yet saved, then remember that tongues and praise to God are for the church, not the unbelievers. The church consists of people who are saved, not unsaved. If they were not saved until they were baptized, then they were not in the body of Christ and would not have moved in the charismatic gifts. Therefore, they were regenerate before they were baptized. This simply isn't an exception. It is a reality. Conclusion 1 Pet. 3:21 is not teaching us that baptism is what saves us. Rather, it is showing us that the water symbolizes a spiritual cleansing through the power of the Holy Spirit gained through Christs victory over death. It is the person's appeal to God that saves the soul, not the washing of water upon the body.

566

Baptism and John 3:5

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit," (John 3:3-8). There are five basic interpretations to this section of scripture in reference to water. 6. The 7. The 8. The 9. The 10. The water water water water water refers refers refers refers refers to the natural birth. to the Word of God. to the Holy Spirit. to the ministry of John the Baptist. to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

The first option looks to the context of Jesus' words dealing with being born "again" (3:3). Nicodemus responds by mentioning the experience of being born from the womb (v. 4). Jesus then speaks of water and the Spirit and then says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (3:6). However, this view is not the most commonly held view. The second option holds that the water is referring to the Word of God. Eph. 5:26 says, "that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word." Some believe that the washing of water is done by means of the Word of God. The third view says that the water refers to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps Nicodemus was reminded of Ezek. 36:25-27, "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27"And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." Certainly, Jesus' own words are applicable here when He says in John 7:37-39, "Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. 38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.'" 39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." The fourth view holds that the water is in reference to the water baptism of repentance taught by John the Baptist. Matt. 3:1-6 describes John's ministry in the desert, his teaching about repentance, and baptizing people into that repentance. Contextually, the first chapter of John mentions John the Baptist in verses 6-8 and 19-36. Certainly, contextually, John and his ministry is in view here. If this is the case, then Jesus would have been speaking of the "baptism" (the initiatory ordinance) of repentance preached by John the Baptist. The fifth view is the one held by the International Church of Christ; namely, that the water is referring to baptism and that it is essential to salvation.

567

Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is essential to salvation? As you can see, there are different interpretations to John 3:5. But, to simply say that John 3:5 does not teach the necessity of baptism isn't enough. Some sort of proof must be offered. The proof is found in God's word that has no contradictions. Clearly, salvation is by faith. For example, Rom. 5:1 states that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith. It does not say faith and baptism. If baptism were part of salvation, then it would say we were justified by faith and baptism. But it does not. If justification is by faith, then it is by faith. Baptism is not faith. It is a ceremony. Furthermore, please consider the following verses when declare how we are saved. 9. Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction." 10. Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." 11. Rom. 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." 12. Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness." 13. Rom. 5:1, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," 14. Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham." 15. Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith." 16. Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." Additionally, Paul tells us that the gospel is what saves us and that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Baptism is not included in the description of the gospel. This explains why said he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-174). If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Therefore, John 3:5 must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the rest of scripture. Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration. Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. Is that person saved? Of course he is. Let's further suppose that this person who confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior, then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)? Yes it does. Baptism is not necessary for salvation and John 3:5 cannot teach that it is.

568

Baptism and Acts 2:38

Acts 2:38 is one of the more controversy verses in the Bible regarding baptism and whether or not it is the requirement for salvation. On the surface it seems to support it. But upon closer examination, we will see that it does not teach baptismal regeneration: that baptism saves. First of all, rarely is doctrine ever made from a single verse. We need to look at all of what God's words says about a subject in order to accurately understand what it teaches. I will briefly tackle of this verse in the following manner. Examination of the verse's syntax, grammar and structure. Examine other verses dealing with the forgiveness of sins. Examine the verse in its covenant context. Grammar and Structure of Acts 2:38 In Acts 2:38 the main verb is metanoesate (change mind), the aorist direct imperative (a command) of metanoeo which means to repent (change mind). This refers to that initial repentance of the sinner unto salvation. The verb translated "be baptized" is in the indirect passive imperative (a command to receive; hence, passive voice in Greek1 0 3 ) of baptizo, which does not give it the same direct command implied in "repent." The preposition "for" in the phrase "for the remission of sins" in Greek is "eis," unto or into, and it is in the accusative case (direct object). It can mean "for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins." It is the same preposition we find in 1 Cor. 10:2 in the phrase "and were baptized unto Moses." Note that both contexts are dealing with baptism and identification. These people were baptized or spiritually identifying themselves with the purposes and vision of Moses. Repentance, therefore, is presented as identifying an individual with the remission of his sins, even as baptism following repentance provides an external identification visible by others. Repentance is something that concerns an individual and God while baptism involves others. That is why baptistheto (let be immersed) is in the passive voice indicating that one does not baptize himself, but is baptized by another usually in the presence of others. Repentance, however, is an act taking place within a person's heart as the Holy Spirit moves in the sinner. But, all this Greek stuff may be confusing. Let me break it down. All people are commanded to repent for their sins. This is what believers have already done by becoming Christians. Baptism, then, is the outward identification with being a Christian for those who have already repented. Also, as the Israelites were "baptized into Moses," (1 Cor. 10:2), so too, Christians are baptized into Jesus. That is, they are identifying themselves, publicly, with Christ. Likewise, in Rom. 6:1-5 where baptism is related to death, burial, and resurrection, it is again and identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. That is why it is said of Christians that we have died to sin (Rom. 6:2, 11; Gal. 2:20; Col. 2:20; Col. 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:24). This verse is not demonstrating that baptism is essential for salvation, but that baptism is the thing which we receive, in order to publicly identify ourselves completely and totally with Christ as a manifestation of the inward work God has done within us.

103

Active voice is "I hit the ball." Passive voice is "The ball hit me." Middle voice is "I was hit by the ball." In active voice, "I" performed the action. In passive voice, "I" received the action. In middle voice, "I" did something to myself.

569

Other verses dealing with salvation Justification is the work of God where the righteousness of Jesus is reckoned to the sinner so the sinner is declared, by God, as being righteous under the Law (Rom. 4:3; 5:1,9; Gal. 2:16; 3:11). This righteousness is not earned or retained by any effort of the saved. Justification is an instantaneous occurrence with the result being eternal life. It is based completely and solely upon Jesus' sacrifice on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and is received by faith alone (Rom. 4:5; 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9). No works are necessary whatsoever to obtain justification. Otherwise, it is not a gift (Rom. 6:23). Therefore, we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1). Nowhere in the Bible does it state that we are justified by grace and baptism or faith and baptism or faith and anything else. On the contrary, baptism is excluded from the gospel message. Paul said that he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-17). Likewise, Paul told us exactly what the gospel that saves is. He said in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." Note that Paul state and that the gospel is what saints and he did not include baptism in the definition of the gospel. So, we must ask if baptism is necessary for salvation, then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Further proof that baptism is not a requirement of salvation can be found in Acts 10:44-46. Peter was preaching the gospel, people became saved, and then they were baptized. Acts 10:44-46 says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days," (NIV). These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-46 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This isn't an exception. It is a reality. This proves that baptism is not necessary for salvation and that Acts 2:38 is not teaching its necessity either. But, if it isn't saying that, then why is baptism mentioned here? Biblical Covenant Context A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. Very often, covenants have visible signs to represent them. The elements of bread and wine in the communion support are good examples of this. Circumcision was both a covenant sign and and the initiatory rite into the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 17:10). But this covenant sign did not save anyone. God said to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you," (Gen. 17:7, NIV). God later instructed Abraham to circumcise not only every adult male, but also eight day old male infants as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-13). If the children were not circumcised, they were not considered to be under the promissory Abrahamic covenant. This is why Moses' wife circumcised her son and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet after Moses failed to circumcise him, (Exo. 4:24-25). She knew the importance of the covenant between

570

God and her children. But at the same time we must understand that circumcision did not guarantee salvation to those who received it. It was a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born into the family of God (who were then the Jews). It was an outward sign of the covenant promise. To reject it was to reject the covenant. But, accepting it did not guarantee salvation. Another theological debate at risk here There is debate within Christianity on the nature of baptism and to whom it may be administered. I am not here trying to convince anyone of the proper objects of baptism whether it is infant baptism or adult only baptism. I only present the following information as a proof that baptism is a covenant sign, and not essential to salvation. In the New Testament, circumcision is mentioned many times. But with respect to baptism it is specifically mentioned in Col. 2:11-12: "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead," (NIV). In these verses, baptism and circumcision are related. The extent of that relationship is still being debated. Nevertheless, Paul also says in Rom. 2:29, "But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." As you can see, for the Christian, circumcision is of the heart. And because it is, we Christians are now included the Abrahamic covenant where before, we, the Gentiles, were not. "Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world," (Eph. 2:12, NASB). In Gal. 3:8, Paul calls the promise of the Abrahamic covenant, the gospel. He says, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'All the nations shall be blessed in you, 9So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.'" (Gal. 3:8-9). So, Paul calls the Abrahamic covenant, the gospel. The sign of this Abrahamic covenant was circumcision. Here is the catch. Since the Abrahamic covenant is still valid (we are justified by faith -- Gal. 3:8), then is there a covenant sign for us today? I think the answer is a resounding, yes. I believe that baptism replaces the Old Testame nt covenant sign of circumcision because 1) there was a New Covenant in the communion supper (Luke 22:20), and 2) in circumcision there was the shedding of blood, but in baptism no blood is shed. The covenant sign has changed now that the Law has been fulfilled in Christ. If you understand that baptism is a covenant sign, then you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration, of "heart-circumcision." It comes after faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 13:3) and the work of God (John 6:28). Again, baptism is the covenant sign of our covenant with God. Acts 2:39 and "The Promise" This would explain why Peter in verse 39 of Acts 2 says, "For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." What promise is Peter speaking of when he says "the promise"? Notice that he does not say "this promise" but "the promise." If Peter was referring to baptism as the promise he would have said "this promise." Instead, he used a phrase "the promise." This is significant. The phrase "the promise" occurs in 26 Bible verses in the New Testament. It is used in reference to several different topics. 9. The Holy Spirit, (Luke 24:49; Acts 2:33; Gal. 3:14). 10. God's promise to Abraham to multiply his descendents in Egypt, physical as well as spiritual, (Acts 7:17; Heb. 6:13, 15, 17). 11. The promise of the Messiah, (Acts 13:32; Acts 26:6-7; Rom. 4:13,14,16; Gal. 3:17,19,22; Eph. 3:6; 2 Tim. 1:1). 12. The promise of eternal redemption (Heb. 9:15; 1 John 2:25). 13. The promise that Sarah would have a child (Rom. 4:20; Gal. 4:23). 14. The promise that through Isaac, the world would be blessed, (Rom. 9:8). 15. The promise of Jesus' return (2 Pet. 3:4). 16. The promise to kill Paul by Paul's adversaries (Acts 22:21).

571

But, we are most interested in its context in Acts 2 which begins with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-13). Peter then preaches a sermon and quotes many OT scriptures (Acts 2:14-35). In verse 2:22, Peter specifically says, "Men of Israel, listen to these words..." Peter is speaking to the Jews. It was to the Jews that "the promise" of the outpouring of the Spirit was given. Peter is speaking covenant language of God as He quotes the OT. Since Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-18, we can easily see what Peter is talking about when speaking of "the promise" in Acts 2:39. "And it shall be in the last days, God says, that I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams, Even upon My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit," (Acts 2:17-18). See also, "For I will pour out water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring, and My blessing on your descendants," (Isa. 44:3). Peter states in Acts 2:38, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Peter is clearly speaking of the promise of God to grant the Holy Spirit in a new and better way. But is he saying that people become saved by baptism in water or that baptism is part of salvation? Not at all. Peter is simply speaking covenantally about the covenant sign. Baptism! Consider this proof, from Peter, that people are saved before baptism. "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days," (Acts 10:44-48). Notice that Peter had been preaching the gospel and the Holy Spirit fell upon the people. In verse 45 we see that "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also." These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-48 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This simply isn't an exception. It is a reality. Conclusion Acts 2:38 so closely ties repentance and baptism because it is contextually covenant language and covenant concept. It is not stating that you must be baptized in order to be saved. It is saying that baptism is the complete and total covenantal identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. It is not the covenant representation (baptism) of what Christ did that saves us, but the reality of His sacrifice which we receive by faith (Rom. 5:1; Gal. 3:8). That is why we can see in Acts 10:44-48 a group of people who are saved before they are baptized. Baptism is not what saves. It is not part of salvation. It is something someone does who is already saved.

572

Must baptism be "in Jesus' name"?

Oneness Pentecostal theology maintains that baptism must be by immersion using the formula "in Jesus name" and not the formula "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as is found in Matt. 28:19. They reject the Trinitarian formula because they reject the Trinity. To support their method, they cite various Bible verses that reference baptizing in Jesus' name and claim that this is proof for their doctrine. Following are some of the Bible references they quote. Acts 2:38," Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 8:16, "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 10:48, "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Acts 19:5, "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

The phrase, "in the name of the Lord" is not a reference to a baptismal formula, but a reference to authority. It is similar to hearing someone say, "Stop in the name of the Law!". We understand that the "name of the Law" means by the authority of the Law. It is the same with baptism "in Jesus' name." Consider the following: "And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?" 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead by this name this man stands here before you in good health" (Acts 4:710). (See also Acts 4:17-18; 5:28; 5:40-41; 8:12; 9:27-28.) We can see that the phrase is used in the Bible as an expression of authority. This is also verified in Acts 16:18 which says, "And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." We also see that when people were being baptized that they did it calling on Jesus' name (Acts 22:16); that is, they were calling upon Jesus who has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). The church is supposed to "call upon the name of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 1:2) because it is by His authority (John 1:12) that we Christians have the hope and right of forgiveness of sins and adoption as His children (Rom. 8:15). Therefore, the Oneness Pentecostal people are simply in error by demanding that baptism be done with the formula "In Jesus name." Instead, it should be done as Jesus commanded: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19).

573

Is speaking in tongues a necessary sign of salvation?

The Oneness Pentecostal people teach that speaking in tongues is a necessary manifestation of the Holy Spirit and without it a person is not truly saved. 1 0 4 It is so important to them that one exoneness person told me that her church had altar calls for people to come up and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit so they could speak in tongues. She said she never saw an alter call for people to come up and receive Jesus as savior. But, this is only one example and may not be typical. We see in Acts that many people who became Christians immediately spoke in tongues (Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6). But is it a necessary sign of salvation? No. It isn't. Consider the following verses in 1 Cor. 12. 1 Cor. 12:7-11, "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues. 11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." 1 Cor. 12:29-30, "Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

We can see that the Holy Spirit gives gifts as He desires. He distributes them upon His people in the church as He wills (1 Cor. 12:11). It states in 1 Cor. 12:7-11 that different people have different gifts and we see in verses 29-31 that not all speak in tongues. Now, the Oneness person will state that all are supposed to speak in tongues, but that not all do. They maintain that speaking in tongues is a necessary sign gift of true salvation and that a true believer will speak in tongues. But, that is not what the text says. Paul asks the questions: Are all apostles? No. Are all prophets? No. Are all teachers? No. In other words, within the body of Christ, different people are called by God to have different gifts. If someone states that all are supposed to speak in tongues, but that not all do, then are all supposed to be apostles as well but not all are? Are all called to be prophets? Are all called to be teachers? No. Likewise, not all are called by God to speak in tongues. It is simple. Not all speak in tongues because God doesn't give the gift to everyone. Speaking in tongues is not the sign of salvation, but a sign. If anything, the fruit of the indwelling Spirit of God is listed in Gal. 5:22-23 is the sign of salvation. I would ask the Oneness person if the following fruit are what the true signs of salvation in his or her life rather than speaking in tongues: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law" (Gal. 5:22-23). So, again I ask. What is the biblical sign of salvation, tongues or the fruit of the Spirit?

104

This paper is not dealing with the issue of whether or not the charismatic gifts are still in operation.

574

Who did Jesus pray to?

Oneness theology states that the Father was in the Son and that the person of Jesus was also the person of the Father. Of course, when we see instances in the Bible where Jesus prays to the Father, we naturally wonder how this can be if they are they same person. But, according to Oneness theology, Jesus was praying to the Father, the true divinity though it was Jesus the man who was praying. But, how can this be? Was Jesus praying to Himself (since God is only one person) and making it appear that He was praying to someone else? Oneness theology correctly states that Jesus has two natures. He was both God and man while He walked this earth. 1 0 5 But it states that the human part of Jesus was praying to the divine essence of God as the Father. What they do is divide Jesus into two parts and have the human nature address the divine nature. The problem with this is that it threatens the incarnation of the Word made flesh as a complete and single person. Jesus was both God and man in one person. He had a will. He ate. He slept, etc. He was a man. He needed to be a human in order to bear the sins of people. He needed to be God in order to offer a sacrifice to God the Father sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. No mere man could do this. But the fact is, Jesus was one person -- and still is. 1 0 6 Jesus was both God and man at the same time in the form of a single person. The Oneness explanation risks the error of Nestorianism1 0 7 which stated that Jesus was two separate persons: a human person and a divine person in the form of one man. No where in the Bible does it state that Jesus was two persons. Rather, we find scriptures where Jesus refers to Himself as "I" and "Me" and "mine" not "us" or "our." The Oneness position is simply in error. Jesus was not praying to Himself. We see in Scripture, Jesus praying to the Father (John 17). We see Him addressing another person who is called God. We see Jesus saying, "Not my will, but your will be done" (Luke 22:42) when He addressed God the Father. In other words, they had separate wills -at the same time. He was not praying to Himself, or an extension of Himself, of a part of Himself. He was praying to the person of the Father. Furthermore, according to Oneness theology, Jesus would have had to exist at the same time as the Father if Jesus the man was praying to the Father. If this is so and Jesus was addressing the Father, then we have two simultaneous persons. But in Oneness theology, this is a problem since God is only one person who occupies consecutive modes. How then could the "mode" of the Father and the "mode" of the Son be in existence at the same time if Oneness theology is correct? They cannot, which is another reason why Oneness theology is wrong.

105

Actually, Jesus is still God and man. Col. 2:9 states that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Note, the verse says "dwells", not dwelt. Dwells is in the present tense, not the past. Therefore, in Jesus, right now, dwells the fullness of the Godhead. 106 See my article Oneness and the word "person" that deals with the nature of personhood. 107 This heresy is attributed to Nestorius who was a preacher at Antioch and the Bishop of Constantinople around 428 A.D. However, Nestorius did not preach that Jesus was two persons in one body, but his name has become attached to this error.

575

Jesus' resurrection and ascension

One of the problems with oneness theology is in dealing with the resurrection of Jesus. Oneness Pentecostal theology states that Jesus had two natures while he was walking the earth. That is, he was both God and man. This is correct theology in so far as it states that within the one person of the Son, there are two natures: God and man. But it also states that God is now in the "form" of the Holy Spirit. What happened to Jesus' body after the ascension? Where is it? Is it alive? Is it in a coma? Was it dissolved? Does it still exist? Is Jesus still a person? If so, how can Jesus, the person with flesh and bones, also be the Holy Spirit? In Trinitarian theology the second person of the Trinity became flesh (John 1:1, 14). In other words, according to Phil. 2:5-8, Jesus added to himself human nature. Likewise in Col. 2:9 it states, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." 1 Tim. 2:5 says that "there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." We know that Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in since He prophesied He would raise His body (John 2:19-21); He retained the scars of His ordeal after the resurrection (John 20:27); and He was seen as a man after the resurrection (Luke 24:39). "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have," (Luke 24:39). "Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing," (John 20:27).

As you can see from the above verses, Jesus retained His physical nature after His resurrection -along with His scars. This is why it says in Col. 2:9 that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Notice that the verb "dwells" is in the present tense. That is, right now Jesus has a body of flesh and bones. He is physical. He is in heaven. He is a man, the Godman. Nevertheless, some deny Jesus' resurrection by stating that the Bible says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and therefore Jesus did not rise in the same body he died in. But, we need to realize that the Bible says, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50), not flesh and bones as Jesus said He had (Luke 24:39). Is this important? Yes it is. Jesus blood was the sacrifice that cleanses us from sin (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22). I suspect that Jesus' resurrected body did not have any blood in it. It was shed from His body on the cross. Jesus' Ascension and Return The Bible tells us that Jesus ascended into the sky (Acts 1:9-11). When He did this He was still in physical form as I've demonstrated above. In addition, the Bible tells us that Jesus will return in the same manner. "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven," (Acts 1:9-11). Since the Bible teaches us that Jesus is in bodily form now (Col. 2:9), then how does the Oneness Pentecostal person maintain that God is in the form of the Holy Spirit? Also, when Jesus returns, will He return in His body? Will God's form then revert to the form of the Son at His return according to Oneness? I do not think Oneness Pentecostal theology is correct for many reasons. But here, with this issue of Jesus' resurrection and ascension, I see their theology denying the incarnation of God in flesh right now. After all, it says in Col. 2:9 that Jesus is in bodily form now. Oneness denies that since God, according to its theology, is now supposed to be in the form of the Holy Spirit

576

God was seen in the Old Testament. Who was it?

Oneness Pentecostal theology teaches that God exists as one person who revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. In the Old Testament, God revealed himself as the Father. When Jesus was on earth, the revelation was as the Son. Now, God is in the mode of the Holy Spirit. Basically, oneness teaches three consecutive modes of God: the Father who became the Son who became the Holy Spirit. There are variations on this model within Oneness churches, but I will focus on this model here. However, in the Old Testament there are numerous places where God is seen. In some places this is the angel of the Lord. In others it is a vision or a dream. But, there are instances in the Old Testament where God is seen and it is not an angel, a vision, or a dream. Of course, this can raise some warning flags for Trinitarians as well as Oneness people. But when you look at the totality of Scripture, you'll find that the Trinitarians have an easy answer where the Oneness Pentecostal people do not. Basically, in those places where God was seen in the Old Testament, it was the person of Jesus; that is, it was the pre-incarnate Word that was seen. It was not the person of the Father that appeared in the OT because Jesus said that no one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46). Yet, God Almighty was seen (Exo. 6:2-3). For the Oneness people, this is a problem since God was in the mode of the Father in the Old Testament and to them, it had to be the Father. John 6:46, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." Exo. 6:2-3, "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." Num. 12:6-8, "And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 7My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" See also, Exo. 24:9-11; Gen. 17:1; 18:1; 19:24 with Amos 4:10-11; Acts 7:2.

As you c an see from the above scriptures, God Almighty was seen, but it was not God the Father. How then can Oneness theology be correct if God was in the mode of the Father in the Old Testament, that God was seen, and yet Jesus said the Father was not seen? The only answer the Oneness people can give is that God appeared as an angel, or in a vision or dream. But if that is so, then is an angel God Almighty? Look at Exo. 6:2-3. God identifies Himself as Jehovah (His self given name) and states He appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty. Was that an angel? Was it an angel who said, "I am God Almighty"? No. It was God Almighty. Or look at Num. 12:6-8 where God Himself declares that He does not appear to Moses in a vision or a dream, but that Moses beholds His very form. This negates the possibility, at least in this scriptural occurrence that God appeared to Moses in a vision or dream. God was seen in the Old Testament, but it was not the Father. It was the Son, the pre-incarnate Christ. Therefore, the Son existed at the same time as the Father in the Old Testament and Oneness theology is shown to be incorrect because we have both the Father and Son existing at the same time.

577

Isaiah 9:6, Is Jesus the Everlasting Father?

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His Shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace, (Isaiah 9:6). Oneness Pentecostal believers deny the Trinity and teach that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all one person. They sometimes quote Isaiah 9:6 in their attempt to prove their position. However, Isaiah 9:6 cannot be used to disprove the trinity nor bolster their oneness doctrine. When Isaiah 9:6 says that Jesus' name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, etc., it is not saying that Jesus is the eternal Father, but that he has the characteristics of God. In other words, Jesus has all the attributes of God, including eternality. In the ancient Jewish culture, names had meanings. We can better understand this by noting American Indian names such as "Running wolf" or "Fighting Bear." The same with Jewish names. They had meanings. Isaac, for example, means "laughter." Noah means "rest" or "peace." So, when Isaiah is speaking of the name of the coming Messiah and says his name will be Mighty God, Eternal Father, etc, it is telling us about the characteristic s of the Messiah to come in a prophetic manner. If Jesus' name is "Eternal Father," then why don't we call Jesus "Eternal Father"? For that matter, why don't we call his name "Wonderful counselor," or "Mighty God," or "Prince of Peace"? The text speaks of a name, yet has four things revealed in the name. Again, this shows us that it is the characteristics of the then-coming Messiah. The fact that the Messiah would be divine is verified in Heb. 1:3, when it says, "And He [Jesus] is the radiance of His [God] glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power..." This also explains why Jesus said, "...He who has seen Me has seen the Father," (John 14:8). It was because Jesus so precisely represented God the Father as His prophesied name reveals. Furthermore, the oneness Pentecostal people assert that God's name is really "Jesus." But, if that is true, and if Jesus is the eternal Father as they claim, then why don't they call Jesus "The Eternal Father" as His name? Does it also mean that the mode that God is in right now is that of the Father since His name is "Eternal Father" implying He is always the Father. If that is taken literally, then God is the eternal Father, and the true person of the Godhead is the Father, not the Son as the Oneness people assert. The oneness Pentecostal theology is incorrect and improperly describes the true and living God.

578

What is the real gospel message?

The real gospel message is that salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 6:23), not faith and something you do like baptism or faith and speaking in tongues, or faith and going to a oneness churches, etc. True salvation is freedom from the requirement of keeping any part of the Law to get or maintain salvation. True salvation is receiving Christ (John 1:12), being in the body of Christ, and being redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. It means that we are not obligated to keep a moral code such as women should not wear pants, shorts, makeup, or jewelry. It does not mean that we are in danger of losing our salvation if we go to movies, own TV's, swim in public, or wear facial hair as the Oneness Churches emphasis. 1 0 8 We have been set free from the Law. Of course, this does not mean that we are free to sin. Not at all, for how shall we who have died to sin still live in it (Rom. 6:1-2)? But after studying Oneness Pentecostal theology, I have concluded that it is not Christian since it denies the the true God by denying the Trinity and denies salvation by grace by adding a requirement: baptis m. In addition, there is the legalistic expectation of a moral code that must be obeyed lest they be in danger of forfeiting the forgiveness of sins which Christ so lovingly bought and freely gives. This is works righteousness. As is the case in cult groups with false gods, false gospels follow. Such is the case with Oneness Pentecostal theology. It teaches a false god and a false gospel. The god of Oneness theology is not a Trinity. Its gospel is faith plus works: baptism, speaking in tongues as a necessary sign, and obedience to a moral code as a demonstration of salvation. Are we to obey God's word? Absolutely yes! Are we free to go and sin? No. We are obligated to obey God, but not as a requirement to be saved or keep salvation. We are saved by faith (Rom. 5:1) and because we are saved, then obedience follows. Keeping moral laws does not keep us in the faith. Being baptized is not what saves us. The true gospel is defined by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 as that which saves us. Notice that baptism is not mentioned here: "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (NASB). Faith is only as good as who it is placed in. It is, therefore, essential that we rightly understand God as He has revealed Himself, a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We see the Son speak to the Father and pray to Him (John 17). We know that God's word says that the Son bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and purchased us with His own blood (Acts 20:28). We are justified apart from the works of the Law "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight . . . (Rom. 3:20), and "for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," (Rom. 3:28), and "For what does the Scripture say? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'" (Rom. 4:3), and "Therefore, having been justified by faith... " (Rom. 5:1), and "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5). Those in Oneness theology need to come to the true Trinitarian God and Savior, renounce the addition of baptism to salvation and rely completely and totally on God's saving grace by faith alone. Then, they need to look at the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) instead of speaking in tongues as an evidence of their salvation. May Jesus be glorified.

108

I am not saying that they do not have the right to practice holiness as they perceive it. I am addressing the issue of the e xternalities as a necessary sign of being saved.

579

Witnessing to those who are in oneness churches

The Oneness Pentecostal people, as a whole, absolutely believe they have the truth and that the Trinity doctrine is pagan in origin. With this in mind, when you speak to them, you'll encounter an attitude that they are absolutely right. It is very difficult to break through this and often takes a lot of time and effort. Think about it. If you are very convinced of your position in contradiction to theirs, how would you feel if they tried to convince you that you were wrong? It'd be very diffic ult to do. Nevertheless, it is important to keep a comfortable and humble dialogue going with them. Pride is not the answer to error. God's love must come through. So, when witnessing to them, or anyone, you need to show love and respect. They need to know the same love of Jesus in you that they claim they have from God. Jesus said that the world will know that we are His disciples by the love we have for one another, (John 13:35). Of course, being loving means being truthful with them. If you don't know something, admit it. If you aren't sure about something, that's okay. Be truthful. You also need to demonstrate to them the love of Jesus in your life. You need to emphasize that Jesus Christ is the center of your faith. Oneness Pentecostals believe that they are the only ones who have the true love of God. In that sense, they believe that they are a privileged group of people enjoying a special knowledge and special relationship with God. That is why they emphasize so much the need to follow their doctrines, be baptized in their churches, by their ministers, according to their understanding of the gospel. They honestly believe it. So, you need to be patient, kind, and truthful with them in your witness. Also, and this is quite common, correct any misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. So often, opposing groups have a misguided concept of the Trinity and end up attacking a straw man argument. Of course, to correct any misunderstanding, you must first understand it yourself. So, if you're rusty, read up on the Trinity. Then, when you think you've got it down, you can share what you know with them. Show scriptures that demonstrate the Trinitarian nature of God. You will need to demonstrate some of the problems with the Oneness Pentecostal position -- and they exist. In order to do that, you will need to read more about them and the issues here on this website as well as other websites and books on the subject. Unfortunately, witnessing to those in opposing theological beliefs often means that you have to study theology. It isn't that tough. It just takes some work and practice. But it is always worth it. Do you know what they believe? You cannot refute error if you do not understand what you are talking about with them. Personally, I like dialoguing with them on the internet to learn what they believe. Reading Oneness material is helpful but it doesn't answer all the questions that I have. Bouncing things off of them gives me a feel for how they think as well as what they think. That helps me witness to them a lot. Finally, pray. You must ask the Lord to bless your efforts and bring fruition to the seeds planted. It is God who bears the fruit of truth. "So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth" (1 Cor. 3:7).

580

Questions to ask Oneness Pentecostal believers

The following questions are not "stoppers." That is, they are not questions to ask Oneness people so you can "stump them for sure." Instead, they are questions to ask to generate conversation. It is during the conversation that real witnessing occurs. Of course, I have found some of these questions to be more difficult than others for the Oneness person to adequately answer. In fact, two of them no Oneness Person has adequately answered at all. Which are they? Try them out. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Is Jesus His own Father? If Jesus' will and the Father's will were identical, then why did Jesus express the desire to escape the cup but resigns Himself not to His own will, but the will of the Father? See my article on this. Was Jesus praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane? If Jesus was praying to the divine side of Himself, then isn't He still praying to Himself? Why was Jesus not saying, "Not My will, but My will be done?" if there is only one person and one will involved when He was praying in Luke 22:42 & Matt. 26:39. If baptism is essential for salvation, then what happens to someone who repents of sin, accepts Jesus as Savior, walks across the street to get baptized but is killed by a car. Does he go to heaven or hell? A. If he goes to heaven, then baptism isn't a requirement is it? B. If he goes to hell, then faith in Christ isn't sufficient to save him is it? Since the Bible teaches us that Jesus is in bodily form now (Col. 2:9), then how does the Oneness Pentecostal person maintain that God is in the form of the Holy Spirit? Also, when Jesus returns, will He return in His body? Will God's form then revert to the form of the Son at a later date? If God is only one person, why did Jesus say in John 14:23, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we w ill come unto him, and make our abode with him." If God is only one person, why does Jesus say, "we"? Oneness theology teaches that God was in the mode of the Father in the Old Testament. God was seen in the OT (not as a vision or a dream or an angel in the following verses: Exo. 6:2-3; Gen. 19:24; Num. 12:6-8). But, Jesus said no one has seen the Father (John 6:46). If they were seeing God Almighty (Exo. 6:2-3) but it wasn't the Father, then who was it?

7.

8. 9.

581

Answers and response to Questions to ask Oneness Pentecostal believers

Via email, I received answers to the questions in the paper, Questions to ask Oneness Pentecostal believers. I have reproduced the answers given and responded to them accordingly. The original questions are in bold. His responses are underlined. My responses follow his. 1. Is Jesus His own Father? A. The response given was "Yes, Jesus is his own Father." Of course, this is an illogical position to hold. I am my Father's son, therefore, I cannot be my own Father. But, seeing the illogic of this position, the following comment was offered after several scriptures were quoted. B. "Therefore Jesus is the Father (in relation to His deity), and the Son of the deity (in relation to deity working through Humanity)." The problem with his statement found in rightly understanding what the Bible teaches concerning the Son. Jesus as a single person has two natures. This is called the hypostatic union; that is, in the one person of Christ are two natures: divine and human. The oneness position effectively divides the one person of Christ into two persons, the Father and the Son, by splitting Jesus into two separate, not unified, parts. Jesus is either divine or He is not. He is either the God- man in one person, or He is not. We cannot have Jesus be his own Father in respect to his deity and the son in respect to his humanity. For a son to be his own father is illogical and the oneness position must backpeddle and erringly divide the natures of Christ into two persons, not one. If Jesus' will and the Father's will were identical, then why did Jesus express the desire to escape the cup but resigns Himself not to His own will, but the will of the Father? A. "If you are posing this argument to try to make two wills within the godhead (which in this case are contrary to one another) then you are promoting outright polythiesm." This statement reveals a lack of understanding not only of the Trinity, but also of logic. The Trinity is the doctrine that there is one God in three persons. Each person has a will. This does not necessitate the existence of three gods and this issue has been thoroughly discussed throughout Christian history. Nevertheless, we see in scripture that only one God is proclaimed and yet the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each have wills and are each called God. A will denotes identity and self awareness. The Father has a will and the Son has a will. Are the two wills really one will? Of course not. In addition, it is the mistake of the oneness to accuse the Trinitarians of being polytheists, an unfortunate and erring attack that only demonstrates the ignorance of the doctrine of the Trinity, the thing they are attacking. Was Jesus praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane? A. "Since Jesus is God, is He the SAME God He was praying to or was He praying to a different God? The person said he had adequately answered this question in his previous comments to question number two. Of course, he hadn't answered it adequately at all. He then poses the above question. Again, this kind of question further demonstrates a lack of understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The answer is simple. The person of the Son was praying to the person of the Father. It was not one god praying to another god. B. I would hope that if someone wished to attack the doctrine of the Trinity that he would at least accurately represent it in his attacks. To misrepresent it is to attack a straw man. If Jesus was praying to the divine side of Himself, then isn't He still praying to Himself? A. "As I have answered above, even if we say "Yes" that is not a Biblical problem." But this is precisely the problem. It would be like saying that the person of the human side of Jesus was praying to His divine side. If that were the case, then we have two beings in the person of Christ which would be ludicrous.

2.

3.

4.

582

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Why was Jesus not saying, "Not My will, but My will be done?" if there is only one person and one will involved when He was praying in Luke 22:42 & Matt. 26:39. A. "Once again, Jesus was speaking in His humanity...In His deity His will was one and the same with God, because He is God. In His humanity He had a human will, that He submitted to God." This seems to be only a confusing answer at best and does not answer the question. Who is "God" in his answer if God, to the oneness people is at that time , Jesus? We either have Jesus praying to Himself or we have Jesus the Son, praying to the person of the Father. The oneness position makes no sense. If baptism is essential for salvation, then what happens to someone who repents of sin, accepts Jesus as Savior, walks across the street to get baptized but is killed by a car. Does he go to heaven or hell? A. There really wasn't much of an answer given. He simply tried to state that baptism is necessary in order to be saved. He also wrote about infants who die and verbal acknowledgement of God when becoming a Christian. But, he did get around to saying that baptism is not an option and then ended with saying that the hypothetical position I proposed would never happen. In other words, he didn't answer it. B. It seems quite obvious to me that he sees the problem that I posed in the original question: If he goes to heaven, then baptism isn't a requirement is it? If he goes to hell, then faith in Christ isn't sufficient to save him is it? To this, he did not respond and I believe it was because it demonstrates the error of his position and there is no way to answer it except to say that it wouldn't happen. Since the Bible teaches us that Jesus is in bodily form now (Col. 2:9), then how does the Oneness Pentecostal person maintain that God is in the form of the Holy Spirit? Also, when Jesus returns, will He return in His body? Will God's form then revert to the form of the Son at a later date? A. "This is a prime example of how you have not only a misunderstanding of the oneness position, but also your own theology of Trinitarianism." The individual did not really answer the question. Instead, he made statements like "God is still Spirit and He is operating through a human body. Scripture confirms that Jesus operates in more than just a human body form, and "Jesus making it explicitly clear that He is the Holy Spirit in the form of a human body (dwelling with them)." Nevertheless, this person went on to say that Jesus would return in His body. But, to be perfectly honest, I really did not understand what this person was getting at. When speaking with oneness people about this, I've often ended the conversation feeling rather confused. It could simply be my lack of ability to understand that particular position, but it could also be that their position just doesn't make sense. If God is only one person, why did Jesus say in John 14:23, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." If God is only one person, why does Jesus say, "we"? A. "If you are trying to use Jesus' use of "We" to imply literally more than one, then you are promoting two Spirits (three counting the Holy Spirit). The Bible says there is only ONE Spirit (Ephesians 4:4,5) Not two not three. ONE." and "He was simply speaking in simple language easier for the listener to understand." Again, this person erringly inserts into the discussion something not held by Trinitarians; namely, that God is three spirits. This is something that repeatedly arises in discussions with oneness people. They continually misrepresent the doctrine of the Trinity. Furthermore, to say that Jesus was simply using language they could understand really ignores what Jesus was actually saying. Oneness theology teaches that God was in the mode of the Father in the Old Testament. God was seen in the OT (not as a v ision or a dream or an angel in the following verses: Exo. 6:2-3; Gen. 19:24; Num. 12:6-8). But, Jesus said no one has seen the Father (John 6:46). If they were seeing God Almighty (Exo. 6:2-3) but it wasn't the Father, then who was it? A. "Once again, you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of Oneness theology, and your own theology." I certainly may not be understanding oneness theology completely, but I do understand my own far better than this gentleman as I have asserted earlier in this paper. Typically, oneness people misrepresent the Trinity doctrine and when I correct them, they tell me I am wrong. This is because it is easier for them to attack a strawman argument rather than the real thing. He then states "In fact let me go ahead and turn the argument around on you. The Bible

583

actually states that no one has seen GOD at any time...Your own theology teaches that Jesus is God. If Jesus is God, then why does the Bible say that no one has seen God?" The answer is simple, God was seen in the OT many times (Gen. 17:1; 18:1; Exod. 24:9-11; Num. 12:6-8). But, according to Jesus in John 6:46, it was not the Father. Therefore, they were seeing God the Son, the preincarnate Word. Finally, the question I posed in no. 9 above is the result of attending a United Pentecostal Convention (A Oneness group) and speaking to five UPC pastors who acknowledged the modal view that the Father became the Son who became the Holy Spirit. Since then, I have heard differing views from Oneness people on the modes of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit through biblical history. It is certainly possible that this gentleman retains a different view than the UPC or a similar one. Either way, I used the Plurality Study as a means of refuting their position to which all five UPC pastors admitted they had no answer.

584

Universalism
Introduction
Universalism is a philosophy, a way to trying to convince people that all people will eventually be saved no matter what they do here on earth. Is it true? No. But, that hasnt stopped many universalists from attacking the historic Christian position that God will damn people to hell. To them, such a teaching is wrong and they want everyone to know it. Be careful of this attempted distortion of scripture that seeks to submit Gods holiness to human preferences.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

What is the basic teaching of universalism? p. 586 Can a Christian be a universalist? p. 590 What is one of the dangers of universalism? p. 591 How does Matt. 25:46 disprove universalism? p. 592 How does Mark 3:28-29 disprove universalism? pp. 594-596 God wants all to be saved, but does He arrange that all are? pp. 597-599 What do Greek dictionaries say about aionion? pp. 609-610 What are some scriptures that say not all are saved? p. 613 Is the unforgivable sin forgivable? pp. 614-617 Does God hate anyone? p. 618 Will the demonic forces ever be saved? p. 623 Does eternal punishment deny God's justice? p. 626 What is a danger of universalism? p. 627

585

Universalism
Universalism is the teaching that God, through the atonement of Jesus, will ultimately bring reconciliation between God and all people throughout history. This reconciliation will occur regardless of whether they have trusted in or rejected Jesus as savior during their lifetime. This universal redemption will be realized in the future where God will bring all people to repentance. This repentance can happen while a person lives or after he has died and lived again in the millennium or some future state. Additionally, a few universalists even maintain that Satan and all demons will likewise be reconciled to God. Nevertheless, both facets of universalistic belief are in error. People will suffer eternal damnation (Rev. 14:11) and the demonic forces have no redeemer. But, it is important to note that holding to universalism in itself does not make one a non-Christian. Universalism alone is simply a non-essential theological error held by some people. However, there are those within the universalist camp who also deny the doctrine of the Trinity and, thereby, the incarnation of the Word of God as God the Son. They also deny the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit. Usually, these denials are held by Unitarian Universalists, though others who are not of the Universalist camp also deny the Trinity. Those who deny these essentials cannot be classified as Christians. To deny the deity of Christ is to deny one of the essential doctrines of salvation. In this sense, those universalists who deny the deity of Christ are in a false religious belief system. Of course, when one essential doctrine is denied, many other historic biblical doctrines are also denied and salvation is void because the object of faith is false. There is no official "Universal Salvation Church" denomination but there is a Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). The UUA can be classified as non-Christian because it denies the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, etc. It is not possible to categorize all of universalists into one tidy doctrinal category. Its adherents vary in belief. Some are Arian (God is one person, Jesus is a creation). Some are Trinitarian. Others even lean toward new age concepts of man's divinity. So, universalism is not really a doctrine that identifies a group. Rather, it is a doctrine of different, even contradictory groups, who all claim universalism. The problem with words The cults are particularly guilty of using biblical words with non-biblical definitions. This is absolutely necessary among them in order to maintain some sort of internal consistency of theology. So too, with many universalists. Hell can mean non-existence, after-life consciousness, or this present life on earth. Some universalists believe that all punishment is accomplished here on earth, while others believe it is future event with a loss of rewards, and not a physical punishment. The punishment in both groups is corrective and limited. It will last only as long, and only be as severe, as it takes to accomplish its corrective purpose, which is to bring all m ankind to a state of holiness and happiness in obedience to God. Of course, the problem with this is that it strongly suggests that a person is made worthy to be with God through his own sufferings and corrections in the afterlife. In universalism, the word "eternal" means "without end" when it comes to salvation, but not when referring to damnation, even though the same word is used for both and in the same context (Matt. 25:46). Universalists divide history and the future into different "eons" or "ages" and assert that punishment is "age-lasting," not eternal. The term "Son of God" is claimed by all groups as an accurate description of Jesus, yet to some it means a created being and to others it means God in flesh. Therefore, determining which belief is held by which universalist is often difficult and it requires digging.

586

Misrepresentation Universalists often use the most negative terms to represent historic positions they disagree with. For example, regarding the damnation of the unsaved, instead of saying that historic Christianity teaches that those who reject Christ will suffer eternal damnation, they frequently say that historic Christianity teaches that "God can't save everyone and wants to torture most of humanity forever." Or, it is often implied that God will not torture people forever because "God is not sadistic enough to send people to hell." Such emotionally slanted words reveal a hostile bias against historic doctrines and is an unfair description of those beliefs. It is a surprisingly common tactic among universalists which demonstrates their lack of objectivity and sheds an automatic cloud of doubt upon their observations. Conclusion As you can see, universalism covers a wide range of beliefs. Under its umbrella can dwell the real Christian as well as the false prophet. Though belief in universalism, in and of itself, does not void salvation, it has the potential danger of allowing false teachers to abide alongside true believers. Therefore, to determine if a universalist is Christian, you must delve further into other areas of his belief.

587

Christian Universalism
Christian universalism is the teaching that all of mankind will ultimately be saved through Jesus whether or not faith is professed in him in this life. It claims that God's qualities of love, sovereignty, justice, etc., require that all people be saved and that eternal punishment is a false doctrine. Salvation is not from hell, but from sin. There are two main camps in Christian Universalism: 1. Those who teach that the unrepentant will be punished in a future state, and that their punishment will be proportional to the degree of sin committed in the mortal state. They generally hold that the punishment is moral and not physical. There is no hell. They do not maintain that salvation is merited through these sufferings. 2. Those who teach that all the punishment for sin occurs in this life and that God's discipline in our lives is for the purpose of purifying us, though this purification is not our merit for salvation. In eternity, there will be a loss of reward for those who did not trust in Christ in this lifetime. Christian Universalists claim to hold many of the tenants of historic Christianity: Trinity, deity of Christ, deity of the Holy Spirit, salvation by grace, etc. As always, it is necessary to inquire and ask what is meant by the terms they use because the diversity that exists in universalist beliefs warrants further examination. Nevertheless, the Christian universalists claim to affirm: 1. 2. The inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. A. From what I have seen here, they are orthodox. There is only one God. A. From what I have encountered, most universalists who claim the title "Christian universalists" do not accept the standard doctrine of the Trinity, but lean more towards either Arianism (God is one person, Jesus is created) to modalism (God takes different forms in history). Jesus is the Son of the Living God A. Many cult groups say the same thing. What they mean by the phrase is what is important. The Christian Universalists tend to say the Son is a manifestation, an image, a representation of God's essence, yet he is not equal to the Father. Therefore, they are denying His true deity. Of course, not all Christian Universalists deny this. B. Some hold that Jesus is not God but that He is divine. This is perplexing since divinity is a quality of God, not angels or men. Jesus' Resurrection A. Most Christian Universalists affirm the physical resurrection of Jesus. But, some claim he did not rise from the dead physically, but was assumed into heaven to dwell with God. "The Crucified is living forever with God, as our hope. Resurrection does not mean either a return to life in space and time or a continuation of life in space and time but the assumption into that incomprehensible and comprehensive last and first reality which we call God."1 0 9 i. If, by the above quote, the physical resurrection of Jesus is denied, as it seems it is, then anyone who holds to that position is indeed a non-Christian since it denies one of the essential doctrines of Christianity. The Holy Spirit is God's presence A. There is a surprisingly common denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit. (personhood is self-awareness, a will, the ability to speak, etc.). This is a serious error on the part of those who hold to it. But to be fair, many universalists affirm the Holy Spirit as the third person in the Godhead.

3.

4.

5.

109

Quoted from "On Being a Christian: Twenty Propositions, By Hans Kung, "The Christian Challenge", pages 313-316, 1979) as found at http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/challenge.html. #10.

588

6.

7.

There is no salvation without accepting Jesus as Savior A. This statement is problematic for two reasons: i. Since to many universalists, Jesus is not truly God by nature, they have an improper object of faith (denying the Trinitarian nature of God and the deity of Christ). Their faith, then, is useless since they have violated the command to worship no other God (Exodus 20) and are worshiping a false god. The Jesus they believe in, is not the real one. ii. There is a second chance theology at work here where people who have rejected Jesus in this life can come to faith in the next life, even though he has flatly rejected Jesus' sacrificial atonement. Some Universalists believe... A. in consciousness after death, others do not. B. in limited punishment of sinners in a type of hell that is not of fire, but of some moral chastising. C. that punishment in the afterlife was for a limited period during which the soul was purified and prepared for eternity in the presence of God.

Conclusion Christian Universalism is meshed with many other unorthodox and erroneous teachings. To determine if a "Christian Universalist" really is Christian, you must ask more pointed questions of individuals. This belief system should be avoided.

589

Can a Christian be a universalist?

The answer to this question is very easy. Yes. A Christian can be a universalist. Universalism in itself does not make a person a non-Christian. Universalism is the teaching that all people eventually will be reconciled to God. This is not one of the doctrines taught in scripture as a requirement for salvation. The essential doctrines of Christianity have been debated for centuries. These doctrines include the physical resurrection of Jesus, salvation by grace, and that Jesus is God in flesh. With the last, many conclude that the doctrine of the Trinity is also essential. Though the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly stated as a require ment in God's word, it is logical to conclude that the true believer will accept the Trinity teaching. The Trinity, then, becomes a test to see if someone is in faith. However, I will admit that God casts his net further then we do and I do not believe that God will condemn all people for their lack of the proper understanding of the Trinity doctrine. On the other hand, I believe that those who openly reject it are not of God. There are many doctrines that are not essential to salvation and it is these that lead us into the differences of denominational beliefs. Where one group believes that baptism must be by immersion, another teaches that sprinkling is acceptable. One denomination says that the charismatic spiritual gifts have ceased, yet another that they continue. These types of the differences, and many others, do not affect whether or not a person is saved. They are merely differences of opinion on the nonessentials. In this, the Scriptures give us a great deal of leeway. See Romans 14. A Christian can be a universalist, but not all universalists are Christian. It is not whether you accept or deny universalism that makes you a true believer. Rather, it is faith in and acceptance of the true and living God and Savior, Jesus. We have agreement in the essential doctrines that unite all Christians and all denominations under one true God and we are allowed to have differences of opinions.

590

Universalism and the Cults

Universalism teaches that all people will ultimately be saved no matter what they believe here on earth. You could deny God, hate Him, blaspheme against Him, join a satanist group and murder people and still go to heaven. Bible based, non-Christian cults are those groups that claim to be Christian, use the Bible, yet have redefined God, Jesus, and the gospel sufficiently to make salvation of no effect. Part of CARM's purpose is to refute error and teach the truth so that people will not go to hell. Universalism is definitely an error that needs to be address. Let me take Mormonism, for example. Is Mormonism wrong? Is it dangerous to the soul? Does it lead to damnation? The universalist would have to say no, even though Mormonism teaches that god came from another planet, has a goddess wife, and that we can become gods (obvious false teaching), universalists teach that Mormons go to heaven. Of course universalists who claim to be Christain might assert that Mormon theology is wrong. But, they would also maintain that in the after life, they would be able to repent and follow the true God. Logically, then, we could make the case that the universalist would encourage the spread of Mormonism since it has good morals. Mormonism is not Christian. It is false. It is a compilation of lies from the devil. It damns people for believing in a false god, false gospel, and a system of works righteousness that is supposed to help them become saved. But, to the universalist, such heresy amounts only to a goof, an error in judgment, with the ultimate result being heaven. It makes no difference if a person is a universalist, a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, or an orthodox Christian since they are all going to heaven according to universalism. To a universalist, there would be little or no need to refute Mormonism. Why? Because what is the universalist going to warn him about? Damnation in hell? Not at all. Rather, he'd have to threaten him with heaven! Instead, the universalist is more concerned with converting someone to "truth of universalism." In so doing, they endanger the souls of all who they contact. Let me illustrate this with a Universalist witnessing to a Mormon. Universalist: "Listen here Mormon, if you continue to believe that you can become a god, that Satan and Jesus are literal brothers, that God has a body of flesh and bones and has a goddess wife, and that you can become a god of your own world, you know what is going to happen to you? You're going to heaven! So there!" Mormon: "Sounds good to me." So, where is the power of universalism to correct Satan's lies? Does it carry a warning for those who serve false gods except to say that it isn't nice to believe such things as Mormon doctrines? But, so what? It doesn't matter. Mormonism, and other cults, would lead to heaven. Is there orthodoxy in Universalism? Does it have the power and right to refute the errors of the cults? I don't see how. But, I do see that it is dangerous.

591

Matt. 25:46 and Universalism

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life," (Matt. 25:46). The universalists do not believe in eternal punishment. Universalists teach that all will eventually be saved through the atonement of Jesus. Therefore, when the Bible speaks of eternal punishment and hell fire, etc., the universalist interprets it to mean an inner sorrow due to loss of reward and/or they maintain that the word "eternal" does not mean "without end." In Greek, the word "eternal" is the word " ", or "a ionion." This word occurs in two places in Matt. 25:46: Let's look at it again in a Greek Interlinear form:

The exact same word " ," "aionion" is used to describe the duration of punishment as well as of the life of the righteous - those who are saved. The same word describes both conditions. If it means one thing in the first part of this sentence, then it means the same thing in the second part since they are both in the same context and both are describing time-duration of the states of the unsaved and the saved. If the punishment is eternal, then so is the life. Likewise, if, as the universalist says, the punishment is not eternal, then neither is the life. You can't pick and choose how the word is applied in this verse to suit your own theology. But the universalists do just that. They are want to have Jesus say that eternal life is forever but eternal punishment is not -- even though Jesus used the same word, in the same breath, to describe them both. It just doesn't fit. Let's translate it the universalist way.... The universalists are fond of translating Bible verses and transliterating a particular word. So, I will use their style in the following translation: And these will go away into aionion punishment, but the righteous into aionion life.1 1 0 Or, to take a little liberty, it could be translated as, And these will go away into non "aionion" punishment, but the righteous into "aionion" life." I inserted the word "non" here to reflect what the universalists intend the word "aionion" to mean when describing punishment. But notice, it isn't there when describing life because the Universalist believes that the life of the righteous is without end: eternal. This is the kind of thing the universalist must do in order to justify his position. It is clearly false and demonstrates an intrusion into the text of a theological perspective. This is something Jehovah's Witnesses do when they "translated" the Bible. They changed words to make them agree with their theology. Nevertheless, another translation according to universalist presuppositions might be: "And these will go away into non-eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

110

As a comment, with this type of translation, it is easy to confuse what the text is really saying because the reader is not familiar with the Greek word "aionion." The Universalists often do this: partially translate a verse leaving a transliterated Greek word or two in place of English words. They can then tell you what the word "really means." This can be misleading.

592

But, the universalists state that "aionion" is an age, a period of time that can have a finish. They would then answer this objection and say that punishment is for a time and so is life, but that both of these are for an "aionion" period and after each period is another. In the case of the aionion punishment, it would end and then after that, they would have eternal life. Likewise those possessing eternal life already in the aionion "age" will continue to have it in the next age. The only problem is that that isn't what the text is saying. The universalists have constructed a multi-age scenario to fit their perspective. In so doing, they have allowed for salvation after death, another teaching that is unbiblical. Heb. 9:27 says, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment," (NASB). The judgment comes from God and is upon the sinner. The universalist would have some sort of a judgment that leads to punishment that ends and then eternal salvation in the afterlife. In so teaching, they have ignored the translations of countless scholars and adopted those interpretations that agree with them in order to suit their theological bias. I hope you can see the inconsistency of translating and interpreting Matt. 25:46 any other way than stating that the punishment is eternal as is the life of the righteous.

593

Mark 3:28-29 and Universalism

The universalist states that there is no unforgivable sin because all people who have ever lived will ultimately be reconciled to God; in other words, all sins from all people who have ever lived will be forgiven. However, if there were a sin that will never be forgiven, then Universalism would be proven wrong. Mark 3:28-29 are important verses in showing that there is an unforgivable sin. "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin," (NASB). The Greek Interlinear of Mark 3:28-29 is as follows:

Verses 28 and 29 are in contrast to each other. Verse 28 says that all sins shall be forgiven. Verse 29 clarifies the statement and flatly says that there is a sin that "never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." This sin is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit -- which is stating that Jesus did His miracles by the power of the devil. Verse 29 has the contrasting preposition "but", Greek "de." The use of the word "but" is showing that there is a contrast, or an exception to the previous statement. All sins are forgivable, but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not. That is why the word "but" is there, to show that there is a qualification, an exception to the first statement. So, how do the universalists answer this verse? They do it in two ways. First, they say that the word "aiona", "age" can mean a period of time that ends. Now, this is true sometimes and not others. There are verses that use the word "aiona" that can refer to non-eternal duration (John 8:35; Luke 1:55) and there are verses that use it and mean eternal duration (Matt. 21:19; Mark 11:14; John 4:14; 6:51; 6:58, etc.). It is the context that determines the meaning of the word. But it is big mistake to think that "aiona" always means a finite time. It is a conjecture on the Universalists part that the word "age", in Mark 3:29, means a definite period of time that will end. But that isn't the case. As I said, Jesus is contrasting the second statement (unforgivable sin) with the first statement (forgivable sin). Second, the Universalist will go to Matt. 12:32 which says, And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come." They state that "the age to come" is the 1000 year reign of Christ which will end. Therefore, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will be forgiven after the 1000 year reign. They then state that Mark 3:29 must be interpreted in light of Matt. 12:32.

594

Granted, we must look at all the verses on a subject in order to get an accurate understanding what is said. But, the logic of the Universalist is wrong. Here is why. 1. 2. Mark 3:29 states that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (BHS) will never be forgiven. A. This verse clearly states the impossibility of forgiveness of this sin. Matt 12:32 states that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven "in this age or the age to come." A. If Matt 12:32 is interpreted to mean that BHS will be forgiven, then that contradicts Mark 3:29 which states it will not be forgiven. B. If Matt 12:32 is interpreted to mean that BHS will not be forgiven, then it does not contradict Mark 3:29. Therefore, the only way to harmonize both verses is to say that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. If Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, then Universalism is wrong. A comparison of translations Instead of trying to define the Greek text ad nauseum explaining how and why words are translated, I've simply supplied ten Bible translations along with a commonly used Universalist translation of these two verses. Bible Version NASB

3. 4.

Mark 3:28-29 "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29"but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation" Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: "Believe me, all men's sins can be forgiven and all their blasphemies. But there can never be any forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That is an eternal sin." Verily I say unto you, that all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and all the injurious speeches [with] which they may speak injuriously; 29 but whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; but lies under the guilt of an everlasting sin;

NIV

NKJV

KJV

RSV

1901 ASV

Phillips

Darby

595

BWE

`I tell you the truth. All wrong things that people do and say about anyone will be forgiven. 29 But people who say wrong things against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. A person who does that will be punished for ever.' "In solemn truth I tell you that all their sins may be pardoned to the sons of men, and all their blasphemies, however they may have blasphemed; 29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, he remains for ever unabsolved: he is guilty of a sin of the Ages."

Weymouth

28 "Verily, I am saying to you that all shall be pardoned the sons of mankind, the Concordant penalties of the sins and the blasphemies, whatsoever they should be blaspheming, 29 (Universalist yet whoever should be blaspheming against the holy spirit is having no pardon for the translation) eon, but is liable to the eonian penalty for the sin" -First of all, the ten translations above, all done by very reputable scholars, all say the same thing: Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven -- ever! If you notice, the Concordant version (done by Universalists) did not translate the Greek words "eon" (age) and "eonian" (eternal) into English, but left them transliterated. In fact, the word in Greek is not "eon" but "aiona." All other words are in plain English accept for these two. Why? I believe it is because they wanted to influence the way the text sounds and is interpreted. By not translating the words, and by telling you that the word "eon" only means a duration of time with an ending, then, the universalists can get you to accept the idea that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is forgivable and that their theology is correct. There is just one problem. It isn't.

596

1 Tim. 4:10 and universalism

"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers" (NASB). "(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe" (NIV). "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe" (KJV).

Much is made out of 1 Tim. 4:10 by the Universalist to claim that Jesus will redeem all people whether or not they accept or reject Christ as Savior here on earth. Eventually, they say, all people will repent (either here or in the after-life) and come to a saving relationship with God. 1 Tim. 4:10 is used as proof. Unfortunately, the verse does not prove what the Universalists hope it does. Can God be called the Savior of all men and yet not redeem all? Yes. All people are, by nature, born under wrath (Eph. 2:3) and should go to hell. Why? Because God is holy and we are sinners. Yet, we have hope in Christ. The Christian is saved by faith (Eph. 2:8) and will join the Lord in heaven. But, the unbeliever is under judgment. John 3:18 says, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (KJV). Why does God not simply destroy them as is His right? Because of the Christians! Because God is being patient with the unbeliever, allowing them to enjoy the blessings of life in this world without the rightful condemnation of God falling upon them. This is what the Bible states: "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory," (Rom. 9:22-23, NASB). As you can see, God is patient with the unregenerate. They receive a delayed judgment because of God's love for the believer. In this sense, Jesus is the Savior of the world because He holds back His judging hand from all who rightly and immediately deserve it. Judgment is delayed. This is a blessing received from God upon the unbeliever. In fact, God often blesses the unbeliever because of the presence of a believer. "And it came about that from the time he made him overseer in his house, and over all that he owned, the Lord blessed the Egyptians house on account of Joseph; thus the Lords blessing was upon all that he owned, in the house and in the field," (Gen. 39:5, NASB). Consider also Matt. 13:24-30 and the parable of the wheat and the tares. In it Jesus compares the world to a field. He later interprets it by stating that "the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one," (Matt. 13:38). But in Matt. 13:20-30 Jesus states that the tares are not dealt with right away because the wheat is there among them. "But he *said, No; lest while you are gathering up the tares, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Allow both to grow together until the harvest," (NASB). So, can it be said that the tares were saved from judgment? Yes...temporarily. The unbeliever enjoys a delayed judgment. But with the Christian, Jesus is especially their Savior and judgment is permanently removed from them.

597

All are made savable by Jesus' sacrifice Another way in which Jesus is the savior of all men is that He has made all people savable. Without Jesus' sacrifice, none could ever be saved. Since Jesus, who is the word made flesh (John 1:1,14), atoned for sin, all people are now redeemable. He is the Savior of all, but especially of believers. That is, all are now redeemable due to the sacrifice of Christ, but redemption is specifically applied to those who trust in Christ. Is God the Savior? For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers, (1 Tim. 4:10, NASB). 1 Tim. 4:10 is referring to God in particular and not necessarily Jesus in particular. Does the title "God" include Jesus? Of course, since Jesus is God in flesh (Col. 2:9), the Savior. God, who is a Trinity, is called Savior in Psalm 106:21; Isaiah 43:3; Luke 1:47; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; Titus 1:3-4; and Titus 2:10. It is obvious that the term refers to God in the generic sense of being the Savior of all men since He brings salvation to all though it is not accepted by all. This is why it says that God (not Jesus) is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. How is it especially to believers? Simple. It is especially and specifically realized only by those who are believers. Furthermore, only Jesus is the mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5) and He mediates only between the saved and God. He does not mediate His atoning work for the unredeemed. His being Savior is generic for all, but specific for the saved. Therefore, this verse does not necessitate that all will be redeemed.

598

1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 3:9. Is it God's will that all people be saved?
"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," (1 Tim. 2:3-4). "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance," (2 Pet. 3:9).

To begin with, the answer to the question "Is it God's will that all people be saved?" must be "Yes," because that it what the Bible says. But does that mean that all will be saved? The universalists believe so. They will appeal to 1 Tim. 2:3-4 and 2 Pet. 3:9 combined with other verses where God says He will accomplish what He desires. They then say that since God says He will accomplish all His desires and He desires all to be saved, then all will be saved. ". . . and I [God] will accomplish all My good pleasure," (Isaiah 46:10). "But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases," (Psalm 115:3). "Whatever the Lord pleases, He does," (Psalm 135:6).

This is a straight-forward approach, but it is also very simplistic and incomplete because it does not take into account all of scripture relating to the subject of God's desire. Instead, the Universalists "proof-text" their way into a foregone conclusion by picking and choosing certain scriptures and combining them to form an implied conclusion. This is how error is born and it is not good theology. Instead, the proper thing to do is to look at all of scripture on a topic and draw conclusions from the whole, not the part. I will gather a broader scope of scripture dealing with this subject and attempt to show that God's desire is not always accomplished and, therefore, the claim of the universalist that the above verses prove that all will be saved, is in error. To begin with, are God's desires always accomplished? No, they are not. God's desire is that people do what is right and not sin: "To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord rather than sacrifice," (Prov. 21:3). But people still sin in spite of God's stated desire. Was it the desire of God that Adam and Eve rebel? No. Was it God's will that David commit adultery? No. Yet, they did the very thing God did not want. God desires that all people repent (Acts 17:30); but not all do. Clearly, God's will is not always done. In theology, when examining this issue of God's will and His allowance of sin, we distinguish between what is called God's perfect will and His permissive will. In His perfect will, He desires that all refrain from sin. But in His permissive will, He allows sin to exist. In this sense, He has two wills regarding sin. He desires that sin not exist because it is contrary to His nature, yet He wills that it does by making provision for it in His sovereign plan. This does not mean that God brought sin into existence. It means that He simply permitted it by allowing the fall. He then uses it, and other sins, for His glory and purpose. Please recall the account of Joseph's brothers who sinned by selling him into slavery and then lying to their father about it. After many years when the family was reunited, Joseph said, "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive" (Gen. 50:20). God meant it for good? How could that be if God is only passively allowing things to occur? Here, Joseph states that God had a purpose in their sin. Though God does not want sin, He made provision for it in His divine plan. Consider also how evil people conspired against Jesus to bring Him to death. Was this God's plan that they do this? "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28). Do you see how God predestined Herod and Pontius Pilate to carry out His will? Didn't they sin in condemning Jesus? Yes! Did God predestine them to do what He planned? Yes! Did God make them sin? No, for God does not tempt anyone (James 1:13). Yet, God, in His sovereignty predestined them to do what they did.

599

God is in control of history and it goes where He directs it. Though He does not desire that people sin, He makes room for it. Therefore, we can plainly see that God can desire one thing and even ordain another by giving it a place in His sovereign plan. So, how can anyone assert that based on 1 Tim. 2:3-4 and 2 Pet. 3:9 combined with Isaiah 46:10; Psalm 115:3, and Psalm 135:6 above, that all will be saved because that is God's desire and God's will is always done? They cannot. God can desire all be saved, but not ordain that all are by making provision in His plan for their damnation: "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil," (Prov. 16:4). Again, simply because God states that He desires all people to be saved does not mean that all will be saved. This is particularly important when we notice that God elects people (Matt. 24:24,31; Mark 13:20; Rom. 8:33), predestines them (Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:1-11), appoints them to eternal life (Acts 13:48), and grants that they believe (Phil. 1:29). We must ask why doesn't God elect all, predestine all, appoint all, or grant that all believe when He has the power to do so? Is it because God is incapable of carrying out His will? Or is there something greater than God at work? Of course not. God is in absolute control. He can desire one thing (that people not sin), yet ordain another (plan that sin exist in the world). Likewise, God can desire that all be saved, yet not ordain that they are. What Does God Want? Some will object to the claim that God sometimes wants one thing and yet does another. They would assert that this would be a contradiction. But it is not since God has obviously done this. Is it a contradiction when a judge wants to show mercy to all people but orders that criminals be punished? Is it a contradiction when the judge says to a murderer, "You shall not murder!" but, according to the law, sentences him to death? No. Though the desire and action be different, there is no contradiction at all. The judge is under obligation to keep the Law. . . and so is God. He must remain true to His revealed Law which is a reflection of His divine character. After all, God is just and must punish sin. To further illustrate the point that God can ordain something different than what He desires, please consider the scriptures below. What God Desires "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," (1 Tim. 2:3-4). "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance," (2 Pet. 3:9). What God Arranges "just as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day,'" (Rom. 11:8). "And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12 in order that while seeing, they may see and not perceive; and while hearing, they may hear and not understand lest they return and be forgiven," (Mark 4:11-12).

600

We can see that God says He does not wish any to perish. But, we can also see that God gave Israel eyes to not see with and ears to not hear with. Likewise, Jesus, who is God in flesh, purposely spoke to people in parables so they would not perceive and repent (Mark 4:11-12). If God wants all saved, why would He arrange it so people were blinded and prevented from seeing? Some will say that the people did this to themselves. But that is not what the text says. Clearly, God is the one performing the actions in preventing them to see. In this case, He desires one thing and does another. Does God want pain and suffering in the world? The obvious answer is no. God created Adam and Eve and put them in a perfect world without pain, without suffering, and without loss. That is God's desire because that is the way God made things in the beginning. Yet, we have pain, suffering, and loss in the world. Why? Because that is the nature of our sinful system -- and God permitted it. But are we to say that God is not in control? Again, no. In fact, God causes some of the very things we believe He does not want. We can see that God says He does not wish any to perish. But, we can also see that God gave Israel eyes to not see with and ears to not hear with. Likewise, Jesus, who is God in flesh, purposely spoke to people in parables so they would not perceive and repent (Mark 4:11-12). If God wants all saved, why would He arrange it so people were blinded and prevented from seeing? Some will say that the people did this to themselves. But that is not what the text says. Clearly, God is the one performing the actions in preventing them to see. In this case, He desires one thing and does another. Does God want pain and suffering in the world? The obvious answer is no. God created Adam and Eve and put them in a perfect world without pain, without suffering, and without loss. That is God's desire because that is the way God made things in the beginning. Yet, we have pain, suffering, and loss in the world. Why? Because that is the nature of our sinful system -- and God permitted it. But are we to say that God is not in control? Again, no. In fact, God causes some of the very things we believe He does not want.

601

Objections Answered to the paper, Is it God's will that all people be saved?
Someone posted a rebuttal to my paper. For the purpose of Clarification, I have color-coded this paper to make it clearer. My original paper's quote is level 1. The rebuttal is level A. My response is the third level i. I've not responded to every objection because some of them weren't that important and tended to miss the main point of the immediate context. It is obvious that the person responded to my paper as he was reading instead of covering the whole thing and then responding. This accounts for his comments which I covered in the paper later, and sometimes immediately after his comments. "[sic]" means the error in either syntax or spelling is original to the author. 1. To begin with, are God's desires always accomplished? No, they are not. God's desire is that people do what is right and not sin: "To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord rather than sacrifice," (Prov. 21:3). A. "God would rather have people obey him out of their own love/will then to obey him out of necessity as a type of "fire insurance". Are we of our own will able to save ourselves?" i. I fail to see how the above comment has anything to do with the point I was making in the paper at that time. It isn't a refutation. At best, it is only an opinion. But people still sin in spite of God's stated desire. A. "I suspect that Matt see's [sic] sin as the foremost problem in the world today, what if God in fact uses it as the solution. In fact most fundamentalist Christians [sic ] all they seem to discuss is sin and not the solution. They discuss what Jesus did for us and then carry on discussing how not to SIN." i. I am completely amazed here. Of course God uses people's sin. I said in my paper, "It means that He simply permitted it by allowing the fall. He then uses it, and other sins, for His glory and purpose." Apparently, he didn't read it too clearly. B. "How could God accept creating a species with whom he would consign 90+ percent to an "everlasting" torture. Is that Good? To say that God's will is not always done is to take the view that God could be "surprised" [sic] by the actions of his creatures." i. Is this a refutation? Not at all. It is only a question. To ask it is to be guilty of a nonanswer. God can do what He wants. He can damn all if He chooses and be perfectly just and right in so doing without changing His loving character one bit. It isn't a context of who gets the most souls. Besides, God orders that people refrain from sin, yet everyone sins. Does that make God a failure? Hardly. As I stated in my paper, it is part of God's sovereign plan. ii. "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. 14"For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it," (Matt. 7:13-14). See also, Luke 13:22-27. In theology, when examining this issue of God's will and His allowance of sin, we distinguish between what is called God's perfect will and His permissive will. In His perfect will, He desires that all refrain from sin. But in His permissive will, He allows sin to exist. In this sense, He has two wills regarding sin. He desires that sin not exist because it is contrary to His nature, yet He wills that it does by making provision for it in His sovereign plan. This does not mean that God brought sin into existence. It means that He simply permitted it by allowing the fall. A. "This of course depends on your definition of SIN. Matt as well as most ET's make SIN sound like an object. A sticky, ooze, tar like substance not particularly well defined, somewhat dark but basically bad (stay away from it)." i. This is ludicrous. This "refutation" is far from substantial. Sin is breaking God's law and if this person had read my definition of it on my site, he would not have stated such an absurdity.

2.

3.

602

4.

5.

6.

7.

Do you see how God predestined Herod and Pontius Pilate to carry out His will? Didn't they sin in condemning Jesus? Yes! Did God predestine them to do what He planned? Yes! Did God make them sin? No, for God does not tempt anyone (James 1:13). Yet, God, in His sovereignty predestined them to do what they did. A. "If God predestined them, and his will was for Jesus to be crucified, did Herod and Pilate really truly sin. Did they truly fall short of God's expectations in this situation? Did Judas truly fall short of God's desire for him, Jesus told Judas to turn him over to the authorities. He could have convinced him otherwise or said nothing at all. God does not tempt anyone? Did he not tempt Judas? Did God not tempt Adam & Eve, he allowed Satan in the garden, what is the natural conclusion to those conditions. God himself may not tempt, but he allows the tempting to occur." i. The obvious answer is yes, they really sinned. Again, this response isn't a refutation of anything. It has no value with no point to it. Again, God allows sin to exist in the world as part of His permissive will in His sovereign plan. Again, simply because God states that He desires all people to be saved does not mean that all will be saved. A. "Likewise it doesn't automatically mean that they won't all be saved." i. It is nice to see that this person admitted one of the points of my paper. This is particularly important when we notice that God elects people (Matt. 24:24,31; Mark 13:20; Rom. 8:33), predestines them (Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:1-11), appoints them to eternal life (Acts 13:48), and grants that they believe (Phil. 1:29). A. "With regards to the people that were not "predestined", "appointed", "elected" etc: what gave God the right to choose one for eternal life and another for eternal damnation. You say he decided, presumably before they were made, where they would spend eternity. What function or purpose do those that God not predestine serve?" i. "What gave God the right...?" This is an unfortunate question. God, by His nature of being God, has the right to do whatever He wants. Who is this person to question God? "On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?'" (Rom. 9:20). God does this after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:1-11) which I so stated in my paper and which, it seems again, was not sufficiently read by this person. We can see that God says He does not wish any to perish. But, we can also see that God gave Israel eyes to not see with and ears to not hear with. Likewise, Jesus, who is God in flesh, purposely spoke to people in parables so they would not perceive and repent (Mark 4:11-12). If God wants all saved, why would He arrange it so people were blinded and prevented from seeing? Some will say that the people did this to themselves. But that is not what the text says. Clearly, God is the one performing the actions in preventing them to see. In this case, He desires one thing and does another. A. "The parables were spoken so that those of a religious and rigid mind would not understand. Jesus wanted the lay person to understand but not the religious. Matt 11:25" i. Apparently, this critic of my paper did not read it carefully at all. I already answered this objection in the paper. Mark 4:11-12 says, "And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12in order that while seeing, they may see and not perceive; and while hearing, they may hear and not understand lest they return and be forgiven," (Mark 4:11-12). As you can see, it was not to strengthen their blindness. Jesus actually stated that He spoke in parables in order that they might not see. Instead of addressing this verse, the objector quotes Matt. 11:25 which says, "At that time Jesus answered and said, "I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes." What confuses me in this person's response is why he would quote a verse that further proves my point. As you can see above, the Father is the one hiding the truth from the "wise" on earth... etc. Again, I fail to see any point of refutation of my paper here.

603

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Does God want pain and suffering in the world? The obvious answer is no. God created Adam and Eve and put them in a perfect world without pain, without suffering, and without loss. That is God's desire because that is the way God made things in the beginning. Yet, we have pain, suffering, and loss in the world. Why? Because that is the nature of our sinful system -- and God permitted it. But are we to say that God is not in control? Again, no. In fact, God causes some of the very things we believe He does not want. A. "But again what is the purpose of this "SINFUL SYSTEM". Is it some cruel, sick joke being played on the human race. If people experience varying amound [sic] of pain, suffering and loss in this world why does God need to eternally punish. We have people who are in a literal hell right now on Earth. God knew the results of his actions before he did them, so again why did he do it the way he did. Perhaps you misunderstand what it is that God wants." i. What is this except more questions without answers? This is not how one refutes a paper. If I have misunderstood what God wants, then this person should offer something as a correction. But, he does not...again. Why would God compel people to come into His house so that it can be filled and yet send a deluding influence upon the same people? Are not those people in 2 Thessalonians, at the time of the Antichrist, the same people included in the highways and hedges? Does not God compel all to enter into His house regardless of when and where they are in history? A. "Lets examine this: does God compel all to be drawn to himself? Not if you accept many modern church viewpoints. People in faraway lands who have never heard of God apparently are consigned to hell without any chance of redemption. They would have you believe that he doesn't care or is unable to save. After all the "holy mother church" hasn't sent any representatives." i. This is another subject altogether and needs to be dealt with elsewhere. Nevertheless, whatever God does is holy and right. They will be judged according to Rom. 2:11-16. Again, this isn't a refutation at all. God did not cause the people who crucified Jesus to sin. But, He sure used their sin and He predestined all of it to occur. He used the sins of Herod and Pilate along with the Gentiles to do His divine will. In fact, God anointed them to do what they did. Why? To carry out His purpose and His plan to bring His Son to the cross, to save sinners, and to bring glory to Himself. A. "Again you discuss God's plan without revealing his overall divine purpose. You make it sound as though the lay person is incapable of even beginning to understand the overall design. Us uni's simply believe that he has already saved all us sinners. Most people however still lack that understanding." i. I did reveal what I believed was the overall purpose in God's plan. I stated in my paper, "What is that plan? I believe God was arranging history to lead to the ultimate goal of Christ's crucifixion, resurrection, and return, along with the redemption of God's people." This objector has demonstrated yet again that he did not thoroughly read the paper. As far as the rest of the statement from him, he is only begging the question by assuming the very thing under discussion as a proof for his point. God can and does control people's hearts and actions so that they will accomplish His purpose. He does this sovereignty and He does it without causing people to sin. He can even make someone's heart hard for the purpose of carrying out His plan. A. "Once again are interests are barely conflicting, you believe that God desires to save all men, but is either unable or unwilling to save all. We believe that God desires to save all men and is able and willing to achieve [sic] that goal." i. Incorrect, I fully believe God is able to achieve whatever goal He sets up. He has devised His plan and it will be carried out. Again, nothing here that refutes the paper. "And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire. 17 "For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God should be fulfilled. -- as quoted in my paper from Rev. 17:1617. A. "You assume that God who did not show mercy, will never show mercy toward those he destroys/chastens. That he will be eternally vengeful. You assume they are eternally lost. The scriptures about the harlot above show that though he will try her, he will not punish forever but "until the words of God should be fulfilled." Are we not all God's people? Or are only those that say the sinners prayer "of God". And if so then how does anyone who was

604

13.

14.

15.

16.

not "predestined" get saved? And since it is not "of works lest anyone should boast" we can't even claim to be saved by saying the sinners prayer since that would be a "work"." i. I assume no such thing. God indeed shows mercy to people He chastens. I am a good example. This person's opinion of what the verse means is only his opinion and nothing more. Most Christian commentators understand and accept the eternal nature of damnation. In the above verses you can see that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked yet he delighted in destroying the wicked people. Is this a contradiction? No. Because God has a purpose and a plan and He has the sovereign right to accomplish His will. On one hand, He doesn't want people to suffer and die, yet on the other hand, He is delighted to carry out His divine plan which necessarily includes the death of the wicked because it is in accordance with the Law which He Himself has given us. His divine plan will be accomplished. This is further proof that God can desire one thing and bring another to pass. A. "And you believe that somehow these men are hindering God's will, and therefore have to be bulldozed to make way for the "divine plan"." i. Again, I believe no such thing and did not say that at all in my paper. In fact, I clearly stated that all of what they did was in God's sovereign plan. It seems this person has not read my paper very clearly and is trying to read into it what I did not say. He is constructing straw-men to shoot down. Though God hates sin, He permits it for the greater glory of Himself and His plan. In this, He desires all to be saved, but has not ordained that it be so because, according to the Law, He must punish sinners. A. "The reason "God permits sin" is because it is the cornerstone of his plan, his plan for redemption of all. God hates sin only in that it separates [sic] himself from us." i. No, the cornerstone of God's plan is Jesus' crucifixion, not sin. To say that God hates sin only because it separates Him from us is incorrect. Sin is an affront to God's very character and nature. It is breaking His law which He gave and which is a reflection of His divine character. This person's theology is too man-centered for me. It stresses God needing or wanting us. Mine, on the other hand, stresses the glory of God's righteousness and the fact that sin is an offense to His holiness and righteousness. God has worked all things after the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:5) and has engineered history to bring not only the cross as the means of redemption, but also the culmination of all things for the declaration of His own glory, righteousness, holiness, and character. Sin will be shown to be utterly sinful and horrible. The cross demonstrates His righteousness and grace and His sovereign will is carried out. A. "Here we have your horrible icky "SIN" thing. To Sin is nothing less then to fall short of God's expectations. It is no more horrible then [sic] a child falling short of it's parents expectations. If a person commits a heinous act during his life against another is he not usually punished by the secular world. Is it then just and righteous for God to punish him further? Are we not all God's children? Apparently you think otherwise." i. Again, a failure to understand what sin really is. It isn't "nothing less then [sic] falling short of God's expectations." It is an affront to God Himself. Sin is rebellion against God, violation of His law and character. It brings death and wrath. When this person demonstrates an inability to rightly understand sin, he demonstrates the tendency for further error as is demonstrated in his next response. Do 1 Tim. 2:3-4 and 2 Pet. 3:9 prove that all will be saved? No, not at all. But they do show us that God is not simplistic and that He has a divine plan that we must truly seek to fathom if we are to rightly understand His word. A. "Apparently only a few such as yourself are able to fathom the divine plan of God. I personally believe that which is simple, is usually the truth. Religious/buerecratic [sic] man complicates and adds layers upon layers of half truths upon virtually every thing that is good and right and true." i. Such mockery is not how a refutation is done. To say that that which is the simplest is the truth is to oversimplify the issue. There are difficult things in scripture and being simple about them will only lead to error.

605

More objections answered to Is it God's will that all people be saved?

The objections are listed in primary numbers and my responses are under them. I will add more as more are stated. 1. We agree that God says that He will do *all* that He desires. We also agree that in scripture men do things that God does not desire them to do - sin. So are there two desires of God - one decretive and one permissive? And which type is 1 Tim. 2:4? A. I would say that it is neither. Rather, God is stating a desire that people be saved, but not decreeing that they are. If He did decree that all would be saved, then all would be saved. But since God elects people (Matt. 24:24,31; Mark 13:20; Rom. 8:33), predestines them (Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:1-11), appoints them to eternal life (Acts 13:48), and grants that they believe (Phil. 1:29), if 1 Tim. 2:4 were decretive, then He would have to predestine all, elect all, choose all, and grant that all believe which is something not stated in scripture. On the contrary, we have statements in scripture like: i. "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day," (John 6:39). Are all given to Jesus by the Father? No. "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine," (John 17:9). ii. "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. 14"For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it," (Matt. 7:13-14). iii. "For many are called, but few are chosen," (Matt. 22:14). iv. "And He was passing through from one city and village to another, teaching, and proceeding on His way to Jerusalem. 23And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them, 24"Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25"Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, Lord, open up to us! then He will answer and say to you, I do not know where you are from. 26"Then you will begin to say, We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets; 27and He will say, I tell you, I do not know where you are from; depart from Me, all you evildoers,'" (Luke 13:22-27). v. "And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; 28for the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, thoroughly and quickly," (Rom. 9:27).

We see no scriptures where God predestines all, elects all, grants that all believe.

606

A look at the word "aionion"

Universalism is the teaching that God will ultimately bring all people, in all times, and all places to a state of reconciliation with Him. In other words, everyone who ever lived will be saved. Consequently, universalism cannot allow the possibility of an eternal hell as a realistic biblical teaching. To get around the problem of the English Bibles translating Greek words into "eternal," "forever," and forevermore" when describing fire (Matt. 18:8) or torment (Rev. 20:10), the universalists go to the Greek. The Greek word that is translated into eternal is "aionion." It comes from the Greek root "aion" meaning "age." This fact combined with the various uses of Greek words derived from the root "aion," are what the universalists use to attempt to show that "aionion" does not always mean "eternal" but can refer to a finite period of time. The truth is, they are right. It can be translated into a temporal sense as it is in Rom. 16:25: "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages (aionios1) past." But the reason it is translated that way is because of context, and that is extremely important. Context determines meaning, as you will see later. With the claim that "aionion" can be translated into something temporal and that its root means "age," the universalist then says that any reference to "eternal fire," "eternal torment," or "eternal punishment" is not really eternal. Instead of "eternal torment," it is "aionion torment." Instead of "eternal punishment," it is "aionion punishment." That way, to the universalist, there is no eternal hell, no eternal punishment, and no eternal damnation. Everyone will be saved. This approach by the Universalists can be confusing to someone who doesn't understand Greek and that is part of the reason that Universalism has followers. It is true that the root "aion" means age. But just because a root means age, does not mean that every word derived from that root means a limited duration of time. For example consider this verse that is speaking about God: who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen, (1 Tim. 6:16) The context is obviously dealing with God's eternal nature. The word in Greek for "immortality" is "athanatos." The Greek word for death is "thanatos." The "a" in front of the word is the negator, without, non, etc. It means that God is deathless; hence, immortal. This is an eternal quality of God. Likewise, the verse states that God has eternal dominion. The word for "eternal" is "aionios" which is derived fro m the Greek root "aion" which means age. But, God is not immortal for only an "age," nor is His dominion temporal. The word "eternal" is absolutely the best way to translate the Greek "aionion" because God is immortal and eternal. Therefore, it would be wrong to translate the verse by stating that God has "aionion" dominion. Rather, He has eternal dominion. How is "aionion" used in the New Testament? The following two sections are verses that contain the word "aionion" which is translated as "eternal." Notice how using the word "eternal" in the first group is no problem. But, it is the second group with which the Universalists object. Nevertheless, the same word is used in both. See for yourself. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. John 6:47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal (aionion) life. John 20:28, "and I give eternal (aionion) life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand." Acts 13:48, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as ma ny as had been appointed to eternal (aionion) life believed." Romans 2:7, " to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal (aionion) life." Romans 5:21, "that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal (aionion) life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

607

6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

Rom. 16:26, " but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal (aionion) God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith." Gal. 6:8, "For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal (aionion) life." 1 Tim. 6:16, "who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal (aionion) dominion! Amen." 1 John 1:2, "and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal (aionion) life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us" 1 John 5:11, "And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal (aionion) life, and this life is in His Son."

The following set of scriptures reveals the nature of eternal damnation. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Matt. 18:8, "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal (aionion) fire. Matt. 25:41, "Then He will also say to those on His left, Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal (aionion) fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;" Matt. 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal (aionion) punishment, but the righteous into eternal (aionion) life." Mark 3:29, "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal (aionion) sin." Mark 10:30, "but that he shall receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal (aionion) life. Luke 18:30, "who shall not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal (aionion) life." 2 Thess. 1:9, "And these will pay the penalty of eternal (aionion) destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glo ry of His power," Jude 7, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal (aionion) fire."

It should be quite obvious that there is an eternal punishment and that universalism is nothing more than a hopeful wish. The Universalists are not justified in picking and choosing the meaning of a word based upon their interpretations of "aion" that suits them and depending on which verse is used.

608

What do Greek dictionaries say about aionion?

Universalists place a great deal of weight on the word "aion" which means "age." From the Greek root "aion" we also have the word "aionion" which is translated in most instances in most Bibles as "eternal." The significance of this is that Universalists maintain that there is no eternal punishment in hell fire. Therefore, they assert that the word "aionion" is in reference to "age duration" and can have temporal duration. With this assertion they try to substantiate their theological position that all people everywhere will ultimately be saved. But, what do Greek Dictionaries and Lexicons have to say about the words and phrases used in Greek that are translated into the English "age", "world", "eternal," "forever", "forever and ever," etc.? Let's find out. 1. aion , - age, world A. "for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity; the worlds, universe; period of time, age." i. Enhanced Strongs Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995, [Online] Available: Logos Library System. aionion, aionios - eternal A. "aionios," the adjective corresponding, denoting eternal. It is used of that which in nature is endless, as, e.g., of God, (Rom. 16:26), His power, (1 Tim. 6:16), His glory, (1 Pet. 5:10), the Holy Spirit, (Heb. 9:14), redemption, (Heb. 9:12), salvation, (5:9), life in Christ, (John 3:16), the resurrection body, (2 Cor. 5:1), the future rule of Christ, (2 Pet. 1:11), which is declared to be without end, (Luke 1:33), of sin that never has forgiveness, (Mark 3:29), the judgment of God, (Heb. 6:2), and of fire, one of its instruments, (Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 7)." i. Rom. 16:26 - " . . .according to the commandment of the eternal God. . ." ii. 1 Tim. 6:16 - ". . . To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen." iii. 1 Pet. 5:10 - " . . . who called you to His eternal glory in Christ," iv. Mark 3:29 - " . . . never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." v. etc. a. SOURCE: Vine, W. E., Vines Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981, Available: Logos Library System. "describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom. 16:26, and the other sixtysix places in the N.T. A. Rom. 16:25 - " . . which has been kept secret for long ages past," B. Rom 16:26 - ". . . according to the commandment of the eternal God," C. 2 Tim. 1:9 - ". . . which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity," D. Titus 1:2 - "the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised" long ages ago" i. SOURCE: Vine, W. E., Vines Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981, [Online] Available: Logos Library System)

2.

3.

609

4.

Eis tous aionios ton aionion - Forever and Ever, Lit. "into the age of the ages" A. "unlimited duration of time, with particular focus upon the future - always, forever, forever and ever, eternally." B. Phil. 4:20 - ". . .to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever." C. Rev. 19:3 - " . . .Her smoke rises up forever and ever." D. Rev. 20:20 - "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." i. SOURCE: Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989, Available: Logos Library System.

These few references and quotes should be ample evidence that eternal hell, eternal fire, is real. It is a terrible reality and it is all the more important to preach the gospel. The universalists are wrong and their theology only dilutes the need to come to Christ.

610

Forever and Ever

Is the English phrase "forever and ever" a proper translation of the Greek? Does it mean without end? Is it ever used of something not eternal? Does it refer to eternal torment? These questions are important because the universalist position denies the eternality of hell fire. Universalists take the literal Greek phrase of "eis tous aionas ton aionon, -- into the age of the ages" which is commonly translated as "forever and ever," "forevermore," and state that it refers to an age of time, a finite period of time. It is true that the basic root of "aion" means age. But it is not true that all words derived from that root mean a finite duration of time. The phrase means "unlimited duration of time, with particular focus upon the future - always, forever, forever and ever, eternally." 1 1 1 Additionally, the phrase is used to describe both God's eternal attributes and His eternal nature as well as eternal torment. Following is a table containing every single usage of the Greek phrase "eis tous aionas ton aionon -into the age of the ages." It clearly shows that it means "forever," "without end." The first two verses deal with eternal condemnation and judgment; the next 16 deal with God's Glory and honor.

"into the age of the ages" Translated as "forever and ever"; "forevermore" 1. 2. "And a second time they said, "Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever," (Rev. 19:3). "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever," (Rev. 20:10). "to whom be the glory forevermore, Amen," (Gal. 1:2) "Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen," (Phil. 4:20) "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen," (1 Tim. 1:17). "The Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen," (2 Tim. 4:18). "equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen," (Heb. 13:21). "Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God; whoever serves, let him do so as by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen," (1 Pet. 4:11). "and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen," (Rev. 1:6). "and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades," (Rev. 1:18). "And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever," (Rev. 4:9). "the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne," (Rev. 4:10). "And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever," (Rev. 5:13). "Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen," (Rev. 7:12). "and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it, that there shall be delay no longer," (Rev. 10:6). "And the seventh angel sounded; and there arose loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever,'" (Rev. 11:15).

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15.

16.

111

Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

611

17. 18.

"And one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God, who lives forever and ever," (Rev. 15:7). "And there shall no longer be any night; and they shall not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall illumine them; and they shall reign forever and ever," (Rev. 22:5).

Clearly, the phrase "forever and ever" is a correct translation of the Greek "eis tous aionas ton aionon -- forever and ever" Every instance of the phrase shows eternality. But, a word of caution: The Universalist may say that Rev. 19.3 is not eternal because it is the description of smoke from the City of Babylon. But, the judgment that is cast upon her is only the beginning of the eternal punishment of the wicked, indicated in the statement that the smoke from her goes up forever and ever. The phrase is always speaking of eternal duration. Universalism is incorrect because not all will be saved because: "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever," (Rev. 20:10).

612

Scriptures that say not all are saved

Universalists believe all people will be saved. They often complain against the contrary teaching that people go to hell by posing questions such as "Do you really believe that God is going to lose most of mankind in hell and that only a few are going to be saved?" "If most go to hell, doesn't that mean that Satan wins since God only gets a few compared to the majority who are lost?"

Of course, these kinds of questions are the wrong ones to ask. What they are doing is using emotionalism to sway someone's beliefs. What they should be asking are questions like these: "What does the Bible teach about damnation?" "Does the Bible tell us if most will be lost or saved?" "Does it tell us that all will be saved?"

The means to good biblical theology is to examine the whole of scriptures without bias so that proper and correct doctrines can be determined. Of course, no one is without bias. But, that does not mean that we should give up trying to be objective. We must endeavor to let God's word lead us rather than our emotionalism and personal preferences make decisions for us, especially about doctrine. At least, that should be the goal. What matters is what God has revealed in His word. So, are there scriptures in the Bible that plainly state that not all are saved? Yes, there are. "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. 14"For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it," (Matt. 7:13-14). "For many are called, but few are chosen," (Matt. 22:14). "And He was passing through from one city and village to another, teaching, and proceeding on His way to Jerusalem. 23And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them, 24"Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25"Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, Lord, open up to us! then He will answer and say to you, I do not know where you are from. 26"Then you will begin to say, We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets; 27and He will say, I tell you, I do not know where you are from; depart from Me, all you evildoers,'" (Luke 13:2227). "And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; 28for the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, thoroughly and quickly," (Rom. 9:27).

These verses are plain and clear. Not all are saved; in fact, few are. Whether or not we think this makes God a failure, or that it makes us sad, or upsets us, isn't really that important. If the Bible says it, that settles it. What is left is to make adjustments in our understanding and feelings in order to bring more in line with what God has stated. After all, we do not know the mind of God. His ways are higher than our ways. I prefer to accept what it says than feel my way through theology.

613

The unforgivable sin and the age to come

The Universalists teach that all people will eventually be saved through the atoning work of Christ. Proponents of universalism must, therefore, maintain that there is no unforgivable sin. For if there were, then their theory that all people will be saved would be proven wrong. Jesus said there was a sin that would not be forgiven in "this age or the age to come," Matt. 12:32: "And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come." A parallel passage is found in Luke 12:10. Jesus said, "And everyone who will speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him." Jesus stated, in Matt. 12:32, that there is a sin that is not forgivable either in "this age or the age to come." In Luke 12:10, He says blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven at all. The universalist qualifies their belief by stating that "the age to come" is a future age which will terminate. Therefore, they conclude that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will be forgiven after the end of "the age to come." Therefore, when they say read Jesus' words in Luke 12:10, instead of them concluding that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit won't be forgiven, they conclude it will. The important question then becomes "What is meant by 'this age and the age to come'?" Is Jesus dividing time into two periods? Are there only two ages or are there more than two? Does either or both of these ages end? I believe that the Jesus divided time into two ages and that all other ages mentioned in scripture fall within these two over-arching categories. Furthermore, "this age" is the time period we are in now, and "the age to come" is that future time when the Lord returns and eternity begins. Therefore, "the age to come" is without end. How many ages are there? " . . . and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come" (Eph. 1:20b-21). This verse speaks about Jesus being seated at the Father's right hand and that He (Jesus) is above all rule and authority in this age and the age to come. Jesus' dominion will never end. Therefore, the age to come, singular, will not end either. This is why God the Father says of the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever," (Heb. 1:8). Also, ". . . so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen," (1 Pet. 4:11). Let's take a look at what the Bible says about "This Age and the Age to Come."

614

This Age We will receive 100 times as much as what we lose (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30). People are given in marriage (Luke 20:34). The wisdom of this world is the wisdom of this age (1 Cor. 1:20). The rulers of this age are coming to nothing (1 Cor. 2:6). Satan is the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4). Jesus rescued us from the present evil age (Gal. 1:4). The end of this age occurs at the return of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:23-24). The tares are gathered and burned in the fire (Matt. 13:39).

The Age to Come We will receive eternal life (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30). We do not marry, (Luke 20:35).

Note that in the Greek, the phrase "the age to come" is always in the singular. It is speaking of a singular age to come where we will have eternal life.

As you can see, "this age" is obviously about the present time period because in it we have marriage, rulers, evil, etc. In the age to come, however, we receive eternal life and no marriage occurs. The future reference of receiving eternal life does not mean that we do not posses it now. 1 John 5:13, says we do. Rather, Jesus is speaking of the completion of our redemption which includes our bodies as well. "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body," (1 Cor. 15:42). In the age to come, we enter into eternity because it is when we are resurrected. This happens at the return of Christ. Eph. 2:5-7 There is one verse the New Testament that mentions ages in a future sense. The phrase is "ages to come" and it only occurs in Eph. 2:7 "even when we were dead in our transgressions, [He] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." This statement is not saying that there are future ages, plural, which are not defined in scripture, anyway. Rather, it is a declaration that in the future state, the Christians will enjoy the "surpassing riches of His grace" -- in the totality of the future. The phrase "ages to come" is merely an expression. This type of usage of "ages" to describe a very long time is also seen in Romans 16:25, "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past," In Greek, "long ages past" is "cronos aioniois," which is literally "time eternal(s)". This phrase is not saying that there are literally eternal past "ages," but that in long times past, the mystery was hidden. Other verses with the same usage of ages past are 1 Cor. 2:7; 10:11; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26; Titus 1:2; and Heb. 9:26. We can see from the table above, that all the ages past are under the umbrella of "this age" in which we have evil, suffering, etc.

615

The End of This Age It is important to understand when "this age" ends because it will effect our understanding of the nature of "the age to come" and further clarify that the age to come is without end. I have compiled a chart below to make this easier to see. The left column contains the events (resurrection, rapture, condemnation, etc.). To the right are the phrases used in the Bible to describe the event. With them are the verse locations. Phrase and location describing when the event occurs The Event End of this Age The Day of the Lord Last Day John 6:39,40, 44, 54; 11:24; Matt. 13:39 Matt. 24:3,31 1 Thess. 4:16-5:2 1 Thess. 5:2 1 Cor. 1:8 Matt. 13:40; 49-50 1 Cor. 5:5 Acts 2:20 2 Pet. 3:10 John 12:48 Last Trumpet 1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:16

Resurrection of the dead Harvest/Rapture (thief in the night) Gathering of elect Condemnation Wicked burned with fire Destruction and Salvation Sun to darkness, moon to blood New heavens and New Earth

From the above chart you can see that all the events happen at the same time. The Resurrection occurs on the Last day (John 6:39-40), which is also the last trumpet (1 Cor. 15:52). The resurrection is just before the rapture (1 Thess. 4:16-5:2) which occurs on the Day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:2) when Jesus returns (1 Thess. 4:16-5:2). It is with/after Jesus' return, which is simultaneous with the rapture, the harvest, etc, that we receive our resurrected bodies and are forever with the Lord. It is then, the "age to come." This age will not end. It is in "the age to come" that blasphemy is not forgiven. In other words, it isn't ever forgiven. Heb. 6:6 and Heb. 10:26 There are two other verses which also mention a unforgivable sins. "For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame," (Heb. 6:4-6) "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries," (Heb. 10:26-27).

616

In the case of Heb. 6:6, repentance is an impossibility with those who have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit and then have fallen away. If this repentance is impossible, then so is forgiveness. Likewise, in Heb. 10:26, "if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." The universalists want to have the sacrifice of Jesus cover, pay for, and remove the penalty of all people's sins who have ever lived. But, according to this verse, there is a point when the sacrifice of Jesus is no longer available to a person. Conclusion Therefore, the teaching that everyone will eventually be saved cannot be true. This age and the to come are two over-arching categories that divide human existence. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in the age to come. At the end of this age, "the age to come" begins and it has no end. Heb. 6:6 and Heb. 10:26 also show us that there are conditions of non-forgiveness.

Universalism is not true.

617

Does God hate anyone?

The universalists repeatedly say things like, "God loves us all so much that He will save us all"; or "He hates the sin, but loves the sinner"; or "God is love, and will not send anyone to hell." Universalists teach that God is so full of love that He simply cannot send anyone to eternal hell fire. It is against His infinite love. They want God to forgive all, even those who openly reject Him and die cursing God. I must admit, it is nice to think of God's love being so infinitely great that all will ultimately be saved. Hell is a terrible place and I don't want anyone to go there. But it does not matter what I think. It matters what the Bible says. God is love (1 John 4:8), but God also punishes the sinner and hates all who do iniquity. God is not one sided. He is not simply an infinitely loving God. He is also infinitely just. He must deal with sin. He must punish the sinner. In the truth of God's word, we find that the Lord has provided one way by which we may be saved. That single way is through Jesus' sacrifice. For all who trust in Him, salvation will come. But to those who turn away, God's wrath abides upon them: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him," (John 3:36). Does God hate anyone? Does God hate anyone? The answer is yes. Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity," Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them." Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers." Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."

Are these verses hard to read? Do they make you feel uncomfortable? They should. God hates sin. But, He does not punish sin. He punishes the sinner. Sin cannot be tied up and thrown into a fire. It cannot be put in a box or glued to a stick. It is rebellion. It is rebellion in the heart. It is breaking God's Law. Sin occurs inside the heart and mind of people. Therefore, God must punish the sinner. Why? Because He is both Holy and Just and the person who sins offends God. God's Holy and Just character will not allow Him to ignore this offense. Why?.... God's Law is Perfect When God said, "Let there be light," it happened. When He commanded that the oceans be, they came into existence. God's word is powerful. What He says is never futile, empty, or without power. The Law is a reflection of God's character. It is pure and perfect. It is powerful. The Ten Commandments reflect God's holiness and justice. These commandments are not without punishments. A law without consequences is only an empty slogan. To sin is to break God's Law and offend His character. To sin means to challenge His character and authority. It means you go against His word. But God is not a liar. His word is true. He has said He will punish the lawbreaker. But, praise be to God, that while we were yet sinners, Jesus died for us (Rom. 5:6). There is no way we can appease God. That is why God became one of us (John 1:1,14; Heb. 2:17), to take our place and become sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21). Therefore, people have two options:

618

1. Trust Jesus, God in flesh, as your savior and put your faith in the sacrifice that He made on the cross and in nothing you do. 2. Reject the cross and let the penalty of the Law fall upon you. Either God pays, or you do -- forever. Which will it be? "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins," (Heb. 10:26). If there is no sacrifice available for you, then God's wrath abides upon you because He hates sin and your sin is not removed (John 3:36). Trust Jesus alone or the wrath of God will abide upon you forever. Conclusion The sobering fact is that God is so holy and righteous that He hates the sinner (Psalm 5:5; Lev. 20:23; Prov. 6:16-19; Hos. 9:15). Some say that we should say that God only hates the sin but loves the sinner. But, the above scriptures speak contrary to that. But it is also true that He is love (1 John 4:8). It is better to accept the love of God found in Jesus than to reject it and suffer His wrath.

619

Is Hell Eternal?
The teaching that there is an eternal hell in which hordes of mankind will suffer eternal punishment can be a difficult doctrine to accept. We hear so much about God's infinite love and how He desires that all men be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). However, those who develop their theologies based upon the "gentle" side of God do so with an incomplete picture. Not only is God loving (1 John 4:8-10), gracious (Exo. 33:19; 1 Pet. 2:3), and merciful (Exodus 34:6; Psalm 67:1; James 5:11), but He is also holy (Isaiah 6:3; Rev. 4:8), just ( Neh. 9:32-33; 2 Thess. 1:6), and hates sin (Psalm 5:5-6; Hab. 1:13). God punishes the sinner (Jer. 50:31; Ez. 44:12; Matt. 25:46; 2 Thess. 1:9; 2 Pet. 2:9; Heb. 10:29). The Bible teaches that there is a fiery hell, a place that Jesus warned people about. "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire," (Matt. 18:8). Eternal fire is real. Jesus said it was. In fact, Jesus spoke more of hell than He did of heaven. It is what Jesus came here to save us from. There will be a Day of Judgment when all people will face God. Those who are not covered by the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross will be cast out into hell where they will undergo eternal punishment. "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46). In this verse, the same word "eternal" is used to describe the punishment of the wicked as well as the eternal life of the believer. The punishment is endless as is the eternal life of the believer. That is why the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) is so important, because it saves people from eternal damnation: Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life, (John 5:24). Following are a few verses that show the eternality of the hell and punishment. God uses different phrases to describe the same thing. "And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power," (2 Thess. 1:9). "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7). These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever," (Jude12-13).

620

Is "forever and ever" without end? The phrase "forever and ever" is used both of describing God's eternal worth and the duration of eternal damnation. The exact same Greek phrase is used in each of the verses in the table below. forever and ever aionas ton aionon "ages of the ages" Eternal - without end "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen," (1 Tim. 1:17). ". . . To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever" (Rev. 5:13). Eternal Damnation "And a second time they said, "Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever" (Rev. 19:3). "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever," (Rev. 20:10).

The Greek phrase "aionas ton aionon," which is translated "forever and ever," occurs 18 times in the Greek New Testament. In 17 of them, the phrase means without end, extending into infinity. In Rev. 19:3, the phrase is used to describe the destruction of the great whore of Babylon (Rev. 17:1,4) whose smoke ascends forever and ever. It too is eternal and it signifies the beginning of the eternal judgment that comes upon her. Also worth examining is Rev. 14:11: "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." The Greek in Rev. 14:11 is only slightly different. In the table above, "forever and ever" is translated from the Greek, "aionas ton aionon," which is literally "ages of the of ages." In Rev. 14:11, the Greek is "aionas aionon" which is literally, "ages of ages." In the latter, the single Greek word "of the" is missing. But it is not necessary and does not change the meaning of the text. Therefore, the scripture teaches the smoke of their torment goes up forever, without end. Unquenchable Fire Some believe that the fires of hell are symbolic and/or temporal. But the following verses show that they are not. Matt. 3:12 says, "And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (See also Luke 3:17.) Mark 9:43 says, "And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire." The word "unquenchable" is "asbestos" in the Greek. According to the enhanced Strong's lexicon, it means "unquenchable, the eternal hell fire to punish the damned." The following citations are from Greek dictionaries and Lexicons. They show that the word "unquenchable," which is "asbestos" in the Greek, (which occurs only in Matt. 3:12, Luke 3:17, and Mark 9:43) means unquenchable, without end.

621

"unquenchable, inextinguishable" - Liddell, H. G., and Scott, Abridged Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 1992, [Online] Available: Logos Library System. "not quenched" - Vine, W. E., Vines Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981, [Online] Available: Logos Library System. "pertaining to a fire that cannot be put out" - "unquenchable." - Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989, [Online] Available: Logos Library System "unquenched, unquenchable" - Enhanced Strongs Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995, [Online] Available: Logos Library System. "that cannot be put out" - Wigram Green, The New Englishman's Greek Concordance and Lexicon, (Peabody Mass: Hendrikson Publishers, 1982, p. 771. "inextinguishable" - William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexic on of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press), 1979, p. 114.

Is hell eternal? Yes it is. Are its fires without end? Yes they are. Is it a pleasant doctrine to discuss? Not really. But, hell is real. This is all the more reason to preach the gospel. Jesus said, "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire," (Matt. 18:8).

622

The demonic forces will not be saved

There are some universalists who believe that Satan and all of the demonic realm will be redeemed through the atonement of Jesus. Though I have found this is a minority view among the universalists, it is still worth addressing and correcting. The demonic realm will not and cannot be redeemed. This simple reason is that they have no Redeemer. Jesus is the Redeemer of humanity, not of the demonic realm. There is a doctrine in theology called the hypostatic union. It is the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus. Jesus is both God and man. He was Go d so that He could appease God the Father with the sacrifice of infinite value. We need a sacrifice of infinite value because when we sin, we sin against an infinite God. Therefore our offense against Him has infinite consequences. No mere human can please and satisfy an infinitely holy and righteous God. Only God Himself can satisfy the infinite requirements of His own holiness. Therefore, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," (John 1:14). Jesus became our atoning sacrifice to turn away the wrath of God (Rom. 5:9) by bearing our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). Therefore, those who trust in Christ are saved by grace (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 6:23). Likewise, the reason he needed to be a man was so that he could atone for the sins of mankind. He had to be made like one of us. "For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. 17Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people," (Heb. 2:16-17). The fallen angels do not have a sacrifice on their behalf. They do not have the infinite God becoming one of them and atoning for them. Therefore, the demonic realm will not be saved. ______________________ John 1:14 - "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." Rom. 5:9 - "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him." 1 Pet. 2:24 - "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." Eph. 2:8-9 - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, that no one should boast." Rom. 6:23 - "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

623

Fallen angels go to the lake of fire forever

Some Universalists maintain that even the demonic horde will ultimately be redeemed and enjoy heaven. Other Universalists deny that the demonic forces will be redeemed. You often get different answers from different Universalists. Is it important? Yes, it is. People are redeemed because they have a Redeemer, Jesus. Jesus is God in flesh (Col. 2:9) who bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Jesus bore the sins of demons. Why? Because it did not happen. The reason this is important is because we can then see that the demonic realm does not have a savior and cannot be redeemed from their sins. They will remain in their sins for eternity. We see the pattern of God's incarnation, bearing of sins, dying, resurrection, and justification by faith (Rom. 5:1). We see that God became man. We see that Jesus was both God and man (Col. 2:9). It was necessary that He be both God and man for a very simple and important reason. He had to be God in order to offer a sufficiently holy and infinite sacrifice to counter the infinite offense against God that creatures commit against Him. He had to be man in order to bear the sins of men. He had to represent the ones for whom He atoned in order for them to be atoned for. According to this pattern that we see in Scripture, for the demonic realm to be saved, God would have become one of them, bear their sins, and, somehow, redeem them through death or some other means that God would determine. Yet, there is nothing in scripture to substantiate that this has or will occur. Therefore, the demonic realm has no redeemer and their sins will be retained, forever. But some might ask, "Could God have another means by which He saves the fallen angels?" Yes. He could, most anything is possible. But mere possibilities do not make actualities. The Bible does not provide any redemptive plan for the demonic forces. Therefore, we can safely conclude that there is none. Demons are not and will not be redeemed. Reconciling the whole world Some Universalists maintain that all the demonic forces will be redeemed because it states so in the Bible. It doesn't. Nevertheless, following are some of the verses used by the Universalists to claim that the demonic realm will be redeemed. I've commented following each verse. 1. 1 Cor. 15:27-28 "For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him. Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all." A. This is simply stating that all things will be subject to God. Even the damned will be subject to God because in hell they are in a state of subjection to God's judgment upon them. It is God's will to judge those who are unsaved. It is according to His law and they will be subject to that righteous judgment. Col. 1:20, "and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." A. This verse does not state that the demons will be saved. Reconciliation means to bring someone or something into a right relationship with another. The lawful and proper relationship of the unsaved before God is damnation. Those who are condemned to damnation are rightly condemned and their relation to God is proper. They are eternally subjected to His judgment. B. The demonic horde is not in heaven. This is speaking of God reconciling His people to Himself -- those who who have died and gone to be with God and those who are still living in this world. But, it is only the Christian who is redeemed. Those who reject Christ are not.

2.

624

3.

Rom. 8:19, "For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the c reation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." A. Does creation have a will? No it does not. Obviously we have figurative usage here. This is dealing with creation as a whole, earth, sky, animals, stars, etc. All of creation was affected by Adam's sin because Adam was the one who was in charge of it. Since Adam's sin (and the sins of his progeny) are cleansed, then that which Adam represented is also cleansed; namely, creation. Creation did not have a redeeming sacrific e for its sin since creation did not sin. Rather, as sin entered the world through Adam, when all sin is finally dealt with, its effect will be removed from the creation that was given to Adam in his dominion authority. B. The angels who fell were not under Adam's representation. They had their own freedom to choose what they wanted to do. They willingly sinned. They willingly rebelled. And, they have no propitiation, no atoning sacrifice to have their sins forgiven. C. Also note that "all creation" does not always mean every created thing. Look at Mark 16:15 Jesus said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." All creation here is not inclusive of the planets, stars, nebulae, nor the angels. We are told to preach the gospel to people. And consider Col. 1:23, ". . . the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven. . . " This is not speaking of angels, planets, etc. It is a representative usage of people all over the place. Why is this important?

The Lake of Fire was created for the devil and his angels. The devil and his fallen angels have no redeeming sacrifice the way we do. The demonic forces will be cast into hell and since they are not forgiven, their punishment is without end. Likewise, we see that people are also thrown into the Lake of Fire. Since the angels' condemnation is without end in the Lake of Fire, so to is the punishment delivered to those people who are also cast into that very same lake. Matt. 25:41, Then He will also say to those on His left, Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. Rev. 20:14-15, And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyones name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Mark 9:43, And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,"

The demonic realm has no redeemer. Jesus did not bear their sins in His body. He bore OUR sins in his body (1 Pet. 2:24). Since they do NOT have a sin-bearer, they will remain in their sins. Their punishment is eternal. Since there are people thrown into that SAME lake of fire, their punishment is likewise eternal. Is hell eternal? Yes. Are all people saved? No.

625

Does eternal punishment deny God's justice?

Some of the proponents of Universalism maintain that eternal punishment cannot be true because if God eternally damned someone, it would mean that the punishment would never be complete. Therefore, God is not satisfied, His judgment is not realized, and justice is never accomplished. The first problem with this objection is the idea that God's eternal judgment necessarily must have an end. If it is eternal punishment, then it wouldn't end. "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life," (Matt. 25:46). Not all judgments and punishments end. Consider a person who is executed for a capital crime. His punishment is death. In effect, it is a judgment that is eternal. The judgment is completed by the accomplishment of a sentence: execution. The sentence has an eternal duration which will not end and at the same time the judgment has been accomplished. The judgment, in and of itself, is eternal by definition and this does not mean that it is not satisfied or realized. The eternal sentence of death has been accomplished and is still in effect. Therefore, we can see that a valid punishment with an eternal result can be a reality. Second, it is not logically necessary that an eternal punishment upon a sinner be an insufficient or non-accomplished judgment. It is just as logical to say that God's infinite justice is properly accomplished with an infinite punishment. After all, an offense of infinite value would require an infinite punishment. Third, it would be an injustice to God's infinite righteousness and holiness to have the sinner's punishment be terminated. Of course, I am not here speaking of discipline, where the Lord chastises a person and welcomes him back into fellowship. I am speaking here of damnation, that pronouncement upon a sinner who is not covered in the blood of Christ. As I said above, it follows that if God is infinite and the sinner has offended God, then that is an infinite offense. If judgment upon the sinner regarding his sinfulness were temporal, then it means that a sinner's suffering is sufficient to appease an infinite God. That would be unjust since, Gal. 2:21 says, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." Paul is saying that if we could be please God by what we do (suffer), then Christ died needlessly. Fourth, the universalists have stated that though the unrepentant sinners are truly forgiven in Christ, they must be "punished," "purified," "corrected," for a period of time in the after life before they are ready to be admitted into the eternal life of realized forgiveness. This is a very dangerous teaching because it strikes at the very heart of the atonement of Christ. For a person to suffer the judgment of God because of his sin until he is found worthy to be with God is to state that the atonement is insufficient and must be completed through the suffering of the sinner. This is blasphemous and must be avoided at all costs. It should be plain to see that the universalist position is incorrect.

626

The Danger of Universalism

Universalism teaches that all people will eventually be saved through the atonement of Christ. It says that all mankind, even those who have openly rejected Jesus, those who have willingly committed horrible crimes and died without repentance, and without the covering of Christ's blood, will enjoy a future with God. This belief is based upon the idea that God's love is so infinitely great, that His grace in Christ is so awesome, that everyone will be saved. This simply is not true. The danger of universalism is that it to can give someone a false sense of security about their eternal destiny. It can remove the need of accountability. It can remove the fear of judgment. It does not require repentance. A person who adopts universalism can easily conclude that if he is going to be saved no matter what he does, then why be concerned about repentance or accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior? This potential error is most dangerous. Especially because if universalism is not true, then the false sense of security it has given to those who have not trusted in Christ, will lead them to damnation. This is a very serious danger. Of course, simply because it is possible that people will become lax in accepting Christ if they adopt universalism, it does not mean this is what will happen. Nor does it mean that all Universalists think they can go out and sin willfully. On the contrary, most Universalists are very moral. But, there is the inherent danger in universalism that reduces the need for repentance and salvation. This is a great risk. Eternity is a long time to be wrong and hell is a terrible place to be forever. What does Satan want? Satan wants the destruction of people. Satan wants people to die in their sins and go to hell. He is utter hatred and complete evil. But, he is also extremely cunning with an intelligence that is vast. Universalism may very well become a tool of the evil one in the last days. It weakens the need to trust in Christ in this life. In Universalism, Satan can work his false doctrines through its adherents. This is clearly the case since many Universalists deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ. But in universalist theology, it really doesn't matter. Why? Because ultimately, in the after life, people will come to a true knowledge of God and repent and be saved. So, even if they are wrong now, they will be right later. Satan says, "Don't worry about receiving Jesus now. You can do that later." But it is Christ who says, At the acceptable time I listened to you, And on the day of salvation I helped you ;behold, now is the acceptable time, behold, now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:3). "He again fixes a certain day, Today, saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts" (Heb. 4:7).

What would be a uniting religious concept that would tend to unite different religious systems? Universalism! Think about it. If everyone is going to be saved, then Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc. will not keep people out of hell. If all religions adopted universalism, then each could look at the other as being a different belief (or even error) that would, nevertheless, lead a person to redemption in the after-life. What does Jesus save us from? Jesus saves. But what does He save us from? Does Jesus save us from ourselves, our thoughts, our actions, our temperament, or even our sins. No. He saves us from the wrathful judgment of God upon us due to us because of our sinfulness. There is a natural consequence to being a sinner: judgment. God will punish the sinner (Hosea 8:13; 9:9). The one who rejects Jesus does not have a covering for sin, does not have forgiveness of sins, and has the wrath of God abiding upon him:

627

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him, (John 3:36). Jesus saves us from that wrath. Jesus saves all those who receive Him (John 1:12; Rom. 8:1) so that they can escape the judgment to come. He therefore began saying to the multitudes who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Luke 3:7). Jesus warned us about hell (Matt. 5:22,29-30;23:33; Mark 9:45; Luke 12:5). In fact, He spoke more of it than He did of heaven. He does not want you to go to that place of torment. That is why He said, "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire," (Matt. 18:8). If universalism is true, then where is the power in Jesus' warning? If universalism is true then there is no eternal fiery hell, no dread of being cast into it, no wrath to come -- but there is! Hell is the real place. Jesus came to save us from it. But you must trust Christ and His atoning sacrifice in order to escape the wrath of God. Does universalism lead us to urgency? Does it lead us to fear the wrath to come? No. It doesn't. It removes the urgency. It removes the fear of God. Now, I am not saying that we must live in fear or that fear is the only motive to be saved. But, Jesus Himself warned people about hell and the Bible tells us that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," (Prov. 9:10). Conclusion Universalism can lead to complacency. It can easily lessen the concern for salvation and repentance. In this, there is danger.

628

The Danger of Universalism Illustrated

Universalism teaches that all people will eventually be saved and that no one goes to the fiery-hell to suffer for their sins. It means that everyone is saved, whether or not they have accepted or openly rejected Jesus' atonement. Of course, this goes against Heb. 10:26-27 which says, "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries" (NASB). There is a danger in the Universalist position. It can weaken the need for someone to receive Jesus as Savior. To prove the point I provide this "exaggerated" illustration. But, the contrived universalist sermon below contains many quotes said by universalists to me. I've just blended them in: There is this horrible, hateful man who abused all sorts of people in countless ways. He stole from them, was foul mouthed, a habitual adulterer, and he openly mocked and blasphemed God. He repeatedly sought to destroy the Christian Church and did everything in his power to prevent the gospel from being preached. He was a wretched and evil man. This man died and, out of social obligation, all this relatives were at his funeral. There were lots of impressionable children, sweet little old ladies, and many acquaintances from work who had been appalled at the atheists horrible lifestyle yet were there nevertheless. However, some of the people there were thinking of sin, salvation, God, judgment, and what death brings. This often happens at funerals. A universalist pastor was giving the message. "We know that this man was a wretched soul who did whatever he could to oppose God and blaspheme Christ. He habitually stole, lied, cheated, coveted, swore, drank, caroused, and injured. We know that he lived his life in wanton sin and rebellion and that many people feared and hated him. "But, you know what? He's going to heaven. And do you know why? Because God is too good and loving to let even this wretched, evil soul go to an imaginary place like hell. "I know. He hated God and rejected Jesus. He even cursed the cross and did everything he could to oppose Christianity. But, it doesn't matter because, ultimately, you will see him again. Only, he won't be mean and evil. He will be kind and gentle. Jesus will change him. Jesus loves him. Jesus loves him more than we can imagine. He also loves you more than you can possibly know. There is no need to fear Him at all. "Some may preach that there is a hell, a place of fiery, eternal torment. But I tell you that it is a lie. It is a tool of Tormentists who cannot accept the love of God and how often enjoy the thought of people rotting in that awful place. "The Bible says that Jesus is the Savior of all men. And that means even this awful, God hating, wretch of a man that has now gone on to meet his maker. "I preach a message of peace, of reconciliation, of joy, and of God's redeeming power. "I preach the truth." After the service, two of the impressionable young kids are talking. "I liked the sermon the universalist gave. Heck, I was worried about hell. But now I don't have to be worried about it. Now I know I'm going to heaven no matter what. I know I'm not that great a person, but if that horrible man in the coffin is going to heaven, then I am sure I will too. After all, I'm not as bad as he is." His friend answers, "Yep, I don't have to give up my drugs, sleeping with my girlfriend, or stealing CD's from the music store. Life is great!" "Well, I don't think it means we can go sin, though." "I know. I was just kidding. But you are right. No worries. No problem."

629

The two walk off enjoying the new found freedom found in the love of God, but they now don't need to trust Jesus as their savior. They have no need to appeal to Jesus to save them, because there isn't anything to save them from. They walk away unredeemed. And let's not forget about the co-worker who has been thinking of going to church. He has been committing adultery and he has been fearing the judgment of God. He thinks to himself.... "Whew! Am I glad to hear that message. That was great! I don't have to worry about anything. Man what a relief. No hell! I'm going to heaven! Man Oh Man! this is so cool.... Guess I don't have to go to church tomorrow and I can forget about reading what the Bible says about Jesus and sin.... no need. Okay, maybe I should stop the adultery. But, that sure was a good message from that universalist. I feel so much better about God's love. I feel so much better knowing there is no hell." He walks away not having confessed his sins to Christ (1 John 1:9), not having been cleansed, not having received Christ (John 1:12), not having been justified by faith (Rom. 5:1). ....... an eon later..... heaven.....judgment seat.... God is there.... and if the universalist is wrong.... Two boys and a coworker are in hell. They never did trust in Jesus as their savior. They never did confess their sinfulness and ask Jesus to forgive them. But, at least they felt good while on earth and they didn't have to listen to those people who preached hell-fire. Why is it that Jesus warned us to not go to the "fiery place" if it isn't real? Why did He speak more about hell than heaven? Why did He tell us to turn from sin and be SAVED! Saved from what? Saved from Damnation! Universalism is a dangerous teaching. It weakens the need for a savior and that is a great risk to take for such a dubious teaching.

630

If election is true what is the danger in universalism?

Universalism teaches that Jesus died for all people and that all will eventually be saved. It also teaches that if someone rejects Christ in this life, he can accept Jesus in the next one, even if he is a horrible person who severely blasphemed God. The danger with this is that based on this principle in universalism, someone could adopt an attitude of complacency who would then choose to live a life of sin and rebellion and wait until the afterlife to become a true believer -- even if there is some "purification" involved in the afterlife. The obvious problem is that if universalism is wrong and the person hopes to be saved in the next life, he'll face an eternity of hell instead of heaven. This is an inherent weakness in Universalism. CARM has many discussion boards. One of them is on universalism. I have raised this issue to them many times and two responses have come forth from: one is to ignore the point all together and not admit it exists. The other is to ignore the issue and counter attack. The most prevalent counterattack against me is a challenge regarding election (I'm Reformed in theology) and ask that since God's elect cannot be deceived, how can universalism pose a threat to the elect? In part, the universalists deflection of the real question is understandable since they desire to defend their position at all costs, a consistent pattern with them. But, what is amazing is their inability to admit the possible danger in their position. To them, it is quite impossible to consider anything in universalism to be less than perfect. This is disconcerting. Nevertheless, I'll answer their objection, even though they refuse to address mine, in hopes of encouraging them to actually face the issue and admit the danger. Reformed theology teaches that God elects, from all eternity, those who will be saved and that this election cannot fail; those who are elected to salvation will be saved and only those who wanted to be saved are elected to be saved. Likewise, it is not possible for the elect to lose their salvation since the cross has made it secure. Universalism can contribute to people procrastinating regarding salvation in the here and now in order to wait until the after-life where they have a second chance, an opportunity to be purified in a hell-like state after which they will then be able to go to heaven and be with God forever. Of course, if universalism is wrong, then those who had erringly put their hope in Universalism's second-chance-inthe-afterlife-belief would be lost forever. The question then, if election is true, does it really matter regarding universalism's truth or error? Yes it does. First, God does not want error to be taught, regardless of election or not. Universalism is an error. Second, both election and warning against false teachings are taught in the Bible. Therefore, there is no contradiction since God's word teaches both. 1. Election: A. "And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short," (Matt. 24:22, cf., Mark 13:20). B. " . . . so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect," (Matt. 24:24, cf., Mark 13:22). C. "And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other," (Matt. 24:31, cf., Mark 13:27). D. "now shall not God bring about justice for His elect, who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them?" (Luke 18:7). E. "Who will bring a charge against Gods elect? God is the one who justifies," (Rom. 8:33). Warning against false teaching A. "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves," (Matt. 7:15). B. ". . .See to it that no one misleads you. "For many will come in My name, saying, I am the Christ, and will mislead many," (Matt. 24:4-5; cf, Luke 21:8). C. See also Acts 20:29; 2 Cor. 11:13; Eph. 4:14

2.

631

Therefore, for the universalist to think that the two issues are contradictory in any way is unwarranted because the Bible teaches both concepts. "The subject of election is God, who chooses on the basis of his sovereign will for his creation. Associated with election are theological terms such as predestination, providence, and covenant." 1 1 2 The elect are God's chosen people who were set apart from the foundation of the universe to be saved, to belong to God. So, if this is true how can I consistently warn people against the errors of universalism? Actually, if the universalists wanted to be consistent, why would I warn anyone about anything? Shouldn't I just sit around and do nothing because God will take care of it all regarding the elect? The answer is simple. God ordains the means as well as the ends in election. He uses Christians, freed from sin, to do His sovereign will according to His command to refute error and make disciples. "Holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict," (Titus 1:9). "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations. . . " (Matt. 28:19). "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur" (Acts 4:28).

Obviously God wants people to refute error, to make disciples, yet it is He who predestines people. How does this work? I am not sure. But God has it under control. Furthermore, we do not know the criteria by which God elects, but elect He does. The Bible teaches that plainly. It is not, however, based in anything good in us for there is nothing good in us; we are sinners. That is why God shows no partiality; that is, He does not elect based on anything in us. Also, God says the prayers of a righteous man (Christian) can accomplish much with Him (James 5:16). How can that be if He predestines all things (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:28-29)? I don't know. But, He predestines and He instructs us to pray because it makes a difference with Him. How does that work? Again, I do not know and I cannot explain the mind of God. But, God predestines, commands us to be careful about false teaching, and instructs us to go make disciples? Is it contradictory to say that God elects and that our prayers can influence Him? Not at all, since both are true in scripture. Furthermore, I absolutely believe that God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Acts 4:28) and I believe my prayers and efforts (i.e., CARM) make a difference. In fact, I am far more evangelical than most people: I've literally got thousands of hours in evangelism experience, preaching, teaching, witnessing, apologetics, web, radio, etc, and I have many testimonials how the efforts have made a difference in peoples' lives. This all goes to prove one very important point: God ordains the means as well as the end. It isn't up to me to figure out all the nuances of God's mind and how all of it fits together. I leave that to Him and I go forth in obedience to His declaration (predestination/election) and His command (make disciples). A possible explanation Alright, so I've pleaded ignorance, in part, on this subject. Nevertheless, I offer a possible explanation of how this can work. 1. God's total knowledge eternally encompasses all actions of all beings and all possible and actual permutations of all events of all things. A. This means that from before the universe existed, in the mind of God, all potential existences and all potential combinations of all events were already known and understood by God; hence, true omniscience. i. This would include all things done by "free will" creatures anytime and anyplace in the then distant future under all actual and potential circumstances. Since all things have eternally been simultaneously known by God (even the "free will" choices made by all people), then, when He planned the universe, it is necessarily true that all things which were known and consulted by God were included in His plan of election as

2.

112

Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.

632

3.

He placed people in and where He did according to His sovereign will to "do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur" (Acts 4:28). A. It cannot be that God remains ignorant on any subject. When He created the universe He did so knowing everything that could and would be. Since He is all powerful, it is natural to state that He included all possible outcomes in His sovereign plan, including election. This election may or may not be influenced by foreknowledge concerning our actions and desires. B. This plan can easily include our prayers and the resulting ramifications of the teaching of false doctrines that damn people. C. Our prayers can, then, have an influence with Him from all eternity, yet, He has not changed from all eternity. The only way that this can be is if He knew everything about everything and included what He desired in the universe that He constructed and set in motion. It is perfectly logical, therefore, that in our time reference, we can make choices, influence God, be warned about apostasy and false doctrines, and actually truly make a difference in people's lives (for good or bad), and have all these things sovereignly included in the plan of God by which He elects and predestines. This way, the idea of a false doctrine damning and God's election are not mutually exclusive. A. In other words, God knew all that what we would do (good and bad) and took it all into account when He constructed the universe and put us in it and developed His sovereign plan by which He has predestined what will occur. After all it says that ". . .He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will," (Eph. 4:5). Is this predestination apart from His infinite knowledge of our influence upon Him (James 5:16) from all eternity? Of course not. B. Therefore, what we do makes a difference in the lives of people. False doctrines are still dangerous and are to be warned against -- the outcome, of which, are included in God's sovereign plan of election. He still predestines, we still can influence God in our prayers (James 5:16) and God's warning about apostasy and false doctrines are still valid. Objections answered

But, som universalists will object that the doctrine of election can cause the very same thing of e which universalism is accused; namely, a false sense of security in salvation. Certainly, this is a possibility. But, the Bible says that God elects (Matt. 24:22,31), that His sheep will never perish (John 10:28), that those who say they know Jesus and do not keep His word are liars without the truth (1 John 2:4), and that the Christian is a new creature in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17): "Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." It is this last verse that is extremely relevant here. Being a new creature in Christ means that the Christian is no longer a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16). He is now free. A true Christian will not use the grace of God to sin (Rom. 6:1-3) and expect to be saved no matter what. Why? Because a true Christian is at war with the flesh (Rom. 7) and does not remain in sin (John 8:31; James 2:14). But, the very fact that the universalists bring up this counter-argument is an admission of the weakness of their own for they recognize it and try to apply it to a different situation as a means of defense. In so doing, they do not answer the original problem; they only change the subject and hope the problem will go away. Also, election deals with Christians, universalism deals with Christians and unbelievers. The Christian is regenerated and changed and will not abide in sin; he cannot because he is not a slave to it any more and will not use his security in Christ as a license to sin. The unbeliever is not saved and can still hope in eternal life after death so they can sin now. And it is to this charge that the universalist has failed to adequately respond. Another objection raised by universalists is how do you know if you are elect or not? This question demonstrates a lack of understanding of biblical theology. The Bible says that "These things I have

633

written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). It is certainly possible, according to God's word, to know that you are elect. On a practical level, I would say that anyone who has trusted Jesus as Savior (not a false Christ as in the cults), will have the knowledge and testimony of the Holy Spirit living within him and he will observe a change in his own heart. This is a demonstration of regeneration. Furthermore, only Christians have the mind of Christ and know that Jesus is God in flesh, risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven to which the Bible says, an unbeliever cannot accept (1 Cor. 2:14).

Note: ______________ Infralapsarianism is an issue within Reformed theology dealing with what may have happened in God's mind regarding the logical order of His considering whom to elect into salvation before the foundation of the world. The word means "after the fall." The position is that God first decided He would allow sin into the world and second that he would then save people from it. By contrast, the supralapsarian ("before the fall") position holds that God first decided that He would save some people and then second that he would allow sin into the world. I am somewhat bewildered by this difference within Reformed circles since all knowledge with God is eternally known and simultaneous. It would seem that the distinctive between infra and supralapsarianism would be moot.

634

Satan and universalism

Satan wants the destruction of all people. Satan wants people to die in their sins and go to hell. He is utter hatred and complete evil. But, he is also extremely cunning with an intelligence that is vast and it may just be that universalism will become a tool of the Devil in the last days. How? By teaching that people can trust in Christ in the after-life, a second chance after death. Now, am I calling Universalists satanists? Not at all. Many of them are very godly people and serve the true God. But, whether Universalists admit it or not, the doctrine has the potential of negating the need to come to Christ in this life because it teaches you can do it in the next -- as they have claimed. In Universalism, as well as most any doctrine, Satan can work various false teachings through its adherents. No doctrine is immune to being twisted. But, many Universalists deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ yet draw people in via universalist philosophy. This is dangerous. All the cults teach a false god and are false because of it. But in universalist theology, it really doesn't matter. Why? Because according to universalism, in the after-life, people will come to a true knowledge of God and repent and be saved. So, even if they are wrong now, they will be right later. So, the need to preach and teach the true God (Trinitarian) is greatly reduced. Again, this is dangerous. Satan says, "Don't worry about receiving Jesus now. You can do that later." Then when people die, they find out it is too late. But, it is God who says, At the acceptable time I listened to you, And on the day of salvation I helped you ;behold, now is the acceptable time, behold, now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:2, NASB) emphasis added. "He again fixes a certain day, Today, saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts" (Heb. 4:7, NASB)

Some Universalists will take offense at this line of reasoning. I don't blame them. But, the Bible teaches that now is the time for salvation, not later. Some Universalists actually preach a God of love and forgiveness and the need to come to Christ now. That's fine as far as they preach the True Christ and Him crucified and not a false god as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and New Age adherants do. But what about the thousands of Universalists who deny the true God and yet teach universalism and continue to teach a false god? If Universalism is not true, then they are hindering people from coming to Christ. They are advocating a false god along with their universalist teachings, the very universalist teaching that appeals to people because it teaches a God of infinite love and grace. To deny the Trinity is to deny the true God. To deny that Jesus is God in flesh is to deny the true Christ. This is incredibly dangerous because false gods do not save, only the True and Living God saves! But then, in universalism, it doesn't matter what you believe now. You'll "repent" later in the after-life and come to the true knowledge of God. Sorry. But that is not what the Bible teaches. One world government The Bible teaches us that in the last days there will be a one world religious system which will be used by the devil in a great deception to ultimately war against God. Universalism could easily be used by the devil to help him accomplish this very thing. You see, there are a great many differences between religious systems. They cannot all be right. Because of these differences, hostilities often arise. But, if universalism were accepted by all religious systems, then it would logically greatly reduce hostilities both physical, intellectual, and spiritual. Sound good? It sure does, except for one thing. It compromises the truth of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ who said He alone was the way the truth and the life. This means that all other systems are wrong! It means that Buddhism is not true. It means that Islam is not true. It means that only Christianity is true. There is no fellowship with darkness. Christians need to stand on God's word of truth which includes the narrow path to God of which not all will find it (Matt. 7:13-14), not man's word of "God will save everyone."

635

Universalist philosophy, if accepted by the worlds' religions, would greatly reduce the focus of differences between them. It would greatly reduce the need for orthodoxy, for defining and preaching the true God. But, the Bible teaches that Jesus alone is the savior and that now is the acceptable time of salvation... not the after-life. It teaches that there is one God, not many; that Jesus is God in flesh, not an angel or a "good man." Truth is at stake. How many people will be deceived by universalism's comfortable message that all will be saved? Who knows. Universalism in itself is not a deception, just an error. But, how many will take refuge in its comforting doctrine and not come to a saving truth of Jesus? I can not say, but even one is too many. I cannot help but notice that the secular world teaches tolerance, be-nice philosophy, and the belief that all will make it to heaven. Second chance redemption and a theology that teaches you'll make it no matter what is comfortable to the world's ears. Too bad the universalists agree with the world in this.

636

A Challenge to Universalists
The Bible says to "test yourselves to see if you are in the faith," (2 Cor. 13:5). This is something that we must do. We must not carelessly assume that we know all that is true in the Bible. If universalism is true, fine. But if it is not, then the eternal consequence of damnation is of utter importance. Therefore, I issue this challenge to any who claim to be Universalists. Are you a Christian? Of course, some of you will claim that you are and it is not my place to judge you. God is the Judge and He has revealed what His will is in the Bible about what false doctrines disqualify someone from being a Chrsitian. Therefore, it is from God's word that I challenge you. This challenge is not about the truth or error of universalism. It is about who Jesus is. Do you believe He is God, the c reator of the universe, worthy of all worship and honor, equal to the person of the Father? If yes, good. If not, then you desperately need to examine yourself to see if you are in the faith because to deny this means you are not a Christian. Jesus said, "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins," (John 8:24, NASB). The word "He" is not in the Greek. It literally says, "for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins." Later in this same chapter in verse 58, Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM." He was alluding to Exodus 3:14, where God told Moses that His name was "I am that I am." Likewise, in 1 John 4:2-3 it says, "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." Very few people deny that Jesus lived; that is, that Jesus came in flesh. When John wrote this, he was not saying that you must believe that Jesus lived, but that Jesus was God in flesh. The time of the writing of First John is important. The Gnostic heresy was prominent. It taught that God was too pure to have anything to do with sinful flesh. Therefore, Gnosticism taught that Jesus could not be God in flesh. It was in this context and against this error that John was writing. Jesus is God in flesh and to deny it is the Spirit of Antichrist. Furthermore, the above verse needs to be cross referenced with John 1:1,14 (also written by John) where he states that the Word was God and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. In 1 John 4, the apostle knew what he was writing when he spoke of Jesus being in the flesh. The Bible states that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6; 44:8). It states that Jesus created all that exists: "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesall things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all thins, and in Him all things hold together," (Col. 1:16-17). Jesus is the creator. In Isaiah 44:24, it says, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone." This verse shows us that the Lord God created the universe alone. If God created the universe alone and if Jesus created all things, then Jesus is God. Jesus is fully and completely God in flesh, second person of the Trinity. Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." And again, in John 5:22-23, Jesus said, "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." Why is all this so important? Because it is Jesus who reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22), who sends the Holy Spirit of truth (John 15:26), and who opens the mind to understand scripture (Luke 24:45). If you do not have the true Jesus, you will not know the true God. You will not know the true Holy Spirit. You will not have your mind opened to understand God's word. If you do not have the true Christ, then you simply are not a Christian. So I challenge you, do you believe Jesus is God in flesh, worthy of the same honor has Father, the creator of all, the risen Lord? If you cannot say yes, then I suggest to you that you are not a Christian and need to re-examine your beliefs, regardless of whether or not universalism is true. Furthermore, if you deny that Jesus is God in flesh and just if universalism is false, then you would be in deep trouble come judgment day. Don't put your hope in universalism. Put it in Jesus who is God in flesh.

637

What is Unitarianism?
Unitarianism is the belief that God exists in one person, not three. It is a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity as well as the full divinity of Jesus. Therefore, it is not Christian. There are several groups that fall under this umbrella: Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphianism, The Way International, etc. Another term for this type of belief is called monarchianism. In the context of universalism, the Unitarianism discussed here is that belief that denies the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, eternal punishment, and the vicarious atonement of Jesus. Unitarian universalists use many biblical concepts and terms but with non-biblical meanings. Unitarianism is not Christian. There is a group known as the Unitarian Universalists Association. This denomination which was formed in 1961 in the United States when the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America merged. Its membership is around 175,000. The General Convention of the Unitarian Universalists formulated the five principles of the Universalist Faith in 1899. The The The The The Universal Fatherhood of God spiritual authority and leadership of His Son Jesus Christ trustworthiness of the Bible as containing a revelation from God certainty of just retribution for sin final harmony of all souls with God

Additional beliefs generally held by Unitarian Universalists are: Salvation is by grace through faith and not by works in any way. Jesus became the Son of God at His baptism. The Holy Spirit is not a person, does not have a will, etc. There now is and will be rewards and punishments according to one's actions but this does not consist of the traditional doctrine of hell. Human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining spiritual truth.

This last point, "Human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining spiritual truth," is perhaps the most revealing of the character of Unitarian Universalists. Instead of God and his word being the final authority on truth and error, or right and wrong, Unitarian Universalists subject God and his word to their understanding, feeling, and reason. This is exemplified in the following quote obtain from the official Unitarian Universalist website at http://uua.org/. This was found under the heading Unitarian Universalists say: "I want a religion that respects the differences between people and affirms every person as an individual." "I want a church that values children, that welcomes them on their own termsa church they are eager to attend on Sunday morning." "I want a congregation that cherishes freedom and encourages open dialogue on questions of faith, one in which it is okay to change your mind." "I want a religious community that affirms spiritual exploration and reason as ways of finding truth." "I want a church that acts locally and thinks globally on the great issues of our time world peace; women's rights; racial justice; homelessness; gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights; and protection of the environment."

Notice that each of the five statements begins with "I want..." This is not the humble attitude of one indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God. It is not the attitude of one who wants to put God first.

638

It can plainly be seen that this is a religion based upon personal hopes and desires and not upon the Bible. I cannot help but think of the five "I will's" listed in Isaiah 14:13-14: "But you said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. Many commentators believe that these five "I wills" were uttered by Satan as he sought to be exalted and equal to God. They reflect the arrogance of the evil one as his heart was filled with pride and put his own will before God's. He had his desires before God's. But notice what Isaiah says in the next verse: "Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, to the recesses of the pit." Jesus said, "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks," (Matt. 12:34). We can see that the Unitarian Universalists speak first from their own desires, according to their own wisdom, and not according to the wisdom of God. What does God say about this? "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God," ( 1 Cor. 3:19).

639

Concluding thoughts on Universalism

The teaching that God will forgive all people of all their sins is an appealing doctrine. It is comforting to think that no one will go to hell forever-- especially ourselves. It means that we will escape the judgment of damnation. It means we are safe even in our imperfections, our sins, our rebellion, and our blasphemies. It means we can offend God outright, reject Him boldly, and not worry about our salvation -- because we'll all be saved no matter what they do in this life. On the other hand, if there are people going to hell, then it means that there is a God who holds them eternally accountable for their actions. It means there is absolute truth concerning condemnation. It means there exists a God who punishes sinners who reject God and separates them from His own infinite holiness. Down deep inside this can make us uncomfortable and worried. Such an idea of accountability might force us to examine ourselves and ask, "Am I saved?" "Am I going to heaven?" "Have I offended God?" "Will I be punished?" "What am I really like deep, down inside?" The answers to these questions can make us feel guilty, uncomfortable, and even worried, especially when we compare ourselves to a Holy God. In this world of "tolerance," diluted absolutes, and creature comforts, the idea that all people will be forgiven fits right in. Universalism is a theology of tolerance, of ease, and comfort. It feels good. Psychologically it can ease our conscience because if we, in the goodness of our hearts, are wishing the forgiveness of all, doesn't it mean that we too will receive forgiveness due us because of our merciful desire towards others? Many people think this way and somehow hope that because of their own good will towards others, they will receive it themselves. It is not comfortable, nor does it make us feel calm and relaxed to think that there is an infinitely Holy God who takes sin seriously and punishes sinners. It can be terrifying to be faced with an eternity of hell fire if you have not made yourself right with God. And such is the complaint of the universalist: God is love and in Him there is no fear of eternal damnation. The universalists are often guilty of pick-and-choose theology. See the papers on Matt. 25:46 and "A look at the word aionion" as examples of how they misuse Greek meanings of words. In addition, I have encountered many universalists who have stated that they adopted universalism because they did not like the idea of eternal damnation. In essence, to do this this is to adopt a theology based on feelings and this is wrong. God punishes sinners (Matt. 25:46). Why? Because He is Holy (Isaiah 6:3; Rev. 4:8). His eyes are too pure to look upon evil (Hab. 1:13). Is He love? Yes, He is (1 John 4:8, 16). But that isn't all He is. He is also just (Neh. 9:32-33; 2 Thess. 1:6) and must punish sinners because sin is an offense against Him and sin separates us from Him (Isaiah 59:2). In His love He sent the Son to die for us. For those who reject Christ, God will be just and punish them. Hell was not made for people. It was made for the devil and his angels who rebelled against God (Matt. 25:41). But hell will also house those who reject God's provision for salvation and side with the evil one (Matt. 18:8; 25:46). This is a sad reality. Will Satan too be saved according to the Universalists? No. Will the evil people who commit the most horrendous of crimes and who have blasphemed the name of God be allowed to escape their judgment even after openly rejection the Lord's sacrifice? Does God simply say, "It is okay for you to reject me, my Son, the Sacrifice, the Agony on the cross. It does not matter about your blasphemies against Me. It does not matter that you have given yourself over to evil. I will save you after a period of chastening in the afterlife. Enter into My rest and enjoy eternal bliss. All are saved." No, this is not so. "How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:29).

640

The teaching of Universalism minimizes the Infinite Holiness and Infinite Justice of God which also resides within His very essence alongside Infinite Love. It does this by daring to assert that anyone, in the afterlife, through any form of suffering, are somehow "made ready" to be with God. That is false! Hell is not a pleasant topic. It is an awful place. But it is real and it is powerful and it is eternal. No one will escape the judgment of God if they forsake Christ in this world. God gave hell its power. The power of sin is the Law (1 Cor. 15:56). To sin is to offend God and to go against His word, His very nature. The Law is God's word. He said, "Thou shalt not...." Jesus said that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. God spoke the Law into existence out of the very nature of His own heart. Therefore, to go against the Law is to go against God and to offend Him. He is infinite. The offense is infinite. He is just and is obligated to punish sin and, hence, the sinner. He is love and graciously provided His Son to redeem those who would be His. Universalism makes the latter quality of God override the other having the sinner escape eternal judgment by going through a period of suffering in the afterlife. This is wrong. When such an imbalance occurs, error is the result. And that is what universalism is: error. Its danger is that it may cause the heart to be comfortable, to not worry, and to put off seeking a savior. Such a doctrine is dangerous since it can easily encourage a casual approach to redemption.

641

642

Roman Catholicism
Introduction

The Roman Catholic Church is a massive organization encompassing 1 Billion people. But, is it biblical in all its ways or has tradition crept into the Catholic Church and weakened the gospel?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Why is it necessary to examine the Roman Catholic Church? p. 644 What status does the Catholic church give to tradition? pp. 645-647 Why is the Bible alone sufficient for spiritual truth? pp. 648-649 What is absolution? assumption? Immaculate conception? transubstantiation? pp. 650-651 What are some of the title used to describe Mary by the Catholic Church? p. 652 Did Mary have other children? p. 653 Does Purgatory Deny the Sufficiency of Christs Sacrifice? p. 655 What is the Roman Catholic view on justification? pp. 660-663 Is the Catholic Catechism's view on the Muslim god wrong? Why? p. 667

643

Why is it necessary to write about Roman Catholicism?

It is necessary to write a page on Roman Catholicism because there are significant differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrines. Protestants accuse the Catholics of being unscriptural and the Catholics state that the Protestants do not have the true faith carried through the centuries by the Catholic Church. Whichever side you fall on, the real issue is whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is representing true Christianity. If you are a Roman Catholic, please understand that this site is not meant to offend you in any way. This site is dedicated to examining the truth, all truth, and compares it to the Bible. No matter who it is or what group is proclaiming truth, we know that the Bible is the Word of God and that no truth from God will contradict it. I urge you to examine what is here on this site and see if what is being taught here is true. If you do, you would be doing precisely what the Bible commands: to examine all things (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15; Acts 17:11; Jude 3). Since the Catholic Church holds the Bible to be the word of God, I am putting Catholic doctrine to the biblical test. If you are a Protestant, you will probably feel more comfortable browsing these pages since they will, essentially, confront Roman Catholic teachings. It is apparent, that the Roman Church has added much to the scope of Christian doctrine that is not revealed in scripture. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. It is vital. The Protestant Church cites the Bible alone as the source of doctrinal knowledge. The Catholic church, on the other hand, cites the Bible and Tradition. Please consider the following. ". . .the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence'." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 82.) Apparently, it is Tradition that is the source of doctrines which are clearly not taught in the Bible but which the Catholic Church still says are implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition. Some of them are as follows: The Mass, Penance, Veneration of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Priesthood, the Confessional, the Rosary, Venial and Mortal Sins, and statues in the Church. The issue is whether or not these teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are credible. Do they accurately represent Christianity? Can they be substantiated with the Bible? Do they contradict the Bible? This site attempts to examine the doctrines of Rome and compare them with the Bible to see if they are supported or contradicted by Gods Word. We know that all truth in Gods Christian Church comes from Him, through the Holy Spirit. It will not, therefore, be contradictory. Let us see what Gods written word says and compare it to the Unwritten Word which is the Roman Catholic Churchs term for Tradition.

644

Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition

One of the great differences between Protestant and Catholic doctrine is in the area of Tradition. The Protestant church maintains that the Bible alone is intended by God to be the source of doctrinal truth (2 Tim. 3:16). The Catholic Church, however, says, "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God . . ." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 97. Note, all citations in this article are from this Catechism). The Catholic Church reasons thus: 1. 2. 3. "The apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.'" (Paragraph 77) "This living transmission, accomplished through the Holy Spirit, is called tradition..." (Par. 78) "Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (Par. 82).

Within the Catholic scope of Tradition, many doctrines have been "revealed" to the Church over the centuries. For example, there is the veneration of Mary, her immaculate conception and her bodily assumption into heaven. There is also the apocrypha, transubstantiation, praying to saints, the confessional, penance, purgatory, and more. Protestantism as a whole differs with Catholic ism in these additions. Tradition in the Bible The Bible speaks about tradition. Some verses speak for tradition and others speak against it. Of course, the contexts are different and carry different meanings. For examp le: For 2 Thess. 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us." Against Matt. 15:3-6, "And He answered and said to them, And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, Honor your father and mother, and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death 5But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God, 6he is not to honor his father or his mother. And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition." Mark 7:8-9, "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. 9 He was also saying to them, You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition." Col. 2:8, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ."

2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." 1 Cor. 11:2, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

645

In the discussions regarding Tradition between Protestants and Catholics both sets of scriptures are often quoted in order to establish their respective positions. The Protestants often quote Matt. 15:3-6 in opposition to Sacred Tradition. In an appeal to be biblical, many Catholic apologists cite 2 Thess. 2:15 to validate their position on Sacred Tradition. Unfortunately, this amounts to using the Word of God against itself. Clearly, God's word is not contradictory. Rather, it is our understanding that is in error. The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. Though the Catholic Church officially states that Sacred Tradition should not and does not contradict Scripture, Protestants see much of the teaching from this Sacred Tradition as doing just that. It isn't enough for the Catholic to say that their church is the true church, that they have the apostolic tradition, that they hold the keys to the truth, and that they have revealed doctrines consistent with biblical revelation. Likewise, it isn't enough for a Protestant to pass judgment upon Catholic doctrines simply because they are Catholic and are derived via Sacred Tradition. Are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition Really Equal? To me, it is not enough to simply say that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture based upon the decree of the Catholic Magesterium. Like any spiritual teaching, I must compare it to the Bible. Jesus own words in Matt. 15:3 lend support for myself and many non-Catholics to subject the fruit of Sacred Tradition to the pruning of God's word. In other words, do the teachings of the Catholic church that are derived through tradition transgress the commands of God? Of course, the Catholic will say that they do not. When Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in Matt. 15:1-6, He reprimanded them for not understanding God's word. They were appealing to the tradition of the elders, those who had passed down oral and written tradition. Jesus, on the other hand, exposed their error by citing scripture. Please take note of what He said in Matt. 15:1-6. "Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 2"Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4"For God said, Honor your father and mother,' and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5"But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, "Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God," 6he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition." Whatever might be said about this passage, at least one thing must be observed: The tradition of the religious leaders was subject to the Word of God. Are the religio us leaders of the Catholic Church exempt from subjection to the Word of God? And likewise, is their Sacred Tradition also exempt? I think not. Where the Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite. Consider the following, "The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. 1. Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.'. . . 2. Read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church.' . . . 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith." (Par. 111, 112, 13, 114). It is number 2 that is the main concern here. What does it mean to read Scripture "within the living Tradition of the whole Church?" If Scripture is "within the living Tradition," then Tradition encompasses Scripture. In other words, it is the tradition of the Church that interprets Scripture. This is in contradiction to the Word of God spoken by Jesus in Matt. 15:1-6.

646

Some object and say that the Pharisees didn't have apostolic authority and succession that was ordained by the apostles as does the Catholic Church and, therefore, Matt. 15:1-6 cannot be used to nullify Sacred Tradition. But the issue in Matt. 15:1-6 is not succession of authority but the traditions of men being used in opposition to the truth of the Word of God. Essentially, the Pharisees were seeing the Word of God "within" their sacred tradition. Jesus, in contrast to this, cited the Word of God to judge their traditions. The apostles, likewise, continuously admonished their people to check their teaching against the Scripture (Acts 17:11), thereby substantiating the position that even what they taught was subject to God's Word. After all, no doctrinal teaching should contradict biblical revelation and the Sacred Word of God was and is the final authority in all things spiritual. The Catholic Church's position and teaching is based on Sacred Tradition are no different. They must be compared to Scripture. My desire in writing this is not to alienate Catholics nor belittle their beliefs. I believe that there are some Catholics who love the Lord and are saved. But I would like to add that I believe it is in spite of official Roman Catholic doctrine. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the Catholic church has added teachings that are not consistent with biblical revelation. If you are a Catholic, I hope my words do not offend you. Rather, I hope and pray that you would consider what this site has to say and compare it with the Word of God.

647

Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth?

According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical. Protestantism, however, rejects Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition and holds fast to the call "Sola Scriptura," or, "Scripture Alone." Catholics then challenge, "Is Sola Scriptura biblical?" The Bible does not say "Do not use tradition" or "Scripture alone is sufficient." But the Bible does not say "The Trinity is three persons in one God," either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says both to listen to tradition as well as warning about tradition nullifying the gospel -- which we will look at below. In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made: 1. The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take, for example, the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4. The Devil tempts Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to scripture. Should we do any less having seen His example? The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examine God's word for the test of truth, not for the traditions of men. Therefore, we can see that the biblical means of determining spiritual truth is by appealing to scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances. Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. Therefore, it is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for the statement to be true. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles. In appealing to the Bible for authentication of Inerrant Sacred Tradition, the Catholics have shown that the Bible is superior to Sacred Tradition--for the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7). You see, if the Bible said do not trust tradition, then Sacred Tradition would be instantly and obviously invalid. If the Bible said to trust Sacred Tradition, then the Bible is authenticating it. In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority and by that position, are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition. If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, Gods word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim. 3:16). To merely claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so. Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture is to effectively leave the canon wide open to doctrinal addition. Since the traditions of men change, to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc. Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well? If the Bible is not used to verify Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent to the Word of God. If it is independent of Scripture, then it has no right to exist as an authoritative spiritual source since the Bible is what is inspired, not tradition.

2.

3.

4.

648

5.

Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does. Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not. But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible. A natural reading of the Bible does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used Sacred Tradition to add to God's revealed word and then extracted out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines of Sacred Tradition.

The Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? In response, claims do not make it true. Second, even if it were true, and I do not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter in Acts. Are the Catholic Church leaders better than Peter? To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures. Finally, one of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater. Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesnt, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, then neither should Christians.

649

Catholic Terminology
This list of terms used by the Catholic Church is brief and succinct. It should help those who are learning about Catholicism and who desire to be conversant with Catholics on their terms. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Absolution - the act of releasing someone from their sin by God, through the means of a priest. Actual grace - God's interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification. Actual sin - any sin that a person commits. Annunciation - When the angel Gabriel told Mary that she was to be the mother of the Messiah. Assumption - the taking of the body and soul of Mary, by God, into glory. Catholic doctrine, apparently, does not state whether or not Mary died, but tradition holds that she died and was immediately afterward assumed into heaven both body and soul. Baptism - One of seven sacraments that takes away original sin and actual sin. Bishop - the head of a diocese, successor of the apostles. Blessed Sacrament - the elements of the communion supper, bread and wine, which become the body and blood of Christ. It is offered at the altar in the church. Capital sins - the seven causes of all sin: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, sloth. Confession - telling sins to a priest and the Lord forgives the person through the priest. Confessional - a small compartment where the priest hears the confessed sins of a sinner. Confirmation - a ceremony performed by a bishop that is supposed to strengthen a person and enable him to resist sin. It is usually done at the age of 12. The Bishop dips his right thumb in holy oil and anoints the person on the forehead by making the sign of the cross and says, "Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit." Consecration - a moment during the ceremony of the mass where God, allegedly through the priest, changes bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. Contrition - extreme sorrow for having sinned with a deep repentance concerning that sin. Diocese - an area of many parishes presided over by a bishop. Eucharist - The elements of the communion supper where the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. Extreme Unction - A sacrament given to a person who is ill or in danger of dying. It is intended to strengthen the person's soul and help his love be pure so they may enter into heaven. It is done through prayer and the anointing of oil. This is also known as Anointing of the Sick or the Sacrament of the Sick. Guardian Angel - a special angel assigned by God to each person in order to protect and guide that person with the goal of reaching heaven. Habitual grace - the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God's call Heresy - denial of the truths found in the Catholic Church. Holy Chrism - the special oil used in the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. Holy Orders - one of the seven sacraments by which men, bishop, deacons, and priests, are given the power and authority by a bishop to offer sacrifice and forgive sins. Holy Water - Special water that has been blessed by a priest, bishop, etc. or a liturgical ceremony. It is used to bring a blessing to a person when applied. Host - the bread in the communion supper that is changed into the body of Christ. Immaculate Conception - The teaching that Mary was conceived without original sin. Indulgence - a means by which the Catholic Church takes away some of the punishment due the Christian in this life and/or purgatory because of his sin. Laity - the members of the Catholic church who are not in the clergy. Lent - a forty-day period between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday. Usually it is accompanied by some form of prayer and fasting. Mass - a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross in a ceremony performed by a priest. This ceremony is symbolically carried out by the priest and involves Consecration where the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus. Mortal Sin - a serious and willful transgression of God's Law. It involves full knowledge and intent of the will to commit the sin. If left unrepentant, can damn someone to eternal hell.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30.

650

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

48. 49. 50. 51.

Original Sin - the inherited sin nature of Adam that resulted from Adam's sin. Parish - a subdivision of a diocese with the priest as its head. Passion - The sufferings of Christ from the time of the Last Supper to His Crucifixion. Penance - a means by which all sins committed after baptism are removed. The means are assigned by a priest and usually consist of special prayers or deeds performed by the sinner. Peter - the first pope. Pope - Christ's representative on earth. He is the visible successor of Peter. Priest - one who mediates between God and man and administers the sacraments and graces of God. He has received the Holy Orders. Purgatory - a place of temporary punishment where the Christian is cleansed from sin before they can enter into heaven. Relic - a part of the body of a saint including clothing, jewelry, etc. The relic is considered holy due to its association with the saint. Rosary - A string of beads containing five sets with ten small beads. Each set of ten is separated by another bead. It also contains a crucifix. It is used in saying special prayers, usually to Mary where the rosary is used to count the prayers. Sacrament - an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. Sacramentals - Special prayers, deeds, or objects used to gain spiritual benefits from God. Sanctifying grace - a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Saint - A very holy person. Usually, it is someone who has been dead for many years and has been canonized by the Catholic Church. Saints do not have to pass through purgatory. Scapular - two small cloth squares joined by a string. One cloth is positioned in the front and the other in the back. Indulgences are attached to the them. Sign of the Cross - A sacramental. It is the movement of the right hand from the forehead to the chest and then left and right upon the shoulders. Tradition - handing down through the centuries from mouth to mouth of the teachings of Jesus. It began with the apostles and continues unbroken to the present bishopric of the Catholic Church. Transubstantiation - The teaching that the bread and wine in the communion supper become the body and blood of the Lord Jesus at the Consecration during the Mass. Venerate - to honor, admire, and regard with respect. Venial Sin - A sin but not as bad as Mortal Sin. It lessens the grace of God within a person's soul. Vicar of Christ - the Pope.

651

Mary
Mary occupies a unique place in biblical history. She conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. Then she bore the Messiah. Among women, she is most blessed (Luke 1:42) and all who claim to be Christian acknowledge her as a chosen vessel of God. While Christians admit Marys uniqueness, the Catholic Church has, in its own words, "c larified her position and nature through Sacred Tradition". Through the centuries, more and more doctrines concerning her have been revealed. For example: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Mary is called the Mother of God Prayers offered to Mary Immaculate Conception (that she was sinless) Assumption of Mary Mary Proclaimed Mother of the Church1 1 3 431 600 1854 1950 1965

An article appeared in Newsweek Magazine (8/25/97, p. 49) that examined an issue developing in Catholicism where petitioners are requesting the Pope to exercise papal infallibility to proclaim Mary as "Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." To its credit, the Catholic church rejected this request. But it is a telling statement of the Catholic adoration of Mary -even when that adoration exceeds biblical boundaries. Officially, however, the Catholic Church has much to say about her. She remained a virgin after the birth of Christ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510). She is "The mother of the members of Christ" (par. 963). She was "Preserved free from all stain of original sin" (Catechism, par. 966). She is "Queen over all things" (par. 966). By Marys prayers, she delivers souls from death (par. 966). Mary, "...by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix" (par. 969). "The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, are an epitome of the whole Gospel," (par. 971). Mary, "...when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven..." (par. 974). "...when she [Mary] is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her Son..." (Vatican Council II, p. 420). "Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son" (Vatican Council II, p. 421). "This mother...is waiting and preparing your home for you" (Handbook for Todays Catholic, p.31). As you can see, Mary holds an exalted position in Catholic theology. Because of her exalted position in heaven, she is able to approach the Son with requests and petitions from her followers. She is prayed to, adored, and sought by millions of devotees. Mary is Most Blessed Among Women Mary is undoubtedly blessed among women (Luke 1:42). But, is it appropriate to attribute to her such titles as "Our Queen, Our Mother, Our Life, Our Sweetness, and Our Hope"? I cannot see how it. Was she sinless? It would seem not since she said she needed a savior in Luke 1:47, "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." Did she remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus? Again, it seems not since Matt. 1:25 says that Joseph, ". . .kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Does she mediate and intercede for sinners? Again, the scriptures seem to contradict this when it states that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). Is she exalted above all angels? There is no scripture stating so. Can she simultaneously hear the prayers of countless people all over the world in different languages? Again, there is nothing in God's word to lead us to believe this. Please understand that CARM is not attacking Mary or her wonderful position in history. Rather, it seeks to examine her position according to biblical revelation and answer the questions just posed. Hopefully, faithfully, and according to God's word, we can look at Scripture to find the answers.

113

These dates taken from Roman Catholicism, by Loraine Boettner, P & R Publishing Co. 1962, pp. 7-9

652

Did Mary Have Other Children?

One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic Church deals with the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine maintains that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and that biblical references suggesting Jesus had siblings are really references to cousins (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510). As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters? The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.) 1. Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days." Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers." 1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" Gal. 1:19 - "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows: In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different context s: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus. There is certainly merit in this argument; however, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means. Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus. 1. 2. Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

653

In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers. Psalm 69, A Messianic Psalm There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, They hated Me without a cause." He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Fathers house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me." Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted. To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me." This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." Gods will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers. Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust? Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase "my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted. The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says bother "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very halfbrothers begotten from Mary. It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.

654

Purgatory
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1030, "All who die in Gods grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." The Second Vatican Council, p. 63, says, "The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. Gods holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments." This process of purification occurs in a place designated by the Catholic Church as purgatory. According to Catholic doctrine, purgatory is not supposed to be a place of punishment, but of purification. The nature of this purification, according to different Catholic theologians, ranges from an extreme awareness of loss to an intense, excruciatingly painful "purifying fire." According to Roman Catholic Doctrine, though a person may be in a state of grace, he may not enter heaven until he is purified from sins that were not dealt with on earth. Baptism remits sins committed up to that point, but prayers, indulgences, penance, absolution, and the Mass are means by which the sinner is able to expiate sins committed after baptism. If sins are not remitted, after death he must suffer the flames of purification until he is sufficiently cleansed and pure so as to enter into the presence of God. Additionally, intercession can be made by Catholics on behalf of those who are presently in purgatory. This is also done through saying the Mass, certain acts of penance, saying the Rosary, or by indulgences where the benefit is applied to the dead in purgatory. But purgatory is not for everyone. Baptized infants who have died before the age of accountability and Catholic saints who lived such holy lives are excused from the "purifying fires." The length of time that someone must suffer in this state is never known, but it is considered to be proportional to the nature and severity of the sins committed. Therefore, it could be anywhere from a few hours to thousands of years. Problems with the Doctrine of Purgatory As a Christian who bases spiritual truth on the Bible alone, I see problems with the doctrine of purgatory. For example: 1. 2. 3. 4. It It It It is not explicitly found in the Bible. implies that the righteousness of Christ does not cleanse from all sin. implies that justification is not by faith alone. implies that there is something we must do in order to be cleansed of sin.

The Catholics will disagree with my perceived problems of the doctrine of purgatory. That is to be expected. They will cite church Fathers, the apocrypha, and various biblical references to fire and purification. Whichever side of the argument you fall into, my goal here is to present a biblical argument that examines the doctrine in an attempt to determine if it is biblical or not. Of course, the Catholic will say that as a Protestant, I come to the argument with the preconceived belief that (1) Purgatory is unbiblical, (2) that I am biased against it, and (3) that I have an agenda to accomplish. To each of these accusations I admit guilt. None of us are perfectly unbiased and most everyone has personal beliefs that are reflected in their actions and words. In this case, having read and studied the Bible thoroughly, I find no place in it for the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.

655

Does Purgatory Deny the Sufficiency of Christs Sacrifice?

According to the Handbook for Todays Catholic, page 47, "If you die in the love of God but possess any stains of sin, such stains are cleansed away in a purifying process called purgatory. These stains of sin are primarily the temporal punishment due to venial or mortal sins already forgiven but for which sufficient penance was not done during your lifetime." The Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1030, says that purgatory is for "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." Among the many doctrines that Catholicism claims to be derived through Sacred Tradition, purgatory is one of the most interesting and puzzling, particularly to a Protestant. In light of the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace through faith, how is it possible that an afterlife cleansing through punishment is necessary for a Christian who has trusted in Jesus to cleanse him from all His sins? Wasn't Jesus' punishment for our transgressions sufficient? Didnt He take our place in that He suffered our death? It would seem that the words of Christ, "It is finished" (John 19:30) do not mean that the cleansing of our souls was completed on the cross. Of course, Roman Catholic doctrine states that eternal life is bestowed upon the one who receives baptism (Catechism, par. 1265 - 1266, 1992). It is the stains of the sins committed after baptism and not removed through penance, good works, prayers, the Mass, etc., that are removed in the fires of purgatory (Handbook for Today's Catholic, page 47). In light of the doctrine of justification by faith (Rom. 5:1), where Jesus bore all of our sins, purgatory would seem to have no theologically justifiable right to exist. But the Bible alone is not appealed to by Catholic theologians in support of Purgatory. By far, the main support for Purgatory is found in the Catholic doctrine of Sacred Tradition. Nevertheless, what does the Bible say about justification, punishment, and our sins? What is justification by faith? To justify means acquit, declare righteous, the opposite of condemn. It means to not be guilty of breaking the Law and to be deemed as righteous by the standard of the Law. God gave the Law, i.e., the 10 commandments. The Law is a reflection of Gods character and it is a perfect standard of righteousness which no one can keep. Since no one is able to keep Gods Law, no one can be justified by the Law (Rom. 3:20). There is, therefore, none righteous (Rom. 3:10-12). This is the problem of all people. We have all broken Gods Law and are in need of justification, of being declared righteous in Gods sight. This can only be done through the Messiah, our sin bearer. Jesus is the one who took our place on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21), and turned away the wrath of God from us (Rom. 5:9) by being a propitiation (1 John 2:2) that turned away the wrath of God. He was punished in our place. Therefore, Jesus was our substitution. The righteous work of Christ is imputed to the believer by grace (Titus 3:7) and through faith (Rom. 5:1). This justification is a legal action on the part of God reckoning the believer as having satisfied the Law all of the Law. It nec essarily follows that to be justified in Gods eyes, is to be fully justified. It is not part of the Law that must be satisfied, but all of it. Perfection is the standard. Likewise, it is not part of our sins that were born by Christ, but all of them. This justification includes all of the sins of the believer (past, present, and future) or else we could not be justified. What does the Catholic Catechism Say? The Catholic Catechism (paragraphs 1990-1992) says, "Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon Gods merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals"...."Justification is at the same time the acceptance of Gods righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ..." and "...justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy." Of particular interest is the reference that "justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith." There are many verses in the Bible that deal with baptism and putting on Christ, (Gal. 3:27;

656

Rom. 6:1-11). This paper is not intended to discuss the nature of baptism. Nevertheless, I strongly affirm that baptism is a covenant sign for the believer who is already justified by faith and for the children of believers who are under the covenant headship of the family. Baptism is not what justifies a person. Rather, Justification Justification Justification Justification Justification Justification is is is is is is a gift by His grace through Jesus (Rom. 3:24) by grace (Titus 3:7) by faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1; Gal. 3:24) by Jesus blood (Rom. 5:9). in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 6:11). not equated with baptism, but with grace, faith, and the blood of Jesus. Jesus said, "It is finished," (John 19:30) Jesus bore our sins in His body, paid the penalty for them, and died. He said, "It is finished." In Greek, the phrase, "It is finished" is one word, tetelestai. In ancient Greek papyri texts that were receipts for taxes, when a debt was paid in full, the word tetelestai, was written on the document. This meant that the debt had been paid in full. In other words, Jesus had finished the work of atonement. But He not only atoned (to make amends, to make right), but He also propitiated (turning away Gods wrath). He had fully paid the debt invoked by the sinner. There was nothing more to be done... It was finished. Yet, the doctrine of Purgatory, in effect, is saying that we must suffer in purgatory for sins not covered by baptism and not covered by the cross. It is to say that the work of Christ is not finished and that there are things we must do to complete the sacrificial, cleansing work of Christ. This amounts to earning heaven by our good works, albeit, a work of suffering. Additionally, the doctrine of Purgatory implies that a person must atone for his own sins. It implies that the person must do more than what the Law of God requires of him. This is called supererogation. When Jesus said, "It is finished," all that was necessary in the atonement was concluded and all in Christ were justified. We cannot complete or add to Christs work through our suffering. Purgatory is not only unnecessary, but it contradicts Gods word.

657

Purgatory and 1 Cor. 3:15

The doctrine of Purgatory in the Catholic Church is explained in this statement from the Second Vatican Council, p. 63, which says, The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments. The Protestant church has objected to the doctrine of Purgatory by stating that this teaching denies the sufficiency and full efficacy of Christs atoning sacrifice. To say that our sins are expiated by our suffering is an insult to the cross of Christ since it says that the cross was not sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. It says that we must suffer, that we must do something to have our sins fully cleansed. Instead, the Protestants maintain that Jesus sacrifice alone is what justifies and removes from us all guilt. We look to the cross and to the cross alone for the complete forgiveness of our sins and, though our works will one day be judged, we have passed out of condemnation (Rom. 8:1). Our works reflect on rewards in heaven, not to get us to heaven. Jesus bore all our sins (1 Pet. 2:24). There are no sins left for purgatory to cleanse because it was all done by Jesus on the cross. This is why Jesus said, "It is finished," (John 19:30). In Greek the term "it is finished" is "tetelestai." It was a term used in legal contexts to state that a debt had been paid in full. "Papyri receipts for taxes have been recovered with the word tetelestai written across them, meaning "paid in full." (Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc., 1983, 1985). Therefore, there is no need for purgatory. Nevertheless, because the Protestants appeal so much to the Bible, the Catholics have sought to find the doctrine of Purgatory within its pages. One such verse is 1 Cor. 3:15. "If any mans work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire." As with any verse in the Bible, to fully understand it, we must look at it in its biblical context. Following is 1 Cor. 3:10-15 According to the grace of God whic h was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each mans work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each mans work. 14If any mans work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any mans work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire. The context speaks of Paul having planted the Corinthian church and that another person was building upon that work: Verse 6 says, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth." Paul goes on to say that unless a person builds upon the foundation of Jesus, his work will be burned up the in the Day of Judgment (v. 13). See also, 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; 1 Thess. 5:2). Paul is simply using the terms that are familiar with the people of the time. Fire was the tool used to purify metals and to get rid of that which was unwanted, the dross. So too, on the day when our works are examined, the fire of judgment will both purify and remove. This will not affect our salvation, but it will affect our rewards. The theme of fire used as purification is also found in 2 Pet. 3:10-13. But this is not talking about becoming saved or staying saved.

658

1 Cor. 3:15 does not teach purgatory as a place we go to in order to have some of our sins cleansed from us. It teaches that even though the person is justified by faith and cannot face damnation, his works will, however, be judged on "that day." Those works which are good will survive the fires of judgment the way gold, silver, and precious stones can survive fire. But false works will be consumed the way fire consumes wood, hay, and straw. What is left has no bearing on whether or not we are saved. It has to do with rewards in heaven. Paul goes on to say in 1 Cor. 4:5, "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of mens hearts; and then each mans praise will come to him from God." Note also, 1 Pet. 1:6-7, "In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ." 2 Pet. 3:10-13, "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells Purgatory is a dangerous doctrine that makes the Cross of Christ insufficient by requiring the person to undergo suffering in order to be made worthy of being with God. This is a false teaching and is to be avoided. We are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1), not by faith and works (Rom. 3:28).

659

Council of Trent: Canons on Justification

Lutheranism was growing strong in the 1500's. In response to this, the Roman Catholic church convened a council in November of 1544 in an attempt to counter the doctrines raised and supported by the Reformers. The official opening of the council was on Dec. 13, 1545 and was closed on Dec. 14, 1563. The council delivered many statements on various subjects. These Canons have never been denied by the Roman Catholic Church. Following are several of the doctrinal statements made on Justification at the council of Trent. After each Canon are scriptures that contradict that Canon. These scriptures are linked to the KJV on CARM so you can click on them and read them in context. Finally, you will see the word "anathema" used many times by the Council. This means that those who disagree with the doctrines of this Council are cursed. In Gal. 1:8-9, the word "anathema" is used. The curse must come from God. Therefore, we conclude that according to Roman Catholicism, anyone who disagrees with the following Canons are cursed of God. The Roman Catholic Church excommunicates those under anathema. In other words, excommunication means being outside the Christian church. Being outside the church means you are not saved. In spite of what Catholicism states, the Bible speaks differently. Following each Canon is a list of appropriate scriptures countering the Catholic position. 1. CANON 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema." A. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3:20). B. "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 3:24). C. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28). D. "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3). E. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1). F. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8). G. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost," (Titus 3:5). CANON 12: "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed" A. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name," (John 1:12). B. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28). C. "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3). D. "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the peoples: for this he did once, when he offered up himself," (Heb. 7:25-27). E. For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day," (2 Tim. 1:12).

2.

660

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Canon 14: "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." A. "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3). B. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1). Canon 23: "lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,- except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema." A. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," (John 3:36). B. "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day," (John 6:40). C. "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand," (John 10:28). D. "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord," (Rom. 5:21). E. "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us," (1 John 2:19). F. "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God," (1 John 5:13). Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema." A. "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal. 3:1-3). B. "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law," (Gal. 5:1-3). Canon 30: "If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema." A. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1). B. "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross," (Col. 2:13-14). Canon 33: "If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema. A. This council declares that if anyone disagrees with it, they are damned.

661

The Roman Catholic view on justification

Justification is a divine act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his sins. It is a legal action in that God declares the sinner righteous -- as though he has satisfied the Law of God. This justification is based entirely on the sacrifice of Christ by His shed blood: "...having now been justified by His blood..." (Rom. 5:9). 1 1 4 Justification is a gift of grace (Rom. 3:24; Titus 3:7) that comes through faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1). Christians receive Jesus (John 1:12) and put their faith-filled trust in what Jesus did on the cross (Isaiah 53:12; 1 Pet. 2:24) and in so doing are justified by God. The Bible states that justification is not by works (Rom. 3:20, 28; 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9) because our righteous deeds are filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6). Therefore, we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Those who are justified are saved and salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23), something we cannot earn (Eph. 2:1-10). However, Roman Catholic doctrine denies justification by faith alone and says: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9). "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." (Canon 14).

Anathema, according to Catholic theology means excommunication, "the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful." The Greek word anathema is also translated as "accursed" (Rom. 9:3; Gal. 1:8-9, NASB & KJV), "eternally condemned" (Gal. 1:8-9, NIV), and "cursed" (Rom. 9:3, NIV),. We can see that Roman Catholic theology pronounces a curse of excommunication, of being outside the camp of Christ if you believe that you are saved by grace through faith alone in Jesus. Does the Roman Catholic Church specifically state that we are "saved by grace and works"? Not that I am aware of and neither do the above Catholic Canons state such a thing. But, when the Roman Catholic Church negates justification by faith alone, it necessarily implies that we must do something for justification, for if it is not by faith alone, then it must be by faith and something. At this point many Catholics appeal to James 2:24 which says, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." But the context of James is speaking of dead faith as opposed to living, saving faith. James states that if you "say" you have faith but have no works (James 2:14), that faith cannot save you because it is a dead faith (v. 17). In other words, mere intellectual acknowledgement of Christ is a dead faith that produces no regeneration and no change in a person's life. This faith does not justify. Rather, it is only that real and believing faith in Christ that results in justification. When someone is truly justified, he is truly saved and regenerate. Therefore, we see the results of true saving faith as they are manifested in the changed life of the one justified by faith alone. Real faith produces good works but it isn't these works that save you. Good works are the effect of salvation, not the cause of it in any way and they certainly do not help anyone keep their salvation. For more on this, please see "Are you justified by Faith (Romans) or works (James)?" Protestant theology, as a whole, appeals to the Bible alone for spiritual truth and maintains that justification is not by works in any way but is by grace through faith in Christ and His sacrifice alone. After all, the Bible says "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace," (Rom. 11:6). Furthermore, the Bible says:

114

The phrase "having now been" is in the perfect tense in the Greek. This signifies a past action that continues in the present. In other words, Paul is saying that the Christians have been justified and still are.

662

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3:20). "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 3:24). "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28). "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3). "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness," (Rom. 4:5). "For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith," (Rom. 4:13). "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1). "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him," (Rom. 5:9). "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved," (Rom. 10:9). "so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith," (Gal. 3:14). "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8).

I am bewildered when I read Catholic theology that denies justification by faith alone and requires human effort in addition to God's grace to be saved. Of course, Catholicism denies that it is works that save us -- and rightly so. But, it contradicts itself when it teaches that certain things must be done by people in order to be justified and to keep that justification. Whether or not Catholicism calls these works acts of faith or not is immaterial. The label doesn't change the substance. We are either saved by grace through faith alone or we are not. Of the acts to be performed by Catholics for justification, baptism is the first requirement. Please consider these quotes: ". . Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that 'we too might walk in newness of life,'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 977). "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God's mercy," (CCC, par. 2020).

I do not see the Bible saying anywhere that we are justified by baptism. Yes, there are verses that can be interpreted that way, but if they were then they would contradict the clear teaching of Rom. 3:20, 28; 4:3; 5:1; Eph. 2:8 which says salvation by grace through faith, not grace through faith and baptism. However, according to Roman Catholicism even faith and baptism aren't sufficient in themselves for you to be saved. It says that baptism is only the first sacrament of forgiveness. Good works, according to Roman Catholicism, are also required and are rewarded with going to heaven: "We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere 'to the end' and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ," (CCC, par. 1821).

663

The above quote clearly states that heaven is the "eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ." Catholic theology asserts that works are a predecessor to justification in direct contradiction to God's word which states ". . .that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28). What are the deeds of the Law? Anything we do in hopes of getting or maintaining our righteousness before God. In the CCC, par. 2010 it says, "Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification." How does anyone merit for himself the underserved kindness of God's grace? Grace is by definition unmerited favor. To me this is an utterly false teaching that you can earn grace from God through works or rituals. So how does the Catholic Church get around this apparent dilemma that grace is unmerited but it is obtained through our merits? It states that... "Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it," (CCC, par. 2023). This is the crux of the problem. Roman Catholic theology asserts that God's grace is granted through baptism and infused into a person by the Holy Spirit. This then enables him or her to do good works which then are rewarded with heaven. Basically, this is no different than the theology of the cults which maintain that justification is by grace through faith and your works whether it be baptism, going to "the true church," keeping certain laws, receiving the sacraments, or anything else you are required to do. In response, I turn to God's word at Gal. 3:1-3: "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" Does not the above scripture clearly state that receiving God's Spirit is by faith and not by what we do? Does it not teach us that we cannot perfect our salvation by the works we do in the flesh? To receive Jesus (John 1:12 ) means to become the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19) which means a person is saved, justified. Is this salvation something we attained through our effort? Of course not! Is it something we maintain through our effort? Not at all. It is given to Christians by God and assured by God because it rests in what God has done and not in anything we have done -- that is why salvation is by faith and not works. If it did rest in anyway in our works, then our salvation could not be secure and we would end up trying to be good enough to get to heaven. That only leads to bondage to the Law and the result is a lack of assurance of salvation, a constant worry that you are not good enough, and a repeated subjection to the Church's teachings and requirements about what you must do to be saved. The only natural effect of such a teaching would be that you can lose your salvation over and over again and that you must perform the necessary requirements of the Catholic Church to stay saved. Catholic Theology teaches you maintain your justification Because the Catholic view of justification is a cooperative effort between God and man, this justification can be lost and regained by man's failure to maintain sufficient grace through meritorious works. Now I must admit that within Protestant churches there are different opinions on this very matter of eternal security. Some believe salvation can be lost while others do not. I am not here attempting to address this issue. Rather, I seek to point out that Roman Catholicism teaches that works are necessary for this "re-attainment" of justification. This is how... According to Catholic theology, penance is a sacrament where a person, through a Catholic priest (CCC, par. 987), receives forgiveness of the sins committed after baptism. The penitent person must confess his sins to a priest. The priest pronounces absolution and imposes acts of Penance to be performed.

664

"Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as 'the second plank (of salvation) after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace," (CCC, par. 1446). The Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. i) declared regarding Penance: "As a means of regaining grace and justice, penance was at all times necessary for those who had defiled their souls with any mortal sin. . . . Acts of penance vary, but some of them are prayer, saying the rosary, reading the scripture, saying a number of "Our Father's" or "Hail Mary's" prayers, doing good works, fasting, and other such things. Is it by doing these acts of penance that the Catholic is able to regain his justified state before God? I am astounded to think that they are taught to believe that by their works of penance justification is regained. In essence it is earning one's salvation. Think about it. If you do not have it and you get it by saying prayers, fasting, and/or doing good works, then you are guilty of "works righteousness" salvation which is condemned by the Bible. "Works Righteousness" means that a person is trying to attain or keep his position with God based upon his works. It is a false teaching. I confess my sins to God. He forgives me (1 John 1:9). I do not need a Catholic priest to be my mediator of forgiveness. I need the true mediator and High Priest, Jesus. He alone is my mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). He has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18) to forgive my sins and interc ede for me. He finished the work on the cross (John 19:30) so that I do not need to perform any work in order to gain, maintain, or even regain my salvation. That is why the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1) apart from works (Rom. 3:28). To say that we can add to the finished work of Christ on the cross is to say that what He did was not sufficient to save us. May this never be! We are saved by grace through faith, not grace through faith and our works. If it were, then grace would not be grace. "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace," (Rom. 11:6). Relationship, not Ritual Salvation is a free gift from God given to us by His awesome Grace and is based upon the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Christians receive this by faith because faith is all we have left since my works are excluded, by God, as having anything to do with attaining salvation. God desires fellowship with His people (1 Cor. 1:9), not rituals and works righteousness that cannot save us. May God receive all the glory due Him because of His grace.

665

Comparison Grid
I hesitate to put this grid up only because I do not want to needlessly assail the Catholic belief system in an offensive manner. However, I cannot help but see the similarities between Catholicism and some of the cults. Do I think Catholicism is a cult? No. But I do think it has some very serious theological problems, bordering on apostasy, imposed upon itself through its history of letting traditions seep into the fabric of biblical truth. Jehovah's Witnesses
Watchtower Organization Bible and Watchtower Organization

Issue Specific Church Leader on earth Source of Theology Sample of nonbiblical teachings Method of Salvation True Church Claim of Authority Assets

Catholicism
The Pope

Mormonism
The Prophet Bible and additional Scripture

Christianity
none (except, of course, Jesus) Bible

Bible and Tradition

Jesus is Michael the Purgatory, Penance, Many gods, god from Archangel. No blood Indulgences, praying to another world, If it isn't taught here, transfusions, no hell, Mary, goddess mother, you I don't believe it. 144,000 go to her assumption. can become a god. heaven Faith, grace, baptism, works Their church organization is one true church Apostolic Succession Great Wealth and Power Mary has godlike abilities: able to hear and answer all prayers of all people all the time, intercede with God. Used in worship in churches Faith, grace, baptism, Faith, grace, baptism, works works Their church organization is one true church Apostolic Succession Great Wealth and Power Goddess Mother who has populated this world with spirits who inhabit human bodies Used in temples and headquarters Their church organization is one true church Being the faithful servant Wealth, not much power Grace through Faith All who are saved by grace thru faith are in the true church In Jesus alone Treasures in heaven

Goddess-like figure

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Images of God, or Jesus, or Mary, etc.

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

There are many good things in the Catholic Church, but I find it disturbing to see the similarities between itself and the cults in regard to a final earthly authority, non biblical teachings, claims to be the one true church, exaltation of Mary to semi-goddesshood, the use of images, and adding works to salvation. The Catholics, of course, will complain that this chart is not fair or does not focus on the dissimilarities. Well, they are right in that it does not focus on the dissimilarities which are many. But that isn't the point of this comparison, is it? The Protestant Reformation happened for a reason: to get back to biblical theology and to be rid of extra-biblical teaching. The counter-cult movement has happened for a reason, to get back to biblical theology and to be rid of extra-biblical teaching. Eternity is a long time to be wrong.

666

Is the Catholic Catechism's view on the Muslim god wrong?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, Muslims together with the Catholics, "adore the one, merciful God." This cannot be true. The Muslims and Catholics do not adore the same God. In order to provide sufficient context for the quote from the Catechism, I have cited 2 paragraphs before and after paragraph 841. 1. 839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."[325] The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,[326] "the first to hear the Word of God."[327] The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",[328] "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."[329] 840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus. 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[330] 842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race: All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .[331] 843 "The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as 'a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.'

2.

3.

4.

5.

If the Catholic Church is stating in paragraph 841 above, in the Catechism of the Catholic Churc h, that there are those within the Muslim community who may find salvation by becoming Christians and not remaining Muslims, then I would agree. But, it does not appear to be saying this. What is disturbing is the statement that "together with us they [Muslims] adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." So, Catholics and Muslims both "adore the one, merciful God." Quite frankly, it would seem that the Roman Catholic church has a faulty understanding of the God of Islam. Isla m acknowledges that it serves the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But in so doing it is stating that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were Muslims! Furthermore, Islam denies that God is a Trinity. "They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them," (Quran 5:73, Yusufali). "They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve," (Quran 5:73, Pickthal).

667

Since the Trinity is the true biblical doctrine of God, how can the Muslims who deny the Trinity "adore the one, merciful God"? They cannot. Furthermore, in Christianity, Jesus is divine in nature (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9). Yet, the Quran states that Jesus is not divine: "They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things," (Quran 5:17, Pickthal). "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!" (Quran 5:30, Pickthal)

Obviously, the Muslims do not adore the one true merciful God because they serve a false god. They deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Quite simply, they deny the true God and are not capable of adoring the true God as long as they hold to the false teachings of Islam. Therefore the paragraph in the CCC 1 1 5 cannot be correct. "The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (CCC 841).

115115

CCC means Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is an official Catechism released by the Roman Catholic church. "This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine

668

Christadelphianism
Introduction
Christadelphianism is relatively new religious system. It claims, like many other non-Christian cults, to be the authentic Christian Church with authentic Christian doctrines. However, it denies the Trinity as well as the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. In addition, it states that the Devil is not a real living entity but is, instead, our natural tendency to sin. It also says that Jesus was a created being who had a fallen nature who himself needed to be redeemed. There are, however, disagreements within the camp of Christadelphianism. Several Christadelphians have pointed out to me that there are differences of opinion within their sect regarding the fallen nature of Christ. Nevertheless, they all deny the deity of Christ and this is enough to put them outside the camp of Christianity. A Jesus who is not divine, cannot save anyone -- especially one that needs to be redeemed himself. In my opinion, Christadelphia nism is a dangerous cult because it brings people to eternal damnation by teaching a false god and false gospel. It deviates from the central doctrines of the Christian faith sufficiently to make it non-Christian.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

What are some of the aberrant doctrines of the Christadelphians? p. 670 Why is Christadelphianism not Christian? p. 672 Is God ever seen? p. 679 Which Christadelphian quotes do you find most interesting? Why? p. 681 Why is the Christadelphian teaching of Jesus having a sin nature so bad? p. 682 Can the Christadelphian Jesus with a fallen nature save anyone? P. 689 What is the Christadelphian view of the Holy Spirit? p. 691 What questions might you ask a Christadelphian? p. 692

669

What do the Christadelphians Teach?

Though they acknowledge many truths found in the Bible, they deny many others. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. They believe the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God. (The Christadelphians: What They Believe and Preach, p. 82) They teach there is only one God. (Isaiah 43-45) They teach that Jesus had a sin nature (What They Believe, p. 74) They teach that Jesus needed to save himself, before he could save us. (Christadelphian Answers, p. 24) They teach that Jesus will return and set up his kingdom on earth. (What They Believe , p. 268) They believe that there has been an apostasy and that Christianity is a false religious system. (A tract titled Christendom Astray Since the Apostolic Age, Detroit Christadelphian Book Supply) They believe annihilation of the wicked. (What They Believe, p. 187). They believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. (What They Believe , p. 71,72, 207-210) They believe that it is possible to lose ones salvation. (What They Believe , p. 212) They deny the doctrine of the Trinity. (What They Believe, p. 84-87) They deny that Jesus is God in flesh. (Answers, p. 22) They deny that Jesus existed prior to his incarnation. (What They Believe , p. 85,86) They deny the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit. (What They Believe , p. 115) They deny the substitutionary atonement of Christ. (Answers, p. 25; What They Believe, p. 71) They deny salvation by grace through faith alone. (What they Believe, p. 204) They deny immortality of the soul. (What They Believe , p. 17). They deny that a person exists after death. (What They Believe, p. 17) They deny the existence of hell and eternal punishment. (What They Believe, p. 188-189) They deny the existence of the fallen angel Lucifer as the devil. (Answers, p. 100)

Like so many other cult groups that claim to be the restored truth, they have their own interpretations of the Bible that deviate greatly from orthodox Christianity.

670

Christadelphian History
Christadelphianism is a religious movement begun by Dr. John Thomas who was born in London England on April 12, 1805. In 1832 he immigrated to the United States. On the way to New York, his ship encountered several terrible storms that threatened shipwreck and death. Dr. Thomas promised God that if he were delivered, he would devote his life to the study of religion. He made it to America and kept his promise. Upon arrival, he joined the Campbellite group also known as the Disciples. He was baptized and began to study. He studied greatly and soon found himself at odds with the Campbellites and left. Many from the Campbellite group followed him. This is the beginning of the Christadelphian movement, though it wasnt called that yet. In 1834 Dr. Thomas started a magazine called "The Apostolic Advocate." This is where he really began to disseminate his teac hings. He was greatly interested in prophecy and devoted much effort to understanding biblical eschatology. In 1839 Thomas moved to Illinois and in 1842 he became editor of a magazine called "The Investigator." Five years later, he started another m agazine called "The Herald of the Future Age." By this time he was living in Virginia. In 1848, near the time when Christadelphianism was founded in America, he returned to England to speak on his brand of religion and found the soil there fertile. To this day, England has the largest number of Christadelphians. While in England he wrote the book called "Elpis Israel" which means "Hope of Israel." It is a thorough work of his beliefs discussion creation, Gods law, sin, death, immortality, religion, the coming Kingdom, and a host of other subjects. He then returned to America. The Christadelphians do not believe in participating in war. So, when the Civil War broke out, they refused to go. In order to be recognized as a religious group that did not believe in fighting, they needed a name. Dr. Thomas gave them the name "Christadelphian" which, in Greek means "Brethren of Christ." In 1862, Thomas returned to England again and found that his book "Elpis Israel" had helped to bring about congregations that followed his theology. He lectured extensively and helped to anchor Christadelphianism in England. He returned to America again. Thomas visited England one more time in 1869 after writing the book "Eureka." On March 5, 1871 Dr. Thomas died in New York. He is buried in Brooklyn. Thomas was a tireless worker who sought to study and discover Gods true meaning and doctrine of the Bible. Unfortunately, despising the counsel and wisdom of those more learned than himself, he sought to single-handedly "rediscover" the true gospel which, in his opinion, had been lost from the earth. Like so many others in the 19th century, he began a religious movement that really is a development of his personal beliefs. Therefore, the Christadelphian religion, like Mormonism, Jehovahs Witnesses, and Christian Science, is merely another erring religious system begun by a single person who claimed to know more than anyone else about the Bible. It is a non-Christian cult.

671

Is Christadelphianism Christian?
No, Christadelphianism is not Christian. Like all cults, Christadelphianism denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity: Jesus is God, the physical resurrection, and salvation by grace. In this case, it is the deity of Christ and salvation by grace through faith are the problems with this group. In regards to Jesus, it teaches that.... Jesus had a sinful nature The Christadelphians, What They Believe, by Harry Tennant, The Christadelphian, England, p. 74 - this is a Christadelphian book.) Jesus needed salvation, (Christadelphian Answers, ed. by Frank G. Jannaway, The Herald Press, p. 25 - another Christadelphian book). Jesus is not God in flesh (Answers, p. 22). That Jesus' atonement was not substitutionary (Answers, p. 25; What They Believe, p. 71). Baptism is necessary for salvation (What They Believe , p. 71,72, 207-210)

Of primary importance is what the Christadelphians say about Jesus. They deny He is divine in nature. According to John 1:1,14, John 8:58 (with Exodus 3:14), and Col. 2:9, Jesus is God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:1,14). Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," (John 8:58). With, "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you," (Exodus 3:14). "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form," (Col. 2:9).

Furthermore, Jesus said in John 8:24, "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins." Also, John the Apostle said in 1 John 4:2-4, "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." You can see that denying that Jesus has come in the flesh (that He is God in flesh per John 1:1,14), is the spirit of antichrist. Since we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9), it is crucial to crucial to have the proper object of faith. All Satan has to do is to get someone to believe in a false Jesus and the person is lost (Matt. 24:24). A false Jesus cannot save and only the true Jesus reveals the true God (John 14:6; Luke 10:22; John 17:3). Since Jesus is actually God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:58; Heb. 1:8), it follows that those who deny His divine nature -- and ascribe a sinful one to Him as the Christadelphians do -- cannot have the true Jesus and are, therefore, serving a false God. Second, the Christadelphians deny the substitutionary atonement of Jesus. They say that He did not take our place on the cross and that He did not bear our sins. This is in direct contradiction to Scripture. 1 Pet. 2:24 says, "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." Instead, they teach a kind of representation that was not effective to remove sin and say, "Christ did not die as our substitute, but as our representative" (Answers, p. 25). Additionally, in Answers, page 24, it says, "But it is equally true that, being 'made sin for us' (2 Cor. 5:21), he himself required a sin offering..." In other words, they are saying that Jesus Himself also needed to be saved. This is absolutely unbiblical and heretical and needs to be labeled for what it is: false doctrine. Jesus was without sin (1 Pet. 2:22), the exact representation of the nature of God (Heb. 1:3). Since God is sinless and Holy, so is Jesus in nature and essence.

672

Furthermore, the Christadelphians, by having a Jesus who has a sin nature, cannot have a proper sacrifice by which their sins are atoned for. According to the Old Testament, the sacrifice for sins had to be without blemish (Deut. 17:1). Having a sin nature would definitely be a blemish which would invalidate the sacrifice. Third, the Christadelphians add a work to salvation. They say that baptism is part of the saving process. But, baptism is not necessary for salvation. Instead, it is a representation of the inward reality of regeneration (1 Pet. 3:21), a covenant sign of God's work upon the heart (Col. 2:11-12). Gal. 5:1-12 speaks of the grave error of some people who thought that they needed to partake in some part of the Law (circumcision) to be saved. Paul quickly denounced them with very strong words (Gal. 5:12). Additionally, Rom. 5:1 says that we are justified by faith, not by faith and baptism. Rom. 3:23 says we are saved not by the works of the Law; that is, not by anything that we do. Since our righteous deeds are filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6), we must completely rely upon the grace of God for our salvation -- which is by faith in Jesus who is God, the creator in flesh. The Christadelphian religion is a false religion. it is definitely not Christian. This is not to say that there are not decent people who intend to serve God honestly and truthfully. But sincerity does not bridge the gap between God and man. Only the blood of the real Jesus does that, not a false Christ with a sin nature who himself needed salvation.

673

Answering a "refutation" of "Is Christadelphianism Christian?"

It is quite a complement when the groups I tackle on CARM attempt to answer the charges of them not being Christian. Following is one of the papers I found on Christadelphian website that attempted to refute my paper titled "Is Christadelphianism Christian. I will respond to the "refutation" of my paper. My comments are in italics. Christadelphian: The C.A.R.M. has an interesting approach to the condemnation of various cults. A religious system is either 'Christian,' and therefore able to save despite minor errors, or 'non_Christian,' which cannot save because of major errors. The Christadelphians, they say, are non_Christian. The Christadelphian faith cannot save.Why not? The mind behind the C.A.R.M. has taken it upon himself to conjure up the 'Three Essential Doctrines' of Christianity. Any group which denies any one of these doctrines is non_Christian. These three doctrines are: Jesus is God, the physical resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith. My Response: No cult member considers himself to be false. But, Christianity by definition states Christadelphianism to be false. The Three Essential Doctrines that I have on my website are not "conjured up" by me or anyone else. These essentials are essentials proclaimed by the Bible. I have merely brought them to peoples' attention. For this Christadelphian author to state that I have conjured them up tells me that he did not read the article where I give ample biblical references establishing their essential nature. Christadelphian: Now where did the C.A.R.M. get the idea that these are the three essential doctrines of Christianity? Certainly not from the Bible. The Bible teaches that the gospel is 'the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ' (Acts 8:12). My Response: Again this person fails to cite the scriptures that I have listed in that article. Therefore, I will briefly list them here: 1. Jesus is God in flesh A. 1 John 4:2-3, "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." i. The above verse needs to be cross referenced with John 1:1,14 (also written by John) where he states that the Word was God and the Word became flesh. In 1 John 4:2-3, John is not simply stating that Jesus existed, for that would be too obvious. Rather, he is dealing with the issue of Jesus incarnation. ii. Likewise, Jesus said in John 8:24: "I said, therefore, to you, that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins." a. "I AM" is a phrase God used to describe Himself in Exodus 3:14. Salvation by Grace A. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-9, NIV). "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace," (Gal. 5:4).

2.

674

3.

The Resurrection of Christ A. "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith," (1 Cor. 15:14). "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins," (1 Cor. 15:17). i. To deny the physical resurrection of Jesus is to deny Jesus' work, sacrifice, and our future resurrection. ii. These verses clearly state that if you say that Jesus did not rise from the dead (in the same body He died in -- John 2:19-21), then your faith is useless.

Christadelphian: The C.A.R.M. says that Christadelphians deny the essential doctrine that Jesus is God in flesh. Christadelphians believe that Jesus was made of the same fallen, no-good substance that composes the rest of humanity: sinful flesh. Because of this, they follow a false Jesus, and 'they are then damned' according to the C.A.R.M. However, never did Jesus preach that we have to believe he is God _ it is not an essential doctrine. In fact, it is not a doctrine at all. The Old Testament teaches One God and Father of all, not One God, a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The New Testament must teach the same thing, since God does not change. I am aware that I am arguing without Biblical backup: this is because I do not want to repeat what is said in the Trinity section of this website. If you want to see proof that Jesus was made of sinful flesh, go there. My Response: The Bible does not teach that Jesus had a sinful nature. It teaches that Jesus was sinless (1 Pet. 2:22). He was both God and man at the same time. Col. 2:9 says, "for in Him dwells all the fullness of deity in the bodily form." John 1:1,14 says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... and the Word became flesh and dwelt to among us." As far as Jesus not teaching that we needed to believe that He was God, we simply need to look at His own words in John 8:24 where Jesus said, "unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." Again, Jesus uses the title "I am" in reference to Himself. Of course, many cultists state that Jesus was simply saying that He was the messiah. But, note that in John 8:58, Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I am." At this, the Pharisees picked up stones to kill Him, but Jesus fled. Then in John 10:30-33, they again picked up stones to kill Him and the reason they gave for trying to kill Him was because He being a man made himself out to be God (John 10:33). When Jesus said "I am" He was equating to Himself the very name of God found in Exodus 3:14 where God says to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." Christadelphian: The C.A.R.M. also speaks of one doctrine of Christadelphians as 'absolute heresy' and 'demonic doctrine.' This is the doctrine that Jesus Himself had to be saved. Why is this doctrine demonic? Jesus' mother required atonement for giving birth to him (Luke 2:24) which would not have been necessary unless she was bringing forth a fallen creature. My Response: The reason the Christadelphian doctrine is so bad is because it denies that Jesus Christ is God and states that Jesus was a sinner who needed salvation. That is blasphemy. Christadelphian: The C.A.R.M. also says that Christadelphians deny the essential doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. I quote, "Christadelphians add a work to salvation. They say that baptism is part of the saving process. But, baptism is not necessary for salvation. Instead, it is a representation of the inward reality of regeneration (1 Pet. 3:21), a covenant sign of God's work upon the heart (Col. 2:1112)." These are flowery words with no real meaning: inward reality? A covenant sign of God's work upon the heart? You should note that when you are writing and put a Bible reference in brackets at the end of a sentence, it is supposed to back up what you have said. However, the two references they quoted have nothing to do with inward realities or the heart. What does Col. 2:11-12 say? Speaking of Christ, "In whom ye also are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:" In the context Paul is explaining that the traditions of men such as circumcision are obsolete (v. 8). Writing to the Colossian believers (mostly

675

uncircumcised Gentiles) he tells them that through the circumcision of Christ, they have put off the sins of the flesh, and can be redeemed. What is this 'circumcision of Christ' that is required to put off sin? Read on _ verse 12: "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." When a person is immersed in water, they are figuratively buried and risen with Christ. Through this act of faith, we can obtain resurrection from the dead, since God raised Christ from the dead and we are being 'buried with Christ.' My Response: Baptism is a very important part of Christianity. All Christians should be baptized. But, baptism is not an essential requirement of salvation. We can see this when we look at the whole of scripture which tells us that we are justified (made righteous) by faith (Rom. 5:1), not faith and something we do (Rom. 4:5); that people are saved before baptism (Acts 10:44-48; that baptism is not part of the gospel which saves (1 Cor. 15:1-4); and that Paul came to preach the gospel and not to baptize (1 Cor. 1:17). For more on this please read "Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?" Christadelphian: I should also speak of how the C.A.R.M. condemns baptism as the works of the Law. Paul speaks frequently in his epistles about how the works of the Law were not necessary to be saved anymore. The Law had waxed old as a garment; it was a schoolmaster to teach the Jews about the coming Messiah. This is all fine and good. Now look at the C.A.R.M.'s major stretch of reasoning. Rom. 3:20 tells us that "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his [God's] sight." This is the Law of Moses, which at this point had become obsolete. But the C.A.R.M. says, in other words, we are not saved by anything we do. Where did that come from? We are not saved by the Law of Moses: we are saved by grace through faith. And as Col. 2:12 told us, baptis m is the operation of our faith! Baptism is necessary for salvation. My Response: I do not want to get into a dissertation on baptismal regeneration and its error. My previous mention of the article "Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?" is worth reading here. Christadelphian: C.A.R.M.'s conclusion to this section is that Christadelphianism is a false religion. They are sincere, but "sincerity does not bridge the gap between God and man. Only the blood of the real Jesus does that." I agree, sincerity cannot save us. However, the C.A.R.M. has not shown us that Christadelphianism is a false religion. My Response: The fact that Christadelphianism denies that Jesus is God in flesh is sufficient to make it a nonChristian cult. Faith is only as good as who you put it in. The Christadelphians have a "savior" with a sinful nature who himself needed to be saved. This sinful version of Jesus cannot save anyone. The true Jesus needed no savior. The Christadelphians do not have the true Jesus and because of that their faith is misplaced and in vain. Dear reader, do not be deceived by the Christadelphians. Jesus is God in flesh. It is only God who can save us from our sins. We have a perfect and holy High Priest, Jesus. He was sinless and will forever love us and hold us close to Him. But, the Jesus of the Christadelphians, our older brother who had a sin nature, is false. A false Christ cannot save. Jesus said, "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect," (Matt. 24:24).

676

The Christadelphians, John 1:1, and "The Word Became Flesh"

The Bible bears witness of Jesus (John 5:39). He is our Savior, our King, and Lord. But not all who call themselves Christian agree on who Jesus is. Some say He is God in flesh, others that He is an angel who became a man, and still others teach He only came into existence at His birth. Such is the position of the Christadelphians. To them, Jesus did not exist as God. To them, He was just a man who first existed at His birth. If you are a Christian who knows His Bible, then you will immediately recognize the error of the Christadelphians. The Bible says that whoever denies that Jesus has come in the flesh is of the spirit of the Antichrist (1 John 4:1-2). Of course, the Christadelphians agree that Jesus came in the flesh. But they will not agree that He is God in flesh. John wrote 1 John and the gospel of John. In John 1:1,14, he said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . .and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. . ." Obviously, from the context, John is not simply saying that you must believe that Jesus lived, you must believe that He is the Word made flesh. And since he already said that the Word was God, Jesus, therefore, is God in flesh. This seems simple enough. But it isnt for the Christadelphians. In their pamphlet "Who is Jesus Christ?", the "Word" is discussed. On page 12, in reference to John 1:1, the pamphlet says, "The Greek term translated 'word' is logos. It signifies the outward form of inward thought or reason, or the spoken word as illustrative of thought, wisdom and doctrine. The Bible teaching is that in the very beginning, Gods purpose, wisdom or revelation was proclaimed through His Word. This Word was 'with God' in that it emanated from Him; it 'was God' in that it represented Him to mankind. . ." The problem with their reasoning is not that their definition, in itself, is incorrect. For it can be said that the Word was indeed the wisdom and emanation from God. But that is not all it is saying. It is saying that the Word WAS God. Jesus IS the Word. He isnt simply a manifestation of some divine attribute or quality. Also, what about the context? In John 1:2-3 it says, "He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" (NIV). First, the word is referred to as masculine. Wisdom in Proverbs 8:1-2 is personified as feminine. There is a difference. Second, the Word is who created all things (See also Colossians 1:16-17). Of course, it is naturally understood that this does not include God Himself. But all that is made, has been made by the Word that became flesh. Third, the Word is revered to as a person, not a quality which the Christadelphians have imposed into the text. In reference to Acts 1:14, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, glory of the only begotten full of grace and truth," the pamphlet states on page 13, "When did the begettal take place? When the Holy Spirit came upon Mary. By that means, the Declaration of Divine wisdom found its substance and reality in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ." It is interesting to note that they call wisdom divine. They are saying that divine wisdom became flesh. Is not Jesus, then, divine since He is the incarnation of divinity? They would disagree. But that is what they are saying, though they dont realize it. If Jesus is not God in flesh, then why is He worshiped (Matt. 2:2, 11, 14:33, John 9:35-38, Heb. 1:6)? This is especially important since Jesus said that you are to worship God (the Father) only (Matt. 4:10). Yet, Jesus receives worship and never rebukes anyone for it. If Jesus is not God, then why is He called God by Thomas who said to Jesus in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God." Jesus didnt correct him for his error. Once while in a Christadelphian church (known as a Hall; their body of believers who are Christadelphians are called an ecclesia), a woman challenged me to find any place in the Bible where Jesus is called God. When I showed her the verse, she was silent. No one there has answered it yet. The verse is Hebrews 1:8. Here is the context: Heb. 1:5-8 . . . For to which of the angels did He [God] ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? An d again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"? 6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." 7And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire." 8But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom."

677

Jesus is called God by God. If He is not God, then why does the Father call Him God? Is the Father wrong? Is the writer of Hebrews wrong. Or, are the Christadelphians wrong? While at another ecclesia, I asked some Christadelphians about Jesus being worshiped. They told me they thought He was worthy of worship. They said they never worshiped Jesus. I asked them why not. They didnt have an answer. In the Christadelphian pamphlet, "Who is Jesus Christ?" none of the verses about Jesus being worshiped or called God were addressed. I think this is revealing. It is easy to produce clever arguments against various proof texts of Jesus deity (Col. 1:16-17; John 8:58, etc.), as the pamphlet does. But when it doesnt address the most basic of verses that deal with Jesus being worshiped and called God, I must conclude that they have not done all the research needed and that their conclusions are in error. And they are in error. Remember, faith is only as good as who it is placed in. The Christadelphian Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Christadelphian Jesus isn't God. The Jesus of the Bible is.

678

Is God ever seen?

Christadelphianism is known theologically as dynamic monarchianism. It teaches there is a god, but that god is a single person. In contrast to this, the Trinity is one God who exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To a Christadelphian, if God ever appeared in the Old Testament period, it would have to be the Father. This is problematic for them for two reasons. First, the Father cannot be seen according to scripture, and second, if God did appear, then it would have to be the Father, which they cannot accept. Nevertheless, the following study answers both those issues and leaves the Christadelphian, with a problem to solve. In the Old testament God appeared many times to many people (Gen. 17:1; 18:1; Ex. 6:2-3; 24:9-11; 33:20; Num. 12:6-8). Yet there are verses that say that you cannot see God (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18). It would seem that there is a contradiction, but there isnt. I will show you that there is no contradiction and that the theology that claims that God is one person, is incorrect. This study is directed at the Christadelphians, but it would also be appropriate for the Jehovahs Witnesses and The Way International. The Bible clearly teaches that God was seen in the O.T. This fact is even mentioned in the New Testament. Acts 7:2 says, "The God of glory appeared to our Father Abraham. . . " Did God appear or didnt He? Lets take a look at Gods word. Exodus. 6:2-3, "God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name LORD I did not make myself known to them." Exo. 24:9-11, "Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they beheld God, and they ate and drank." Exodus 33:11, "Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend..." Num. 12:6-8, "He [God] said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; with him I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form of the LORD . . . " Acts 7:2, "And he [Stephen] said, "Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran . . . "

Some will say that the appearances of God were nothing more than visions, dreams, or angels that represented God. This is definitely the case in some instances of the O.T., but it is not the case here. For example, is an angel God Almighty? Of course not. Yet God says in Exodus 6:2-3 that He appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty. Are these visions or dreams? Not so with Moses. Consider Num. 12:6-8 where God says that He does not appear to Moses in a vision or dream. Rather, Moses beholds Gods very form. Was God seen? Yes. Consider Exodus 24:9-11 where it says that 74 people "saw the God of Israel. " It does not say a vision, a dream, a cloud, a flame, etc. It says that they saw God. Cult groups generally teach that when God appeared in the O.T., it was a representative angel, that it was a manifestation of God due to that angel possessing the name of God upon him. As Gods direct representative, the angel was considered to be God Himself, though not really God. This is nullified by Exodus 6:2-3 where God says that He appeared as God Almighty. This is a title only applied to God Himself. What then of the verses that say that God cannot be seen John 1:1 and Exodus 33:20? John 1:18, "No one has seen God at anytime. The only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." The context is important. John began his book with the words, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." In verse 14 he says, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. . ." The Word was obviously Jesus. The Word was with God. God, contextually, would be the Father. When it says in John 1:18 that no man has seen God, it is referring to the Father. This is supported by Jesus own words in Johns gospel. Consider the following:

679

"Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father," (John 6:46). Jesus declares that the Father has not been seen. Exodus 33:20, "You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live." This verse is a bit more difficult. But a look at the following verses tells us that God allowed Moses to see His backside, not His face. There are three other verses in the Bible worth examining here. They deal with the plurality of God and they will help support the idea that there is more than one person in the Godhead and shed possible light on the verses of John 1:18 and Exodus 33:20. They are as follows. Gen. 19:24, "Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens." The word "LORD" in the Hebrew is the word YHWH from where we get Gods name, sometimes known as Jehovah. Look at the verse and you will see that there appears to be two Jehovahs; that is, two LORDs. Why is that? Amos 4:10-11, "I sent among you a plague after the manner of Egypt; Your young men I killed with a sword, Along with your captive horses; I made the stench of your camps come up into your nostrils; Yet you have not returned to Me," Says the LORD. 11"I overthrew [some] of you, As God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, And you were like a firebrand plucked from the burning; Yet you have not returned to Me," Says the LORD. " Who is the one speaking in verse 10? The LORD, YHWH. But the LORD says in verse 11, "I overthrew some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. . ." The LORD is speaking and He speaks about God overthrowing Sodom and Gomorrah. There seems to be a plurality, a more than one-ness occurring here. If you are a Trinitarian, there is no problem. God Almighty was seen in the Old Testament, only, it wasnt the Father. It was Jesus. Jesus said in John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I AM." He was quoting God speaking to Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3:14. Jesus claimed to be the I AM, YHWH. In fact, YHWH means, I AM. Was God seen in the Old Testament? Yes. Was it the Father? No. The Christadelphian theology is wrong for there is more than one person in the God head.

680

Interesting Quotes from Christadelphianism

(Unless marke d, all quotes are from the Christadelphian book, The Christadelphians: What They Believe and Preach, by Harry Tennant, The Christadelphian, 404 Shaftmoor Lane, Birmingham B28 8SZ, England, 1986.) "It will surprise some readers to know that nowhere in Scripture are the words "immortal" and "soul" brought together. Immortality is God's own inherent nature, and His alone" (page. 17). "The second secret of the cross is that it is the source of the forgiveness of sins. It is not a debt settled by due payment. It is not a substitutionary offering whereby someone is paid a price so that others might then go free" (page 71). "The Bible approach is much simpler and much more satisfying. Forgiveness comes to the man who believes the Gospel, repents, and is baptized in the name of Christ" (page 71). "The wondrous benefits from the saving work of Jesus flow to us and are effective for us when we come in faith, repentant, and join Jesus in his death by baptism into his name" (page 72). "Therefore, we conclude that it is not only that Jesus was called a sinner at his trial by his enemies or that he was "numbered with the transgressors" when he was crucified between two thieves, but more particularly that he shared the very nature which had made a sinner out of every other man who had borne it" (page 74). "There is no hint in the Old Testament that the Son of God was already existent or in any way active at that time" (page 85). "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was first promised, and came into being only when he was born of the virgin Mary" (page 86). "We ask the question: When was Jesus 'in the form of God'? Christadelphians believe that Jesus was in the form of God by his birth through begettal by the Father, by speaking the words of God and doing His works" (page 87). "Jesus worships God: God worships no one" (page 88). "The Spirit is not a 'separate' or 'other' person. It is God's own radiant power, ever out flowing from Him, by which His 'everywhereness' is achieved. The Spirit is personal in that it is of God Himself: it is not personal in the sense of being some other person within the Godhead" (page 115). "A believing, repentant person receives forgiveness of sins by being baptized" (pages 207-8). "True baptism removes past sins" (page 208). "Therefore the wonderful work of baptism is essential to salvation" (page 210). "Salvation is not a one-for-all, irreversible happening" (page 212). "He [Jesus] saved himself in order to save us." (Christadelphian Answers, Compiled by Frank G. Jannaway. A reproduction of an original edition by, The Herald Press, 4011 Bolivia, Houston, Texas, 77092, 1920. page 24) "And it was for that very reason -- being a member of a sinful race -- that the Lord Jesus himself needed salvation." (Answers, p. 24) "The terms Satan and Devil are simply expressive of "sin in the flesh" in individual, social, and political manifestations." (Answer, p. 100)

681

Did Jesus have a sin nature?

No, Jesus did not have a sin nature. However, that has not stopped the Christadelphians from teaching He did. This is not surprising considering they deny the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus. As with all non-Christian cults that deny the true doctrine of God, other doctrines necessarily become incorrect as well. In this case, their error is that Jesus has a sin nature. "Therefore, we conclude that it is not only that Jesus was called a sinner at his trial by his enemies or that he was 'numbered with the transgressors' when he was crucified between two thieves, but more particularly that he shared the very nature which had made a sinner out of ever other man who had borne it. It is for this reason that the nature we bear is called "sinful flesh" or more briefly, 'sin' (Rom. 7:20 and 8:4)." (The Christadelphians: What They Believe and Preach, p. 74) "And it was for that very reason -- being a member of a sinful race -- that the Lord Jesus himself needed salvation...But it is equally true that, being 'made sin for us' (2 Cor. 5:21), he himself required a sin offering; in other words, he sacrificed himself, for himself, that he might save us. Or, in other words, he saved himself in order to save us...T hat Christ needed salvation is seen from Psalm xci.16." (Christadelphian Answers, p. 24)

One of the main verses they use to support their erroneous doctrine is Rom. 8:3-4 which says, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh." They teach that the "likeness of sinful flesh" means that Jesus had a sinful nature. But it doesn't. The key to understanding this verse is the word "likeness." If this word were omitted then the text would say "...sending His own Son in sinful flesh..." If that is what the verse said then the Christadelphians would have a valid argument. But the text says that Jesus came in the "likeness" of sinful flesh, not that He came in sinful flesh. In other words, men are sinners. Jesus appeared as a man. Therefore, Jesus appeared in the likeness of a sinner, though He was not a sinner. Another verse they use is Heb. 2:14 which says, "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil." This verse can easily be explained in the same manner as Rom. 8:3-4 above. Jesus partook of flesh and blood. But it does not here say that He had a sin nature. To have a sin nature means that Jesus had a fallen, defiled, and unholy nature. I fail to see how an unholy person can offer a holy sacrifice sufficient to please an infinitely holy God. Of course, the Christadelphians say this is possible because, even though Jesus had a sin nature, He never committed a sin and He kept the Law therefore satisfying God. But that still doesn't answer the objection: If Jesus had a sinful and unholy nature, how is it possible for Him to provide a sinless and holy sacrifice especially since Eph. 2:3 states that we are by nature children of wrath? This means that the natural state of the fallen is judgment. The problem with the Christadelphian position is that the Bible teaches us the sacrifice to God must be without blemish. Deut. 17:1 says, "You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep which has a blemish or any defect, for that is a detestable thing to the Lord your God." (See also Ezekiel 43:22-23, 25; 45:18, 23 for the same theme.). Of course, Jesus is not an animal, but it is clear that the pattern for the sacrifice was that it have no defect at all. Why? Because God is holy and God doesn't accept imperfect sacrifices! To have a sinful nature is definitely to have a defect. Contrary to Christadelphian teaching, we can see from the Bible that Jesus has no defect, no blemish: "How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9:14). This verse states that Jesus is without blemish. How can He be without blemish if He has a fallen and sinful nature? For the Christadelphians to maintain that Jesus had a sinful nature is the same as saying that the offering He made had a defect. We can see that this is a problem because the High Priests of the Old Testament were fallen and had, themselves to be cleansed in order to offer the sacrifice to God. It wasn't simply that they were sinners. They were fallen by nature and were unholy.

682

Because the Christadelphians teach that Jesus had a fallen and sinful nature, there faith is in a defiled and imperfect sacrifice. It is, therefore, is insufficient. They are lost. What does it mean to have a sin nature? When we speak of the nature of something, we speak of its essence, character, and quality. The essence of God, for example, is holiness, purity, sinlessness, etc. The essence of people, on the other hand, is sinful. In Mark 7:21-23, Jesus discloses to us the very nature of our hearts when He said, "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man, (NASB). This is why it says in Eph. 2:3 that we are by nature children of the wrath; our hearts are sinful by nature which is the source of the sins listed by Jesus. This is also why Paul said in Rom. 7:18 that nothing good dwelt in him, that is, in his flesh. Paul knew his nature was sinful and because it was He was lost and without hope (except for his faith in Jesus and His unblemished sacrifice). Are we to conclude from Christadelphian thinking that Jesus' fallen, unholy, and sinful nature produced a pure and perfect sacrifice without defect? How is that possible? How is it possible for someone unholy to offer a holy sacrifice? How is it possible for someone that is sinful by nature, to offer a sinless sacrifice? Just because Jesus never sinned doesn't mean that He was perfect. If He had a sin nature, He was not perfect. He was flawed. His sacrifice would be useless. However, to the Christadelphians, the issue is not so much Jesus' sinful and fallen nature, as it is His ability to keep the Law. Therefore, in Christadelphianism we have a man, Jesus, with a sinful nature being able to perfectly keep all of God's law. Contrast this with Adam who was made sinless and yet to was not able to keep the law of God. How can Jesus have a sinful and unholy nature and yet be sinless and holy as a perfect, unblemished sacrifice? He cannot. The Christadelphians are wrong. Jesus was tempted One of the reasons the Christadelphians believe Jesus had a sinful nature is their claim that in order for Jesus to be tempted, He had to have a sin nature. But, this does not logically follow. Adam did not have a sinful nature and he was tempted successfully. He fell. Jesus did not have a sinful nature. He was tempted unsuccessfully. He did not fall. So, Jesus not having a sin nature does not mean He cannot be tempted. Of course, the Christadelphians deny that Jesus is both God and man, even though this is what Col. 2:9 says: "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."116 In their quest to support their view, they sometimes quote James 1:13 which states that God cannot be tempted by evil. They ask, if Jesus is God, then how could He be tempted with evil? This is a fair question and, to be honest, a bit difficult to answer because the Scriptures do not explicitly explain it. Therefore, we have to work from what we do know using reason. If Jesus' human nature existed by itself, apart from the divine nature, it would have been a normal human nature and capable of sin. But, Jesus' human nature is not separate from His divine nature which is morally pure and incapable of sin. It would then seem that Jesus was able to be tempted in His human nature but not in His divine. In the one person of Christ, there dwells two natures: God and man (Col. 2:9). As God, Jesus could stand without the danger of sinning. As man, He could be tempted. Exactly how these two natures relate to each other in one person is not clarified in scripture. But, as you can see, it is possible that Jesus be divine and be tempted at the same time because He was both God and man. To say that Jesus had to have a sin nature in order to be tempted is incorrect. Rather, in order to be tempted, Jesus had to be human.

116

Christadelphians compare Col. 2:9 with Eph. 3:19 which has similar phraseology in it in an effort to deny that Col. 2:9 says Jesus is deity. For a more detailed look at this, see the paper "Col. 2:9 and Eph. 3:19."

683

Jesus was under the Law Another Christadelphian argument that Jesus had a sin nature is that since Jesus was under the Law, and that a person is only under the Law if he is capable of sin, therefore Jesus had to have a sin nature. As I've already demonstrated above, Adam did not have a sin nature and he was tempted. But more importantly here, Adam was under the law of God even though he had a sinless nature -though he was capable of sinning. God gave a Law to Adam when He said, "...From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die," (Gen. 2:16-17). The phrase "you shall not" should remind us of the Ten Commandments with the "you shall" and "you shall not's." Adam was under Law and because He broke that Law, he sinned. Rom. 3:20 says, "...through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." And, "sin is not imputed when there is no law," (Rom. 5:13). The reason Jesus was under the Law was so that He could become a sacrifice for us and redeem those who are under the Law (Gal. 4:4). He had to be made like His bretheren in order to satisfy the Law requirements of being a sacrifice. He had to be a man to atone for men. He had to be God in order to offer a sufficiently valuable atoning work. Sin entered the world through Adam There is debate in the theological circles concerning whether or not the sinful nature is passed down through the father or not. The scripture is not specific about this issue, so I present this argument as food for thought because it could shed some light on whether or not Jesus had a fallen nature. Even though Eve was the first person to sin, sin entered the world through Adam and not through Eve. Rom. 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world..." The theory is that Adam was the representative of mankind in the garden. When he fell, we fell because we were "in" him. This concept of representation one person representing others is found in Heb. 7:9-10. And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
10

for he was still in the

Levi was a distant descendant of Abraham. Abraham was long dead when Levi was born. But the text says that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek. How is this possible? It seems the answer lies in the idea that one person represented his descendants. This would explain why Levi is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek because his distant father Abraham did so and because Levi was "in" the loins of his distant father Abraham. Likewise, sin entered the world through Adam and not Eve because Adam was the representative head of mankind. If this is so, then Jesus would not have received a sin nature from His father Joseph since Joseph had no biological paternity in relation to Jesus. Therefore, his sin nature would not have been passed down to Jesus. But since he had a human mother, He had human nature. We can see He was both God and man because He is called both the son of God and the son of man. If it is true, then we can see that Jesus had a divine nature received from God and a human nature, but not a sinful one, from His mother Mary. Whether or not the preceding concept is legitimate is still up for debate. But I offer it has yet another possible reason why Jesus did not have a sinful nature.

684

Jesus is God in flesh The primary biblical reason that in Jesus does not have a sinful nature is because Jesus is both God and man in one person. Of course the Christadelphians do not accepted this since they deny the Trinity. Nevertheless, their denial of the deity of Christ does not negate its truth. The Bible says that Jesus is God in flesh. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God....14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:1-2, 14). "but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior," (Titus 1:3). For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form," (Col. 2:9). But of the Son He says, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever...," (Heb. 1:8). "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," (Titus 2:13).

685

Was Jesus' sacrifice blemished according to Christadelphian theology?

According to Christadelphian theology, Jesus had a sinful and fallen nature. 1 1 7 He therefore needed to be redeemed just like anyone else.1 1 8 But, say the Christadelphians, Jesus never sinned, so His sacrifice on the cross was pure and acceptable to God. The Old Testament sacrific es were to be without blemish or defect. Of course, the blood of animals cannot remove our sin, but these sacrifices were representative of the sacrifice of Christ. Deut. 17:1 says, "You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep which has a blemish or any defect, for that is a detestable thing to the Lord your God" (NASB). (See also Ezekiel 43:22-23, 25; 45:18, 23 for the same theme.). The words "blemish" and "defect" are "mowm" and "ra", respectively. According to the Strong's Concordance "Mowm" means "1) blemish, spot, defect 1a) of physical defect 1b) of moral stain." Obviously, the sacrifice can have no physical defect. The second word, "ra" means, "1) bad, evil 1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant...2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity...3) evil, misery, distress, injury 3a) evil, misery, distress," etc. It is obvious that the word here deals with the inner quality or character. Therefore, the two words emphasis the outer and inner aspects of the sacrifice. It is to be physically pure and morally pure. The Christadelphian will rightly respond by stating that Jesus was morally pure, and He was. He never sinned (1 Peter 1:22). But, not having committed a sin is not the same as being pure in nature. A baby has a sin nature, yet has committed no sin and as such is still in need of redemption not because it has committed a sin, but because it has a fallen nature. This is why the Bible says we are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). God clearly states that our natures are fallen and affect our position before Him. In other words, having a sinful is indeed a defect within a person. Nevertheless, the Christadelphians maintain that Jesus sinful nature played no part in the sacrifice. In other words, they are, to a large degree, separating the nature of Christ and His obedience to the Father. 1. To say that Christ had a sinful nature makes Him a blemished and imperfect sacrifice, because A. Jesus is the sacrifice and the sacrifice cannot be separated from the thing/person being offered. i. 1 Peter 1:24 says, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." a. This verse proves that Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross. Jesus had a human body because He has a human nature and it was in His body that our sins were placed. b. If the Christadelphian states that this verse only means that Jesus bore a sinful tendency as all humans do, then he would be contradicting the teaching of the text which states he bore our sins in His body. c. Furthermore, the idea of 1 Peter 1:24 is repeated in Heb. 9:28 which says, "so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." d. The verb "bear" in both verses is "anaphero" and it means i. "to bring or take up." (Arndt, W. (1996, c1979). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian (Page 63). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.) ii. "to carry or bring up, to lead up. 1a men to a higher place. 2 to put upon the altar, to bring to the altar, to offer. 3 to lift up ones self, to take upon ones self. 3a to place on ones self anything as a load to be carried. 3b to sustain, i.e. their punishment." (Strong, J. (1996). Enhanced Strong's Lexicon. Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.)

117 118

The Christadelphians: What They Believe and Preach, p. 82. Christadelphian Answers, p. 24

686

2.

"to be carried or borne upwardto carry up. (Louw, J. P. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (LN 15.206). New York: United Bible societies.) e. Therefore, we can see that Jesus actually did bear our sins in His body as 1 Peter 1:24 says. B. Heb. 7:27 says, "who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." Eph. 5:2 says "and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma," i. Obviously, Jesus, the man with His human nature was offered upon the cross. Himself is Himself. How does offering "Himself" not include His nature as a man? C. Heb. 9:14 says, "how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" i. Here says that the "blood of Christ" (9:14) is what cleanses us of our sins. This proves that the physical nature of Christ was involved as being the sacrifice. D. Heb. 10:10-12 says, "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, 11And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God." i. It says that Jesus' body was the offering to God. Notice that the physical body of Christ was the sacrifice. According to the Christadelphians, Jesus became a man and shared in the sin nature. How is the sacrifice of Christ which was the offering to God which included the physical shedding of blood, not include Jesus' human nature which, according to the Christadelphians, was sinful? If you say that Jesus' sacrifice had nothing to do with His sin nature, then... A. Please provide biblical support for this idea of a separation between a person's nature and his actions. If this cannot be done, then the idea cannot be claimed. i. The Bible no where makes a distinction between a person's deeds and his nature. On the contrary, it ties them together: a. "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually," (Gen. 6:5). b. "Out of the wicked comes forth wickedness," (1 Sam. 24:13). c. "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9). d. "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks," (Matt. 12:34). e. "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23"All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man," (Mark 7:21-23). f. Jesus' sacrifice was related to His nature and if He had a sinful nature, then His sacrifice was blemished. B. You are separating what Christ is from what Christ did. i. If you separate what Christ is from what Christ did, then anyone could have atoned for sins provided he keep the law perfectly. All they would need would be a little help from God with a special anointing. C. You are saying that a concept was the offering and not Him. This is how: i. Christadelphians claim that Jesus' obedience was offered as a sacrifice. Obedience is an action, a concept. ii. If obedience is NOT tied to Jesus nature, then why did Jesus need to die? a. If it is true that only the obedience of Christ was the offering, then it is not necessary for Jesus to have died since His nature, says the Christadelphian, had nothing to do with sacrifice of obedience. iii. Biblically, live things were offered in the sacrifice. It was never a concept offered up as a sacrifice.

iii.

687

3.

If Jesus were the sacrifice, then Jesus, the man Himself was the sacrifice, was offered on the cross. But, if this is so, then we have a sinful-natured man as the offering and this is a blemished sacrifice. Questions for Christadelphians regarding Jesus and His sacrifice A. What biblical precedence and support is there for the claim that Jesus' sacrifice had nothing to do with His "sinful" nature, as Christadelphian theology teaches? B. Heb. 7:27 says, "who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." Obviously, Jesus, the ma n with His human nature was offered upon the cross as this text says. Can you please explain how this fits into your theology that Jesus had a sin nature and that it had nothing to do with the sacrifice when the Bible says that HE HIMSELF was the offering? In other words, since Jesus had a sin nature and he offered HIMSELF (Heb. 7:27), how is it that his sin nature was not part of the offering? C. In reference to Heb. 7:27 above, is "Himself" NOT including His nature? How do you separate Jesus being Himself from His "sin nature" and still be Himself? D. In reference to Heb. 10:10 where Jesus offered up His body as the sacrifice, how do you exclude His physical body as being the sacrifice? E. In reference to Heb. 10:10, since Jesus was human in nature and, as the Christadelphians claim, had a sin nature just like all people, how do you say that his human nature was not the sacrifice since it says his body was offered? This would mean that the Christadelphian Jesus offered up Himself, in body, which would include his sin nature which would make the sacrifice blemished and void. F. What biblical precedence and support is there for the claim that Jesus' sacrifice was only an offering of His deeds and not His person? G. How is a person with a sin nature able to keep the Law perfectly? H. If Jesus' sacrifice was of His obedience and had nothing to do with His sinful nature (according to Christadelphian theology), then what does it mean when it says that Jesus bore OUR sins in HIS body (1 Peter 1:24), that He became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21), and that He was an offering to bear the sins of many (Heb. 9:28)?

iv.

688

Can the Christadelphian Jesus with a fallen nature save anyone?

According to the Christadelphians, Jesus was a fallen and unholy created thing that needed to save Himself. But how is it that such a fallen creature can be the savior of sinners? Does it make any sense? No. The Christadelphians are wrong. Following is an outline that should help expose the error of the Christadelphians. Note that the references are from Christadelphian authors. 1. Jesus had a fallen and unholy nature according to the Christadelphians. A. God has a sinless and holy nature. i. The Christadelphians: What They Believe and Preach, p. 74 B. Therefore, according to the Christadelphians, Jesus was not divine. i. Christadelphian Answers, p. 22 Jesus never sinned according to the Christadelphians. A. But, how is it possible for a fallen and unholy person to not sin? i. If the Christadelphians say that Jesus, with a fallen and unholy nature, was able to keep the Law of his own power and will, then on what basis do they justify that claim, especially since Adam, who had a sinless nature, failed to do it? ii. If the Christadelphians say Jesus never sinned because "God was working in Him," then it isn't really Jesus who kept the law, was it? It would have been God working in Christ and not Christ himself. This would mean that the person of Christ was not keeping the Law of his own accord. a. If it wasn't Jesus who was keeping the Law, then he had nothing righteous to offer as a sacrifice. b. That would mean that the sacrifice had no value and there is no redemption for the Christadelphians. iii. If the Christadelphians say it was the power of God working in Jesus to keep the Law and that Jesus really did keep the Law of his own accord, then on what basis do they claim that God doing the work in Christ is really Christ's work? Jesus needed to save himself according to the Christadelphians. Christadelphian Answers, p. 24 A. If Jesus needed to save himself, then why? i. The Christadelphians teach that Jesus was sinless. If he was sinless, he needed no redemption because sin causes a separate between God and man (Isaiah 59:2) and it is sin that brings judgment (Rom. 1:18; James 2:9). a. In addition, our very nature also brings judgment. Eph. 2:3 says we are by nature children of wrath. This means that we are fallen and unholy by nature. b. If Jesus was fallen and unholy by nature, then how can his sacrifice be of sufficient value since it is by nature fallen and unholy? i. If the Christadelphians say the sacrifice has value because Jesus never sinned, then see #2 above. B. If Jesus needed to save himself then from what did he need salvation? i. If the Christadelphians say the judgment of God, then it can only be that the judgment of God would reside upon Christ because Christ has a fallen and sinful nature -- since the Christadelphians maintain that Jesus never sinned. a. This would mean that the sacrifice of Christ was, by nature, also unholy and fallen because Jesus was, by nature, unholy and fallen. The value of the sacrifice is derived from the nature of the sacrific e. b. If the Christadelphians say the sacrifice was not fallen and unholy because Jesus never sinned, then see #2 above.

2.

3.

689

4.

5.

The Bible says the sacrifice must be without blemish A. Deut. 17:1 says, "You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep which has a blemish or any defect, for that is a detestable thing to the Lord your God." (See also Ezekiel 43:22-23, 25; 45:18, 23 for the same theme.). B. Having a sin nature is a blemish. C. Jesus offered Himself on the cross. "Himself" includes His nature since that is part of Himself. This is in contradiction to the Christadelphians who teach that Jesus only offered up His "works" to God the Father. i. "[Jesus] who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself," (Heb. 7:27). ii. "How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9:14). (emphasis added) iii. "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many," (Matt. 20:28). iv. "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; 14who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds," (Titus 2:13). v. See also Eph. 5:2 and 1 Peter 2:24. D. If Jesus offered up Himself, which had a fallen nature, then the sacrifice was unholy and the Christadelphian Jesus cannot save anyone. Therefore, the Christadelphians are lost. i. For the Christadelphians to hold their position that Jesus' nature was not offered on the cross, then they will need to establish how when the Bible says that Jesus offered up "Himself," that "Himself" somehow excluded Jesus' own nature. The truth A. Jesus, the man, was also divine in nature and, therefore, holy and sinless. Because he was both God and man (John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8), His sacrifice was, by nature, pure and holy. Because He was also a man who kept all the Law and because He was pure and holy by nature, the righteous sacrifice He offered was truly His to offer. Because it was His to offer and it was pure and holy, it is sufficient to cleanse us from all our sins. B. The Sacrifice of Christ was substitutionary. i. 1 Pet. 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." ii. 2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." C. Jesus was never a fallen and unholy creature who Himself needed salvation. He is the Savior, God in flesh. i. Exodus 3:14, "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." ii. John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'" iii. John 8:24, "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins."

690

The Christadelphian view of the Holy Spirit

The Christadelphians deny the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, they also deny that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. When we say that the Holy Spirit is a person, we do not mean that He has a body of flesh and bones that His first name is Holy and His last name is Spirit. Rather, the Holy Spirit has personhood in that He is self aware, has a will, and can speak. However, the Christadelphians teach that the Holy Spirit is a force, the invisible power and energy of the Father by which God is everywhere present. It is a "power concentrated through an individual or angel for the purpose of a specific miraculous event or activity."1 1 9 They teach that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force by which God inspired the Bible and moved through people the same way as a wind would drive a ship, carrying it along with it. In support of their position, they quote 2 Pet. 1:21 which says, "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." They interpret the moving of the Holy Spirit as the moving of the force. They then sometimes go to Acts 27:17 that also contains the word "moved" when it is referring to the ship being "driven along" by the storm. The problem with this type of thinking is that words mean what they mean in their immediate context. You do not take the meaning of a word in one scripture, take it out of its context, and apply it to another verse. This leads to error and is particularly dangerous when other scriptures are ignored that contradict the interpretation that the Christadelphians are trying to support. Who is the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity. He is fully God. He is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, has a will, and can speak. He is alive. He is a person. He is not particularly visible in the Bible because His ministry is to bear witness of Jesus (John 15:26). Please consider the following verses as support for the personhood of the Holy Spirit. 1. 2. The Holy Spirit is lied to A. "But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of the price of the land?" (Acts 5:3). The Holy Spirit has a will and is called "He." A. "But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills," (1 Cor. 12:11). The Holy Spirit loves A. "Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me," (Rom. 15:30). The Holy Spirit speaks A. "And while Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you. 20"But arise, go downstairs, and accompany them without misgivings; for I have sent them Myself," (Acts 10:19-20). B. "And while they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them," (Acts 13:2). The Holy Spirit can be insulted A. "How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:29).

3.

4.

5.

If the Holy Spirit is like a force, then how can it be lied to? How can a force have a will, or be able to love, or speak, or be insulted? Clearly the Bible demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is alive and has attributes of life, self awareness, and a will and is not a mere force. The Christadelphians go to great lengths to deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit. But, it should be obvious that the Holy Spirit is not a mere force like radar or a wind. Rather, He is the third person in the Trinity.

119

The Testimony: The Distinctive Beliefs of the Christadelphians, Vol. 58, No. 691, July 1988, page 254.

691

Questions for Christadelphians

1. According to Christadelphian theology, Jesus had a sinful, fallen nature. A. Deut. 17:1 says, "You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep which has a blemish or any defect, for that is a detestable thing to the Lord your God," (NASB, See also Ezekiel 43:22-23, 25; 45:18, 23). Of course, Jesus is not an animal. The point is that the sacrifice to a holy God must have no blemish or defect. i. "defect" in Hebrew is ra. In this verse, it is translated as "evilfavourdness" in the KJV, as "defect" in the RSV and NKJV, and as "flaw" in the NIV. B. Question: If Jesus had a sinful, fallen nature, then isn't that a defect? C. Question: If Jesus' sinful nature is not a defect, then what would you call it? D. Question: If Jesus sinful nature is a defect, then doesn't that mean His sacrifice is insufficient? E. Question: If you state that being obedient is what makes a person "unblemished," then why are we damned by nature (Eph. 2:3) if it is only our sinful deeds that condemn us? According to Christadelphian theology, Jesus had to die in order to save himself. Yet the Christadelphians also maintain that Jesus was without blemish or defect. A. Question: If this is so, why would Jesus need to save Himself if He had no sin? B. Question: If Jesus needed to save Himself, then that means He was not without defect. If that is the case, then how can he be a pure and unblemished sacrifice? Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God," (John 20:28). He was not sinning by using God's name in vain. A. Question: Can you, like Thomas, say to Jesus, "My Lord and my God."? B. Question: If you do call Jesus your Lord and your God, since you believe Jesus is a creation, isn't that idolatry? C. Question: If you do call Jesus your Lord and your God, is Jesus the true God or not? D. Question: If you do not call Jesus you Lord and your God, why not? It is biblical. Jude 4 says, "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." A. Question: Can you call Jesus your only Master and Lord? B. Question: If you do call Jesus your only Master and Lord, then what about God the Father? Is He not also your Lord and Master? C. Question: If you call Jesus your "only" Lord and Master, aren't you committing idolatry? D. Question: If you do not call Jesus your only Lord and Master, then aren't you disobeying the truth of God's word? John 1:12 says, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name," A. Question: Have you received Jesus? In Matt. 11:28 Jesus says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." The rest He is referring to is rest from the law, from trying to please God by your deeds. A. Question: Have you gone to Jesus and rested are or you still trying to please God enough to be saved? B. Question: If you have gone to Jesus, how did you do this? In prayer to Jesus? When we sin, we sin against God because it is His law we are breaking. He is the one who must forgive us because we have offended Him. The one offended is the one who forgives. Someone or something else doesn't forgive us for our sins against God, only God can do that. A. Question: How is it that Jesus is the one who forgives sins (Luke 5:20) if Jesus is not God, the one who is offended? B. Question: If you state that it is because Jesus was given authority by God to forgive sins (Matt. 28:19), then have you gone to Jesus and asked Him to forgive you of your sins? Remember, to do that, you must pray to Jesus. Is it right to pray to a creature?

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

Has God performed the greatest act of love? 692

This is an unusual question. Has God performed the greatest act of love? It is a question designed to provoke deeper thought on the nature of God and what He has done in our lives. God is love (1 John 4:8). So, I ask if God been as loving as is possible? The answer would depend on whether or not you are a Christian. Jesus tells us what the greatest act of love is. He said in John 15:13, Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." To Christadelphians, Jesus is not God. He is a creation with a fallen and sinful nature. Yet it is Jesus who sacrificed Himself for others. According to Jesus' own words He Himself has performed the greatest act of love. His sacrifice is even more monumental and loving when we consider that He bore hour sins in his body on cross (1 Pet. 2:24). Undoubtedly, Jesus performed the greatest act of love. However, if you are the Christadelphian, then Jesus is not God. This would mean that Jesus, being a created thing, has performed a greater act of love than God Himself. It would mean that in Christadelphianism, Jesus who is a creature, has actually out performed God Himself. That would mean that God is not one who neither has nor can perform the greatest act of love. On the other hand, in Trinitarianism, God is the one who has performed the greatest act of love. This is because in the doctrine of the Trinity we have Jesus, God in flesh, second person of the Trinity, who laid His life down for His friends. In this, God has indeed performed the greatest act of love, not a creature. And since God is love, is it not fair to expect that the infinite God who is all powerful can fulfill the very words He inspired as truth? When someone sins against you and you intend to forgive him, is it right to appoint someone else to be the one who forgives that person or must you do it yourself? Is it more loving for you to appoint another who is uninvolved in the offense against you to make satisfaction? Or, must you make satisfaction yourself? Is it a greater love to have a creature die for offenses suffered against God, or for God to bear the act and work of forgiveness Himself? The answer should be obvious. In Christadelphian theology, God is less a lover of our souls than the God of Trinitarianism. So, please Christadelphian, tell me why I should give up my Savior God (Titus 1:3) who loved me enough to sacrifice Himself for me, for a system of belief for a god who cannot and has not performed the greatest act of love? You want me to give up God as my Savior, for a creature. I want you to give up a creature for God. Only God saves us from sins. No creature can do that. You must receive Jesus (John 1:12). You must fellowship with Jesus (1 John 1:9). You must put your faith in the Jesus who is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; 1 Cor. 1:2 ); called God (Heb. 1:8; John 20:28); who is the First and Last (Rev. 1:17); who cleanses from sins (1 John 1:7); who discloses Himself to us (John 14:21); who draws all people to Himself (John 12:32); who gives eternal life (John 10:28); who opens the mind to understand scripture (Luke 24:45); who reveals grace and truth (John 1:17); etc. Which Savior is true, Jesus the creator, or Jesus the creature? Which can save you from your sins, Creator, or creature? Please come to Jesus, God in flesh, Savior. Who are you going to put your trust in?

693

694

Christian Science
Introduction

Christian Science is an interesting religion started by Mary Baker Eddy. It teaches a non-personal God, that sin is an illusion, that there is no devil, and that evil and good are not real. All is in interpretation of divine mind. Christian Science is far from Christian even though it uses the Bible. But, it distorts the biblical truths by severely changing the meanings of biblical words. Though this cult is not very large in the United States, it has deceived many thousands.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What are some of the aberrant teachings of Christian Science? p. 696 Why is Christian Science not Christian? p. 698 What are the CS meanings of Christ, devil, heaven, pastor, and salvation? pp. 699-700 What are some verses that show that Jesus is the Christ? pp. 701 Which questions would you ask a Christian Scientist? p. 704

695

What does Christian Science Teach?

The following doctrines are referenced out of the primary Christian Science work, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy. It is supposed to be a companion to the Bible. Science and Health together with the Bible are called the Pastor of Christian Science. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. God is infinite...and there is no other power or source, S&H, 471:18. God is Universal Principle, S&H 331:18-19 God cannot indwell a person, S&H 336:19-20 God is the only intelligence in the universe, including man S&H 330:11-12 God is Mind, S&H 330:20-21; 469:13 God is the Father-Mother, S&H 331:30; 332:4 The Trinity is Life, Truth, and Love, S&H 331:26 Belief in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is polytheism, S&H 256:9-11 Christ is the spiritual idea of sonship, S&H 331:30-31 Jesus was not the Christ, S&H 333:3-15; 334:3 "Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared..." S&H 361:12-13 Jesus did not reflect the fullness of God, S&H 336:20-21 Jesus did not die, S&H 45:32-46:3 The Holy Spirit is divine science, S&H 331:31 There is no devil, S&H 469:13-17 There is no sin, S&H 447:24 Evil and good are not real, S&H, 330:25-27; 470:9-14 Matter, sin, and sickness are not real, but only illusions," S&H 335:7-15; 447:27-28. Life is not material or organic, "S&H, 83:21 The sacrifice of Jesus was not sufficient to cleanse from sin, "S&H, 25:6. True healings are the result of true belief, "S&H, 194:6" Additionally, Christian Scientists prefer not to use doctors, medicine, or immunizations. Christian Science Practitioners are used to help people through the false reality of illness. Proper prayer and training are employed to battle the "non-reality" of illness. They have no ordinances like the Lord's Supper or baptism. Church services are interspersed with Bible reading and readings from Science and Health. Mary Baker Eddy is highly regarded as a revelator of God's word, almost equal to Jesus.

696

Christian Science History

Christian Science was founded by a woman named Mary Baker Eddy. She was born Mary Ann Morse Baker in New Hampshire in 1821. (She died in 1910.). She was the daughter of a New Hampshire Congregationalist church member. As a child, she was frequently ill and highly emotional. She is said to have been "domineering, quarrelsome, and extremely self centered.1 2 0 At age 22, she married George Glover. He died seven months later. She then married Dr. Daniel Patterson, but that marriage failed in divorce. In 1862, while suffering from an illness, she visited a man named Phineas Quimby. He taught a system of healing dealing with the mind. He taught that the mind had the power to heal the body. He exerted a significant influence on her thinking regarding spiritual matters. In 1866, she fell and was seriously injured and she was not expected to recover. She apparently read Matt. 9:2 ("And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee") and experienced a miraculous cure. It was this experience that convinced her of the truth of Christian Science. She first published "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" in 1875, when she was 54. She claimed it was the final revelation of God to mankind and asserted that her work was inspired of God. The word "Key" in the title of her book is in reference to her being the woman of Revelation 12; that she is the key to unlocking the Bible which she called a dark book. She claimed the Bible had many mistakes and that her writings provided the "Key" spoken of in Rev. 3:7. She married Asa Eddy in 1877. In 1879, four years after the first publication of Science and Health, Mary Baker Eddy and some of her students voted organized the church of Christ (Scientist) in Boston Massachusetts. Of course, like all cults, it claimed to be the restoration of the original New Testament Church. In 1881 she opened a metaphysical college and charged $300 for 12 healing lessons. The Church was reorganized in 1892, and the Church Manual was first issued in 1895 which provided the structure for church government and missions. She died in 1910, a millionaire.

120

The Religious Bodies of America, by F. E. Meyer. Concordia Publishing House, Saint Louis, Missouri. 1961. P. 532.

697

Is Christian Science Christian?

Of all the biblically based cults in America today, Christian Science is one of the most interesting. Not only does it deny the essential doctrines of Christianity, but it has completely reinterpreted the Bible. It drastically redefines the Bibles culture and terminology and rips thousands of scriptures out of their historical and biblical contexts. The result is a non-Christian mixture of metaphysical and philosophical thoughts. Christian Science is so foreign to the Bible that, if it didnt use words like Jesus, Trinity, Love, Grace, Sin, etc., youd never suspect it had anything to do with the Bible at all. Additionally, the book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, which is the Christian Scientists mainstay of spiritual knowledge, reads with a rhythm of pseudo logical statements that has the tendency to dull the senses when read long enough. Is Christian Science Christian? Definitely not. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is the primary interpretive source of the Bible and source guide of Christian Science. It interprets the Bible in a radically different way. It is so different, in fact, that it absolutely rejects the substitutionary atonement of Jesus and states that it had no efficacious value (S&H, 25:6). It denies that Jesus is God, second person of the Trinity (S&H, 361:1213). It says that sin is a false interpretation of Divine Mind and is nonexistent (S&H, 335:7-15). And it says that the Holy Spirit is Divine Science which is best represented by Christian Science (S & H, 331:31). The list can go on and, unfortunately, it does. To the Christian Scientist, God (the Father-Mother) is a Principle known as the Divine Mind. It has no personhood and no personality. A catch phrase used in their literature is that God is "All in All." In other words, God is all that exists and what we perceive as matter is an interpretation of divine mind. Since God is love, it means that sin and sickness are only errors of interpreting the Divine Mind and have no true reality (S & H, 330:25-274; 470:9-14). To the Christian Scientist, Jesus is a Way-shower. He is someone who epitomized the true principle of the Christ Consciousness which indwells us all. Therefore, Jesus did not really die on the cross. He was not God in flesh. He made no atonement in shedding His blood (S&H, 25:6). Christian Science teaches that man does not have a sinful nature and is a reflection of Divine Mind. To achieve "salvation," he needs only to find the true reality of understanding, as revealed in Christian Science teachings. Unfortunately, these teachings are from Mary Baker Eddy a woman who founded the religion in the 1870's and not from God. The Christian Scientists consider their philosophy to be consistent with the original teachings of Jesus. They consider truth a matter of higher understanding and learning. But the reality is that Christian Science has only produced unbiblical and false doctrines. Eternal destruction is the only thing that will result from its false teaching. The fires of hell will be a bitter reality for those who have been taught that they dont exist.

698

Terms and Definitions of Christian Science

1. Angels are Gods thoughts passing to man, an inspiration of goodness, purity that counters evil and material reality. 2. Atonement is not the shedding of Christs blood, but "At-one-ment." "Lifting the whole man into Christ Consciousness." The Biblical account is metaphorical, not real. 3. Baptism means the daily, ongoing purification of thought and deed. Eucharist is spiritual communion with God, celebrated with silent prayer and Christian living. It is a "submergence in Spirit." 4. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the belief that God created disharmony in the world. 5. Body is "the form of expression of both spirit and soul" (Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, p. 628). It is the apparent materialization of the limits of soul as influenced by a persons conscious development in Christian Science Principles. 6. Christ is the divine idea man. Jesus was not the Christ but a perfect representation of the Christ consciousness that is the true and higher self of every person. Christ is the manifestation of all that is good and true, the realization of divine principle. A Christian Scientist can say, "I am Christ." 7. Creation is the product of Divine Mind. There is only one reality which emanates and is part of the Divine Mind. Anything that is not in harmony with the Divine Mind is not a reality, but a lack of understanding of the principles of divine mind brought about by people. 8. Death - "An illusion, the lie of life in matter." 9. Devil - "Evil, a lie, error." He is not an entity, not a person, has no existence. "A belief in sin, sickness, and death." 10. Evil spirits are false beliefs 11. Flesh - "An error of physical belief; a supposition that life, substance, and intelligence are in matter; an illusion." 12. Gods - "A belief that life, substance, and intelligence are both mental and material; a supposition of sentient physicality. 13. God is Spirit who is a ever-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, and good. God is the Father/Mother God. Other names for God are Divine Mind, Soul, Principle, Life, Truth, Love. To the Christian Scientist God is the governing Principle of the universe to which a person must harmonize his belief system. 14. Healing is accomplished by correct thinking according to Christian Science principles. A change in belief that affects physical symptoms. (SH p. 194:6) 15. Heaven is not a literal place of eternal bliss, but a harmonious condition of understanding where a persons consciousness is in harmony with Divine Mind. "Harmony; the reign of Spirit; government of divine Principle." 16. Hell is a state of mind which can include the effects of their improper understanding of Divine Mind and Christian Science Principles. Hell is not a literal place of damnation and eternal torment. Hell exists when a persons thoughts are out of harmony with the reality of Divine Mind. "Mortal belief, error; lust; hatred, sin; sickness; effects of sin." 17. Holy Spirit, the, is Divine Science. is the spirit of God and is only discernable and knowable by a person through his spiritual awareness. It is an emanation, a presence, "a law of God in action." 18. Jesus stripes is simply his rejection of error, not the beating he received in the flesh (S&H, 20:15). 19. Knowledge - "Evidence obtained from the five corporeal senses; mortality; beliefs and opinions. The opposite of spiritual Truth and understanding." (S. H. 590). 20. Material reality is really non-existent. It is only an interpretation of Divine Mind. Even though someone might feel pain or sickness, in reality it does not exist. 21. Mortal Mind - "Nothing claiming to be something, for Mind is immortal; error creating other errors." 22. Pastor really means the combined books of the Bible and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.

699

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

Personhood is an aspect and reflection of Divine Mind. Prayer is contemplation and internalization of divine truths. "The taking hold of Gods willingness." It is an affirmation of Gods being in relation to man. Resurrection is "Spiritualization of thought; a new and higher idea of immortality, or spiritual existence; material belief yielding to spiritual understanding." Salvation is "Life, Truth, and Love understood and demonstrated as supreme over all; sin, sickness, and death destroyed." Sickness is the false understanding given the appearance of reality by the unfaithful and ignorant of Divine Principle and Mind. Sin is not understanding and behaving according to Divine Law of God and the law of our being. Soul is "mans consciousness -- that which he has apprehended or developed out of Spirit. . . Soul is both conscious and subconscious" (Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, p. 628). Spirit is another name for God. Divine substance; Mind; divine Principle; all that is good." Christ Wrath is really the working out of the law of Gods being upon a person. It is not Gods judgment upon a sinner.

700

Jesus is the Christ

One of the errors of Christian Science is the belief that the Christ is the "divine-idea man." It is a principle that dwells within each and everyone of us. Christian Science denies that Jesus was the Christ, (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, 333:3-15; 334:3.) The Bible declares in 1 John 2:22, "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?" It is apparent from the following verses, that Christian Science is not telling the truth about Jesus.

1.

Jesus is the Christ A. Matt. 16:16, "And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." B. Acts 5:42, "And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ." C. See also, Matt. 16:20; Luke 9:20; John 20:31; Acts 3:20; 9:22; 18:5; 18:28. 2. Jesus called Himself the Christ A. John 4:25-26, "The woman *said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us." 26Jesus *said to her, "I who speak to you am He." 3. The Christ was born A. Matt. 1:16, "and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." See also Matt. 2:4; Luke 2:11. 4. Christ did works A. Matt. 11:2, "Now when John in prison heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples." 5. Christ is the Son of David. A. Mark 12:35, "And Jesus answering began to say, as He taught in the temple, "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?" 6. Christ suffered A. Luke 24:26, "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" See also Luke 24:46; Acts 26:23. 7. Christ rose from the dead A. Acts 17:3, "explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ." 8. Christ was resurrected A. Acts 2:31, "he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay." 9. Christ is a Son A. Heb. 3:6, "but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end." 10. Christ has a body A. Rom. 7:1, "Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God." 11. Christ has a body and blood A. 1 Cor. 10:16, "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" 12. Christ became a curse for us A. Gal. 3:13, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for usfor it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree."

701

13. Christ died A. Gal. 2:21, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." See also, 1 Cor. 8:12. 14. Christ can be sinned against A. 1 Cor. 8:12, "And thus, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ." 15. Christ bore the sins of many A. Heb. 9:28, "so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." See also 1 Cor. 15:23-24.

702

Interesting Quotes from Mary Baker Eddy from Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures
"One sacrifice, however great, is insufficient to pay the debt of sin. The atonement requires constant self-immolation on the sinners part. That Gods wrath should be vented upon His beloved Son, is divinely unnatural. Such a theory is man- made," (S&H, p. 23:3-7). "The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon the accursed tree, than when it was flowing in his veins as he went daily about his Fathers business," (S&H, 25:6-8). "His disciples believed Jesus to be dead while he was hidden in the sepulcher, whereas he was alive . . ." (S&H, p. 44:28-29). ". . . his body was not changed until he himself ascended, or, in other words, rose even higher in the understand of Spirit, God . . .and this exaltation explained his ascension, and revealed unmistakably a probationary and progressive state beyond the grave" (S&H, p. 46:15-17; 20-24). "His students then received the Holy Ghost. By this is meant, that by all they had witnessed and suffered, they were roused to an enlarged understanding of divine Science" (S&H, p. 46:30-32). "A scientific mental method is more sanitary than the use of drugs, and such a mental method produces permanent health," (S&H, 79:7-9). "It is contrary to Christian Science to suppose that life is either material or organically spiritual" (S&H, 83:21-22). "The admission to ones self that man is Gods own likeness sets man free to master the infinite idea" (S&H 90:24-25). "The theory of three person in one God (that is, a personal Trinity or Tri-unity) suggest polytheism . . ." (S&H, p. 256:9-11). "Father-Mother is the name for Deity, which indicates His tender relationship to His spiritual creation," (S&H, p. 332:4-5.). "The word Christ is not properly a synonym for Jesus, thought it is commonly so used" (S&H, p. 333:3-4). "Mind is the I AM, or infinity. Mind never enters the finite. . .but infinite Mind can never be in man . . .a portion of God could not enter man," (S&H, p 336:1-2,13,19-20). ". . . and recognize that Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared, but is the Son of God," (S&H, p 361:11-13). Speaking of Gen. 2:7, "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being," Eddy says, "Is this addition to His creation real or unreal? Is it the truth, or is it a lie concerning man and God? It must be a lie, for God presently curses the ground..."(S&H, p. 524:13-27). In describing what the Devil is, it says, "Evil; a lie; error; neither corporeality nor mind; the opposite of Truth; a belief in sin, sickness, and death; animal magnetism or hypnotism; the lust of the flesh, which saith: I am life and intelligence in matter. There is more than one mind, for I am mind, a wicked mind, self-made or created by a tribal god and put into the opposite of mind, termed matter, thence to reproduce a mortal universe, including man, not after the image and likeness of Spirit, but after its own image," (S&H, p. 584:17-25). "If there had never existed such a person as the Galilean Prophet, it would make no difference to me," (The First Church of Christ Scientist and Miscellany, pp. 318, 319).

703

Questions to Ask Christian Scientists

1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

7. 8. 9.

If God is all in all, then where did evil come from? If everything is an interpretation of divine mind, then why do people have different understandings of God? If sickness is an illusion, why do you have practitioners who go out to Christian Scientists in attempts to heal them? If sin is not real, then why does the Bible say that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23)? As well as, "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us," (1 John 1:8). In Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, Mary Baker Eddy said, "The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon the accursed tree, than when it was flowing in his veins as he went daily about his Fathers business." Why would she contradict so plainly the teaching of Scripture that says, "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). Why would Mary Baker Eddy directly contradict the Jesus own claim of Himself? She said that "Jesus is not God, as Jesus himself declared, but the Son of God." (S & H 361:12-13). Is she calling Jesus a liar? If "Man is incapable of sin, sickness, and death" as Eddy said in Science and Health 475:28, then why do people die? Why does the Bible say that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23)? Why would Mrs. Eddy say Jesus did not die (S&H 45:32-46:3) when the Bible clearly teaches that He died (Rom. 8:34; 1 Thess. 4:13; 1 Cor. 8:11; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 1:7). If our physical senses do not tell us the truth about the material world then how can we trust them when we read the book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures or hear its message with our ears?

704

Shepherds Chapel Introduction

The Shepherds Chapel is a new movement on TV and radio. It is spreading through the abrasive and rough styled preacher called Arnold Murray. Is it Christian?

1. 2. 3. 4.

Does Shepherd's Chapel affirm the Trinity? p. 708 Did we exist as souls prior to Adam's creation? p. 710 What does Shepherd's Chapel say about the Kenites? p. 711 What does Shepherd's Chapel say about the Rapture? p. 713

705

What is the Shepherd's Chapel?

Shepherd's Chapel is an independent Church in Gravette, Ark, which is the product of the gentleman by the name of Arnold Murray. Arnold Murray is an avid Bible teacher with a radio and television ministry found on over 200 TV stations. However, what Arnold Murray teaches in many areas of theology is his own brand of Christianity. In fact, it is not Christian at all in at least one very important essential; he denies the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a serious error for him as it is a denial of the true and living God. Murray teaches the heresy known as modalism, that God is one person who takes three forms: the Father who became the Son who became the Holy Spirit. Also, the Shepherd's Chapel teaches what is called the Christian Identity movement. This is the belief that the British and, therefore, the Americans and Canadians, are the true descendants of the ancient Israelites the 10 lost tribes. This later doctrine is very often used to by militia groups support racist ideologies. It is no surprise, therefore, to find that the Shepherd's Chapel s against interracial marriages. I am not here saying that the Shepherd's Chapel teaches racism, but their denial of interracial marriage is unbiblical. Mr. Murray goes through the Bible verse by verse adding his own interpretations and using the Strong's concordance to support his position. Those who do not understand God's word, and those who have very little biblical training are easily swayed by the pseudo logic and Greek word explanations Murray uses to support his positions. One comment that is very revealing is that the people who follow Murray are very often just as rude and condescending as he is. They, like their teacher, regularly call others liars, deceivers, idiots, losers, etc. Murray is full of quick, condescending remarks about anyone who disagrees with him. Unfortunately, it is rubbing off on his followers. I would like to add that obtaining specific information from Shepard's Chapel is very difficult. I have gleaned as much as I could from their website, from reading other web sites about Shepherd's Chapel, and from going over the newsletters from Arnold Murray. The statement of faith on their web site is not very descriptive and I think it is this way on purpose. I strongly recommend that Christians and non-Christians alike stay away from this pseudo-Christian group.

706

Who is Arnold Murray?

Arnold Murray is the "pastor" of a church called the Shepherd's Chapel out of Gravette, Ark, with over 200 television stations carrying his ministry. Mr. Murray presents himself a Christian scholar, calls himself "Dr.", and says he is an ex- marine who served in the Korean war where he was wounded. Unfortunately, proof of his doctorate degree is not available. He refuses to provide any documentation regarding his scholastic achievements. In fact, getting any information on Mr. Murray is very difficult. He is rather private about his personal history and has refused to provide any biographical information about himself. What we learn of Mr. Murray is what he tells us on his television show and his website. It is immaterial whether or not Mr. Murray has a doctorate. He does not need one to be an adequate teacher. But since he refers to himself as "Dr.", it would be nice to know from what institution he received his credentials. Mr. Murray stated that when he was young he attended many different churches and that he has incorporated some of the teachings of these different churches into his current theology. Again, these different churches are not mentioned. I would be very curious to know which ones they were, especially if some of them were non-Christian cults. Mr. Murray, or Pastor Murray, as his followers call him, teaches a brand of Christianity with many problems. Mr. Murray denies the doctrine of the Trinity, denies the existence of hell and the rapture. When watching his television show it becomes quickly evident that he is a bit condescending to those whom he claims are misled, something that seems to have rubbed off on his followers. He justifies this approach by stating that he was in the Marines and learned how to "teach his troops" with discipline. It seems his approach is lacking the humility and grace of the Holy Spirit. Even the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, a secular religious analysis organization, admits that Murray made a false prophecy. Mr. Arnold Murray also frequently refers to the Christian identity movement which teaches that the British and, therefore, the Americans and Canadians, are the true descendants of the ancient Israelites the 10 lost tribes. Jews in Israel are really descended from Cain who was the result of sexual intercourse between Eve and Satan. Murray also teaches that all people had a pre-existence in spiritbodies before they were born here on earth. Mr. Murray supports his off-base theological positions by interpreting verses in light of his preconceived ideas, sometimes stripping biblical verses out of their context. He also selectively appeals to the Strong's concordance, cites what Greek and Hebrew words mean, and weaves his theological positions into the text. In reality, all he has done is justify his ideas through his unsound interpretive techniques. This is similar to the methodology used by the Watchtower magazine of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that Mr. Murray deviates from orthodoxy in some significant areas (i.e., trinity), that he is cryptic about his qualifications and experience, that he is often rudely condemning those who do not agree with him, and his non-biblically based teachings are all signs of a false teacher. I recommend that you stay far away from this man and the Shepherd's Chapel.

707

What does the Shepherd's Chapel teach?

The Shepherd's Chapel is, at the very least, a controversial church with many unorthodox teachings. The following list of teachings from the Shepherd's Chapel is derived from scouring the Internet, chat rooms, bulletin boards, asking the followers of Arnold Murray, and looking at the Shepherd's Chapel web site. The Shepherd's Chapel is considered to be a non-Christian cult by many people. 1. Unorthodox A. Denies the Trinity and teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are really three offices held by the one God. B. Denies the existence of eternal Hell. C. Denies the doctrine of the rapture. D. Denies physical resurrection of believers. We will be raised spiritually. E. Teaches annihilationism: non-existence after death for sinners. F. Teaches that certain Old Testament kosher laws regarding meat should be followed. G. Teaches Serpent Seed doctrine: Eve had literal sexual relations with the serpent. H. The offspring of Eve's impregnation resulted in Cain, Satan's offspring. I. The Kenites are the tares of the parable of the wheat and the tares. J. Satan's fallen angels impregnated women around the time of Noah. K. Interracial marriage is wrong. L. Being born again is to enter into this body from a spiritual body of another age. M. America and Britain are the lost tribes of Israel. N. People were alive in a pre-existence. O. There was an earth age prior to Adam where a race of people lived. P. The Rapture is a false doctrine. Orthodox A. Satan is a literal being. B. Jesus will return. C. Jesus will set up a future millennial kingdom. D. The Bible is the inerrant word of God. E. The earth is millions of years old.

2.

708

Is the Shepherd's Chapel Christian?

In order to ascertain whether or not something is Christian, we must first understand what makes something Christian in the first place. Throughout history, the Christian Church has gleaned from God's word those essential doctrines that if denied, place the person outside the camp of Christ. Following are three of the essential doctrines declared by Scripture as being necessary. In other words, to deny any of these is to deny the heart of Christianity and be outside the camp of Christ. 1. The Deity of Christ A. Jesus is God in flesh (John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14). See also John 1:1,14; 8:24; 10:30-33. i. 1 John 4:2-3: "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." a. The above verse needs to be cross referenced with John 1:1,14 (also written by John) where he states that the Word was God and the Word became flesh. b. 1 John 4:2-3 is saying that if you deny that Jesus is God in flesh then you are of the spirit of Antichrist. Salvation by Grace A. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-9, NIV). i. "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace," (Gal. 5:4). The Resurrection of Christ A. "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith," (1 Cor. 15:14). "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins," (1 Cor. 15:17). B. To deny the physical resurrection is to deny Jesus' work, sacrifice, and our resurrection.

2.

3.

There are other doctrines such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin birth, etc., are derivatively necessary. But these are the ones in the scripture that are declared, by the Bible, as being essential. The derivative doctrines like the Trinity are orthodox and accurate teachings from the Bible. Shepherd's Chapel denies Jesus' Resurrection The most important doctrinal issue that the Shepherd's Chapel deviates on is the physical resurrection of Jesus. The shepherds Chapel teaches that Jesus rose in a spirit body, not the same physical body that he died in. Because of this, the Shepherd's Chapel is not Christian. Note: I have received conflicting information on this issue of Jesus' resurrection in regard to the Shepherd's Chapel. Therefore, I will revise this paper if I discover that the Shepherd's Chapel affirms Christ's physical resurrection. However, the fact that I have discovered conflicting information on this issue is very problematic. The Shepherd's Chapel should be very clear on the issue of the resurrection since it is a vital Christian doctrine. Its statement of faith says that Jesus rose from the dead, but does not tell us what it means by that statement. Shepherd's Chapel denies the Trinity The second problematic issue with this church is its denial of the Trinity. The Bible teaches that there is one God in three persons: Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Shepherd's Chapel teaches modalism, the idea that God is one person who took different forms or modes. The Christian church long condemned modalism as contrary to sound biblical theology. The Shepherd's Chapel is at best a very aberrant Christian church and at worst, a cult. Since it appears to deny the physical resurrection of Christ, it would seem to be non-Christian.

Did we exist as souls prior to Adam's creation? 709

One of the several false doctrines of the Shepherd's Chapel is the teaching that all people had an existence prior to being here on earth in what is called the first earth age. According to Shepherd's Chapel, there are three earth ages: First: Beginning of all things up to fall of Satan. This fall caused incredible destruction and waste. We pre-existed the earthly existence in soul bodies. Those preexistent ones who rebelled against Lucifer and sided with God are called the elect. Gen. 1:1. Second: After the fall of Satan, God had to remake the world. It consists of Gen. 1:2 through Revelation where all the world, except the elect, will accept the antichrist. Third: Begins with the establishment of the millennium, proceeds through its end, and extends into eternity. During the millennium, the elect are in spirit bodies, not physical ones.

These "ages" are based, in part, on what is called the Gap Theory. The Gap Theory states that between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 was a huge gap of time. The theory goes that there was a great destruction in verse one and a great rebuilding in verse two. This gap is also claimed to encompass the geologic epochs in which the dinosaurs lived. The Shepherd's Chapel teaches that we were created in the first earth age, a time before the fall, where we existed in the form of soul bodies. The problem with this is that there is no biblical support for this position. In fact, the Bible contradicts this soul-body idea. "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven," (1 Cor. 15:44-47). Paul is teaching here that the first "body" we have is the natural, or the physical body. After that comes the spiritual body which is a resurrected body. Paul is telling us about our existence, about our bodies, and about the order of their existence. Clearly, the teaching that we had soul-bodies prior to this life is wrong. The Shepherd's Chapel position is simply not biblical.

710

The serpent seed and the Kenites

Two additional distinguishing and erroneous doctrines of the Shepherd's Chapel are known as the Serpent Seed doctrine and the Kenite doctrine. These are intimately related. The Serpent Seed doctrine is the teaching that in the Garden of Eden, the serpent (the devil) had sexual relations with Eve. The result was that she bore Cain. The descendents of Cain are called Kenites. Abel, however, is the result of Adam and Eve having relations. Arnold Murray, the pastor of the Shepherd's Chapel, is the primary advocate of these doctrines which he adamantly teaches and which his followers have adopted as biblical truth. Mr. Murray states, When you look for the in-depth meaning of "men as trees, walking", you are able to see that Christ wants us to understand there are plantings of God and plantings of the devil. The plantings of that wicked one began in the Garden of Eden with the conception of Cain and follow down through his progeny, the Kenites. (Newsletter #195, Jan 1995. See also, #202, August 1995). The Kenites, according to Mr. Murray, must be exposed. "We must continue to teach who the Kenites are," says Mr. Murray, (Newsletter #190, August 1994). He states that the Kenites survived the flood (he denies the global flood) and are found in the lineage of Israel, not Judah, (Newsletter #179, Sept. 1993). Eventually, the Kenites permeated the nation of Israel and are the ones who shouted "Crucify Him," in reference to Jesus, (Newsletter #179, Sept. 1993). In an attempt at biblical support, on his website at Answers to Critics, Mr. Murray states: In Gen. 3:15 God is speaking to the serpent, "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel." Mr. Murray infers that when God says "thy seed" to Satan, He is referring to the Kenites, the descendents of Cain which were literally produced through the literal "seed" of Satan. Of course, I disagree with Mr. Murray in his analysis. We do not really know exactly what form Satan was in the Garden, though I will submit to God's word and affirm it was a snake of some sort. The word "serpent" is "nachash" and means serpent or snake. If we take the word literally and it means snake, then Mr. Murray would be forced to explain how a literal snake could have sexual intercourse with Eve. If Mr. Murray were to acknowledge the potential of a figurative usage of the term here, then he needs to explain why the term "serpent" would be figurative and the term "seed" would be literal. Furthermore, if the serpent were Satan in a different form, and Eve spoke to the serpent, then did Eve have sex with a snake or with a different form of the snake; that is, did the snake change into another more apropos form to consummate his deception? If so, wouldn't Eve have been suspicious of a talking snake that changes form into something else with which she then agrees to sexual intercourse? As you can see, the issue, from Mr. Murray's perspective, is wrought with problems -- none of which he has answered. Nevertheless, his entire position is easily refuted when we examine Gen. 4:1: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord." We can see that the Bible clearly tells us who the Father of Cain is: Adam. The Serpent Seed idea is proven wrong. In addition, I believe that it is more natural to attribute the term "seed" in Gen. 3:15 as a reference to the spiritual decedents of Satan, not his literal ones. We can see that being a true spiritual descendent is by faith, not by biology. "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God," (Rom. 2:28-29). "For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God," (Rom. 8:14).

711

"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him," (Rom. 8:16). "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants," (Rom. 9:8).

Clearly, being a descendent has a spiritual quality. Likewise, Satan's descendents are those who identify with him in his lies. This is why Jesus said in John 8:44 to the Pharisees, "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies." In addition, "seed" is also referred to as the word of God (Matt. 13:18-23; Luke 8:11; 1 Pet. 1:23) and as the spiritual life in (1 John 3:9). The whole flavor of spiritual identification with God is included in terms of being the offspring of God (Gal. 3:29; Acts 17:28) and the children of God (Rom. 8:1617). Consider 1 John 3:9 which says, "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Obviously, the Christian does not contain the literal seed of God in him. Seed here, must refer to a spiritual element of indwelling, of ideology, and of faith. The Christian does not practice sin. It is against his beliefs and confession. Therefore, God's seed abides in the Christian, but it isn't literal seed as a descendent through procreation, but through spiritual identification. Us against Them The Serpent Seed doctrine is an unscriptural and unfortunate teaching. From it is derived an "us against them" mentality in which anyone who disagrees with Mr. Murray can easily be accused of being a Kenite. This is obvious in some of his quotes: "How many today are teaching from a quarterly written by a Kenite, rather than teaching from God's Word? (Newsletter #193, Nov. 1994). How can we sum this up? If you are doing God's will, don't worry about criticism from others. "Well, Pastor Murray they say we are a cult." Who cares what they say? God is on our side. Victory is a certainty. Does it ever seem like the enemy is winning? Anytime you get to feeling this way, turn to Psalms 9. This Psalm tells us what we should be earnestly expecting. Keep the meaning of "apokaradokia" in mind as we read this Psalm. (Newsletter #229 - November 1997).

Of course, if you study with him you are not being deceived, but if you are studying elsewhere, you're studying with a Kenite or siding with the enemy. Such are the machinations of this leader who teaches false doctrines. Please be very wary of the Shepherd's Chapel.

712

Shepherd's Chapel and the rapture

The Shepherd's Chapel denies the doctrine of the rapture which is the teaching that upon the future return of Christ those Christians who are alive will be "caught up" to meet the Lord in the air. The word rapture is derived from the Latin "rapio" which means "to seize," "to snatch." The prima ry verses used to support this doctrine are found in 1 Thess. 4:16. "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." At the time of the rapture all Christians will be transformed bodily. According to 1 Cor. 15:51-52, "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed." There are three main theories to deal with when the rapture will occur in relation to the seven year tribulation period. They are known as pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, post-tribulation. In short, the difference between them is in respect to when the rapture will take place. Will it occur before the tribulation, at the midpoint of the tribulation, or at the end of the tribulation? Mr. Murray, in an attempt to support his erring doctrine, teaches that the word "clouds" in 1 Thessalonians is not referring to clouds in the sky but a gathering of people of like mind, a collection of witnesses who know the truth. Such interpretations are not consistent with the 1 Thess. passage. Accepting or denying the teaching of the rapture does not affect one's salvation. It is a doctrine that can be believed or not without any affect upon a person's position in Christ. Unfortunately, the Shepherd's Chapel teaching is rather harsh regarding the rapture. Mr. Murray, the pastor of the Shepherd's Chapel, states that the rapture is a false doctrine (Newsletter #193 - Nov, 1994) and that many who believe in the rapture will be deceived into worshiping the Antichrist (Newsletter #205, Nov. 1995). At one point Mr. Murray stated that 95 percent of the churches that teach the rapture will accept the antichrist as the savior (Newsletter #116, June 1988). Such statements are simply not sustainable from a biblical perspective. Nevertheless, please consider some more quotes from Mr. Murray regarding the rapture: 1. Teachers of the rapture are dangerous. A. "The false prophets promise salvation cheaply. ... They say, 'All you have to do is believe and then wait to be raptured out of here'. These are dangerous teachers, friends." (Newsletter #193 - Nov. 1994). Preachers have twisted the truth regarding the rapture. A. "Christ taught in their streets, but they weren't listening. You can hear it unto this day from the very pulpits that should be teaching truth. They have twisted the truth into teaching the rapture, the Easter bunny and the apple Eve ate in the Garden of Eden. These false teachings make those that accept this doctrine easy marks for Satan's bondage." (Newsletter #230 - Dec. 1997). False prophets teach the rapture A. The false prophets utilize the rapture as a security blanket. Placing words in God's mouth is very dangerous. Believing those words is also dangerous. Think for yourself. Believe only what God has said in the letter He wrote to you. (Newsletter #245 - March 1999, Men Say and God Says) The Rapture doctrine is from Satan. A. Yet, today we have false teachers leading people to Satan's doctrine of rapture from the very pulpits from which they should be hearing the doctrine of Jesus Christ. It is very appropriate that judgment begins at the pulpits. (Newsletter #253 - Nov. 1999). The Rapture is not in God's word but is from seducing spirits. A. The rapture is not in God's Word. God is against those seducing spirits who would teach His children to fly to save their souls. In conclusion, let's go to the Book of Mark. The disciples asked Jesus what it would be like when He returns at the Second Advent. Jesus gave us seven events that must transpire before His return. (Newsletter #262 - Aug. 2000)

2.

3.

4.

5.

713

6.

There will be no rapture A. There will be no rapture; however, if you believe the rapture theory, Satan might use this fact to deceive you. The false prophets promise salvation cheaply. ... They say, "All you have to do is believe and then wait to be raptured out of here". These are dangerous teachers, friends. (Newsletter #193 - November 1994, Prepare to Meet Your God)

As you can see, Mr. Murray adamantly denies the doctrine of the rapture and states that those who believe in it are greatly deceived since it is a doctrine of Satan. In reality, it is Mr. Murray who is deceived. He is perfectly free to deny the rapture doctrine. It isn't an essential teaching of the Bible. But, his condemnation of those who believe in it goes well beyond the admonitions of Rom. 14:5 which says, "...Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind."

714

An open letter to Arnold Murray of Shepherd's Chapel

Many followers of Arnold Murray have emailed me telling me that my criticisms of Dr. Murray are unfounded and erroneous. It is not my intention to misrepresent any person or group that I write about. If I have misrepresented Murray's teachings, then I have only my poor research to blame. I must admit, however, that it has been very difficult obtaining precise theological positions from Arnold Murray's information. Therefore, in my attempts to accurately represent the teachings of Arnold Murray and the Shepherd's Chapel, I am posting this open letter to Arnold Murray. I am politely requesting that Pastor Murray provide a response to the following list of statements. Of course, he is not obligated to do so and I assume that he will not. Nevertheless, if he does, I will post his response on this website, in totality, so that others might see what he really believes. I will also change the information on my site should any of his statements correct what I have on my site. In addition, if he were to respond to this request for doctrinal clarification, it could provide a m eans by which other apologetics research groups might be corrected should they be in error in what they have stated concerning Dr. Arnold Murray and the Shepherd's Chapel. Of course, he may certainly expand on the answers as he sees fit if he would be so kind as to answer. In order to verify that Dr. Murray has answered these, should he choose to, I request that the answers be placed on his website at shepherdschapel.com in a hidden directory that would be provided to me in an email. This way, I can assume that the answers are legitimate. Please note that I have purposely asked some questions in both a negative and positive manner. This is to avoid any confusion and to serve as verification of his position. This request was posted on the Internet on 9/26/2002. Any additional questions will be appended and dated. Arnold Murray, as teacher of the Shepherd's Chapel, do you affirm or deny the following? 1. The A. B. C. D. Bible The Bible is the only inspired word of God on earth. It is inerrant in the original documents. The Bible consists only of 66 books. The KJV is the only correct Bible to be used today. The Pauline epistles are the only New Testament scriptures meant for the Christians today. Comments:___________ Creation A. The universe was brought into existence by God. B. God transcends the universe, is within it as well as beyond it, but not part of it nor it part of Him. In other words, God is separate from the universe. C. Pantheism: The universe is identical to God and the combined laws and forces of the universe are God. The universe is divine since God is divine. D. Panentheism: The universe is contained within God. The universe is a part of God, but not all of God. E. The universe is has been affected by the fall of Adam with the introduction of sin. F. God created the universe in six literal, 24 hour days. G. God created the universe over long periods of time. H. Evolution is how God brought all the animal species into existence. Comments:___________ God A. There is only one God in all existence, in all times, in all locations. B. God is eternal. He is without beginning or end. C. God is a trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is co-eternal, copowerful, and co-equal with the other two. These three persons are eternally and simultaneously co-existent D. God is one person who manifests himself in three forms, modes, or offices and is not three persons. E. God is a single and absolute person. F. There are other legitimate gods in the universe, but we serve and worship only one of them. Comments:___________

2.

3.

715

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Jesus A. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary B. Jesus while on earth was both God and man. C. Jesus was only a man and was not divine. D. Jesus was only divine and not a man. E. Jesus is/was an angel who became a man. F. Jesus became God during his earthly ministry. G. Jesus is separate from the "Christ idea." H. Jesus is Melchizedek of the Old Testament. I. Jesus presently retains His two natures; He is presently both human and divine. J. Jesus died on the cross, was buried in a tomb, and rose physically from the dead. K. Jesus retained the wounds of His crucifixion ordeal. L. Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross. M. Jesus' sacrifice was substitutionary and vicarious. N. Jesus is presently in heaven sitting at the right hand of God the Father. Comments:___________ The Holy Spirit A. The Holy Spirit is the impersonal presence and/or force of God. B. The Holy Spirit is a person, the third person in the Godhead, coequal with the Father and the Son. Comments:___________ Man A. Man is by nature sinful. B. Man is by nature morally neutral. C. Man is by nature divine. D. People have the potential of becoming gods. E. Christians cannot be demon possessed. F. Christians can be demon possessed. G. People pre existed as spirits before coming to this world. H. Upon death, an individual ceases to exist. I. Upon death, an individual is still conscious. Comments:___________ Satan and fallen angels A. Satan is a fallen angel B. Demons are disembodied spirits of the offspring of the Nephilim of Genesis who were destroyed in the flood. C. Demons are fallen angels. D. Fallen angels had sexual relations with women and produced the Nephilim. Comments:___________ Sin A. Sin is rebellion against the law of God. B. Sin is improper thoughts about the divine nature of the universe. C. Sin is disharmony with the divine consciousness. Comments:___________ Salvation A. Forgiveness of sins before God is received completely by grace through faith in Christ and His work on the cross and not by any works of our own doing. B. Justification is the state of being declared righteous in God's sight and is received solely by faith. C. Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but is a mandatory practice for Christians. D. Water baptism is necessary in order to have one's sins forgiven. E. Water baptism must be done "in Jesus' name." F. Water baptism must be done "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." G. Water baptism is not for today. H. Salvation can be lost. I. Salvation cannot be lost. J. Salvation will result to all people who have ever lived. Comments:___________

716

10.

11.

12.

13.

Resurrection A. The resurrection of Christ was physical. In other words, Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in. B. Jesus was not raised physically, but spiritually. In other words, Jesus' physical body was not raised. C. Jesus was raised physically, but ascended into heaven spiritually, not physcially. D. Jesus is presently a man, yet also God, in bodily form. E. The Resurrection of the believers will be bodily. That is, they will be raised in the same bodies they die in, though the bodies will be glorified. F. The resurrection of the non-believers will be bodily. That is, they will be raised physically and cast into eternal hell. G. There is no physical resurrection of the believer. The believers are raised in spirit bodies, not their physical bodies. H. There is no physical resurrection of the unbelievers. They remain unconscious and/or are utterly destroyed so as to not exist. Comments:___________ Death and Judgment A. When a Christian dies he immediately goes to be with the Lord. B. When a Christian dies he does not exist anymore until God "remembers" him and resurrects him. C. When a person dies, he ceases to be conscious. D. When an unbeliever dies, he is annihilated. E. Unbelievers who are annihilated are raised spiritually to face judgment and then are annihilated again. F. Hell is an eternal place of conscious torment. G. People are conscious after death even though separated from their physical bodies. H. All people are annihilated after death. Comments:___________ Eschatology A. There will be a literal 7 year tribulation period before the millennium. B. There will be a literal man known as the antichrist who opposes God. C. We are in the millennial reign of Christ right now. D. We are not in the millennial reign of Christ right now. Instead, Jesus will return to establish a literal 1000 year reign on earth. E. After the millennium, a new heavens and a new earth will be made and eternity will begin. F. The rapture (that Christians will be caught up together in the air to meet the returning Lord Jesus) is the future occurrence where the Christians are caught up into the heavens to be with the Lord. G. The rapture (that Christians will be caught up together in the air to meet the returning Lord Jesus) is a false doctrine. H. Matthew 24 and most, if not all, of Revelation was fulfille d around 70 A.D. Comments:___________ Miscellaneous A. The charismatic gifts have ceased with the closing of the canon. B. The charismatic gifts have not ceased. C. God works primarily in dispensations throughout history. D. God works primarily in covenants throughout history. E. Saturday is the proper day of worship. F. We are free to worship on any day of the week. G. The flood of Noah was worldwide. Comments:___________

717

14.

Particulars related to Shepherd's Chapel A. There was an earth age prior to this age with pre-Adamic humanlike creatures. B. Our spirits preexisted before coming to this world. C. Being born again is to enter into this body from a spiritual body of another age. D. Eve had sexual relations with the serpent and produced Cain. E. The descendents of Cain are called the Kenites. F. Adam has sexual relations with the serpent. G. Salvation is found only in the Shepherd's Chapel's teachings. H. Shepherd's Chapel teaching is the proper and most correct teaching of any church. I. There are many people who are saved who are not members of Shepherd's Chapel. J. In Matt. 13, the parable of the wheat and the tares, are the first ones taken, taken by the antichrist? K. Satan is the tree of knowledge in Genesis. L. There are certain Old Testament Kosher laws that should be observed today. M. Interracial marriage is sinful. N. Interracial marriage is not sinful. O. The Kenites are the tares of the parable of the wheat and the tares. P. America and Britain are the lost tribes of Israel. Q. Arnold Murray is one of God's true teachers on earth today. R. The apostasy spoken of in 2 Thessalonians already occurred? Comments:___________

718

International Church of Christ

Introduction
The International Church of Christ (ICC) is a break-off of the Church of Christ denomination. The ICC is Christian in its basic theology but has some aberrant practices. The ICC was influenced by the discipling movement on the 1950's. Its roots can be traced back to 1967 to the Crossroads Church of Christ, in Gainesville Florida. The crossroads Church had a program on discipling which became known as the Crossroads Movement. It is out of this Crossroads connection that the present leader of the ICC, Kip McKeen, received his start. He and Roger Lamb were fired from the Houston, Texas, Church of Christ. Kip McKeen then found a Church in Boston MA, was asked to come on board and began what has come to be known as the Boston movement. The Boston Church grew by leaps and bounds due to its heavy discipling program. Soon other churches were being planted in the United States and then in England. The ICC did not become known as the "International Church of Christ" until 1993 and its headquarters became Los Angeles, California. The ICC considers Christian denominations to be sinful. They will cite biblical passages that speak of the apostles establishing one Church per city, and claim that there should only be one Church in each city. Of course, the one Church should be an ICC Church. As of the year 2001, the ICC claims to have over 400 churches with a membership of 130,000 worldwide in over 150 countries. The ICC considers itself to be "a family of Christian churches whose members are committed to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible." This commitment to biblical living includes a very strong emphasis on discipling. In fact, it is this overly strong emphasis on discipling that has drawn much criticism from outside the church as inside from those who were once were members. The ICC is Orthodox affirms the Trinity, salvation by grace, Jesus' virgin birth and physical resurrection, His deity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, heaven and hell, and much more. But, it deviates from orthodoxy in both its requirement of baptism as a necessary element for salvation and its heavy requirement of discipleship. According to the ICC, baptism must be done in their church with the person being baptized having an understand that baptism saves. Combined with this, the ICC method of discipleship includes strong accountability to other members of the church as a necessary element to be considered a Christian. According to the ICC, one cannot be a Christian if he is not a true disciple, and being a disciple must precede baptism. Therefore, the International Church of Christ tends to be very legalistic and controlling. Many of its former members attest to requirements that they confess their sins to their disciple leaders, that they submit to the decisions of their disciple "leaders" regarding dating, frequency of sexual relations for married couples, jobs to take, places to move, and so on. This discipling operation with in the ICC has drawn much criticism for its intrusive practices and has been labeled as a form of the brainwashing and psychological and emotional manipulation. There are numerous web sites on the Internet devoted to ex-members of the International Church of Christ who warn people not to be involved with the movement. There are also support groups to help those who have left to find healing and, hopefully, true Grace in Christ instead of legalism and bondage. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. What are two aberrant teachings/practices of the ICC? p. 720 How is their discipling methodology misapplied? p. 723 What is justification? p. 725 Is baptism necessary for salvation? Why or why not? pp. 727-730 What are some textual issues concerning Mark 16:9-20? pp. 731-732 Why is Acts 10:44-48 so important concerning baptism? p. 738 Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is essential to salvation? p. 739 Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism is essential to salvation? pp. 741-744

719

What does the International Church of Christ teach?

The international Church of Christ is Orthodox in most of its theology. It accepts and affirms the following doctrines. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Trinity is one God and three persons: Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The deity of Christ The deity of the Holy Spirit. The physical Resurrection of Christ The Bible is the inspired word of God and the ultimate source of authority. Baptism is for adults only. There is a literal Hell. Satan is a literal fallen Angel.

Aberrant Doctrines/Practices 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Baptism, by emersion, is essential to salvation. Baptism must be as a true "disciple" or it is not valid. Baptism must be performed in the International Church of Christ to be valid. Being a disciple is necessary to be a Christian. There should only be one Church in each city or town. The ICC is the true remnant of God's people as the true Church. Only ICC baptized members are saved. Sin lists of disciples are often kept. Heavy influence into the personal lives of disciples.

9.

720

Is the International Church of Christ a cult?

The answer to the question, "Is the International Church of Christ a cult?" depends on the definition of what makes a group a cult. The definition of a cult that CARM uses is a group that may or may not include the Bible in its set of authoritative scriptures. If it does include the Bible and it deviates from biblical doctrines sufficient to make salvation of no effect, then it is a cult. However, it is possible to have a truly Christian group that has cult like tendencies, such as the exercise of an abnormal amount of control over its people. This control may be centered around theological or social particulars. It is this issue of excessive control that to the international Church of Christ is known for. Add to this an exclusive attitude that it is the only true Church; it is no one wonder that the ICC has been labeled a cult by many people. Therefore, it is possible to have a Christian Church with cultic practices and still have it be, technically, Christian and aberrant. Additionally, the doctrines that make Christianity "Christian" are the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, the physical resurrection of Jesus, and salvation by grace. There can be deviations within Christianity on other issues such as the mode of baptism, frequency of communion, when the rapture will happen, etc. Usually, it is these sorts of non-essential issues which cause denominational splits. The International Church of Christ (ICC), does not deny any of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Aside from its requirements on baptism as a necessary part of salvation, it is Orthodox. Therefore, I do not categorize the ICC as a non-Christian cult. Rather, I see the ICC as a Christian Church with some serious problems; namely, legalistic and excessive control over its members. I recommend that people avoid this group.

721

The International Church of Christ

Also known as . . . The Boston Church of Christ, The Crossroads Movement, Multiplying Ministries, The Discipling Movement, The International Church of Christ, The London Church of Christ, The San Diego Church of Christ, etc. 1. Doctrines A. Believe in the Bible as the inerrant and infallible word of God. B. Trinitaria n, believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and the sacrificial atonement. C. The Boston Church of Christ is the only true church. D. Baptismal Regeneration i. Baptism is necessary for salvation ii. Baptism in their church with a proper understanding that baptism saves. E. Heavy discipleship F. Unquestioned submission to authority History A. Its distant origins go back to 1967 in Gainesville Florida, under Charles Lucas. i. Lucas started a program called the Multiplying Ministries program which was very successful. B. The movement we are concerned with here originated in the Crossroads Church of Christ in Florida in 1985. i. Kip McKean had been trained in the Discipling methodology by Mr. Lucas. From Charleston, Ill., early in the movement. Kip later moved to Massachusetts and using the methods he learned under Lucas. The church there began to grow. C. In the first year, 103 people were baptized into their church. The second year 200 were baptized; The third year 256; The fourth year 368; The fifth 457; the sixth 679, the seventh, 735; the eighth, 947; the ninth 1424; and in the tenth year, 1621 were baptized. Total of 6790 people. (as quoted in What Does The Boston Movement Teach? By Jerry Jones, Vol. 1, p. 125). i. "From its modest beginnings, the church has grown into 103 congregations all over the world with total Sunday attendance of 50,000" (Time, 18 May 1992, p. 62). D. In 1982 the Boston movement began planting their pillar churches. i. These are churches in key cities throughout the world. The first two were established in Chicago and London. ii. Then in 1986, a program called "reconstruction" was undertaken. This is the process whereby ministers in established Church of Christ churches are replaced with Boston Church of Christ trained ministers (Ibid., pp. 126-127). iii. This caused problems among the organization, but it helped to solidify this group. Church Structure A. Kip McKean is the director and unquestioned leader. i. Under Kip are Elders. ii. Under the Elders are Evangelists iii. Then Zone Leader iv. Then House Church Leaders (obsolete in most congregations) v. Then Assistant Bible Talk Leaders vi. McKean says these leaders govern by consensus but adds, `I'm the one who gives them direction.' vii. Al Baird, an important Boston Church of Christ elder said, "It's not a dictatorship. It's a theocracy, with God on top," (Time, 18 May 1992, p. 62). viii. Baird also said, "In questions of spiritual leaders abusing their authority. It is not an option to rebel against their authority" (What Does The Boston Movement Teach? p. 7). B. They are highly authoritarian

2.

3.

722

4.

5.

Authority and Submission (Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely) A. In a discussion on submission, Al Baird, one of the uppermost leaders in the ICC said, "Let us begin our discussion of submission by talking about what it is not. (1) Submission is not agreeing. When one agrees with the decision that he is called to submit to, he does not really have to submit in any way. By definition, submission is doing something one has been asked to do that he would not do if he had his own way. (2) Submission is not just outward obedience. It includes that, but also involves obedience from the heart. It is a wholehearted giving-up of one's own desires. (3) Submission is not conditional. We submit to authority, not because the one in authority deserves it, but because the authority comes from God; therefore, we are in reality submitting to Go d." B. Later in this same series, Baird states, "When we are under authority, we are to submit and obey our leaders even when they are not very Christ-like. However, God has standards for His leaders, and they will be accountable to God for ignoring those standards" (Authority and Submission, parts III, V and VII as quoted in What Does The Boston Movement Teach?, pp. 59-63). C. Baird has said that if the leader commands one to do something, even if it is not "Christlike," the member must submit! (Ibid., p. 104). D. Many who have left the Boston Church "complain that the advice, which members are expected to obey, may include such details as where to live, whom and when to date, what courses to take in school, even how often to have sex with a spouse" (Time, 18 May 1992, p. 62). E. Those who think for themselves and question the authority system are labeled. i. "Bad heart" "Struggling" and "not really a disciple" are terms used when someone disagrees with a leader. ii. The group, then, instantly accepts these labels upon a person. Discipleship A. Step one: Invitation to a Bible talk. i. Non threatening environment and topics. a. Covers basics of Christianity, easy to understand discussions. ii. The potential converts are befriended, with invitations to further talks. iii. Then he/she is urged to join with a discipler to study the Bible and learn how to be more like Jesus. iv. From there the person is introduced into more strict and emotionally involving practices and studies. B. "Hooking" is when someone searches for another person's interests, hobbies, and other personal information for the purpose of flattering them. This is done to attract them to the group, rather than for a sincere interest. C. "Love- bombing" is where a visitor is inundated by flattery and friendliness in order to produce the feeling that the group will fulfill many of their needs and desires. D. Once a member is assigned a discipler, he is led through a series of Bible studies. i. First study is called, "First Principles." This is simple basics of the Bible. ii. Second, "The Sins of Galatians" study. a. To get them to repent, to confess their sins, etc. i. The person reads Galatians 5:19-21 and then is told to make a list of their sins. They are guided to other scriptures that have similar effects of bringing a person to feel guilty and full of sin. More sin lists follow. ii. Sometimes a list is kept of their sins which are sometimes brought up in various situations. . . ultimately, to keep control over the person. iii. This can be used to break a person down emotionally iii. Third, "The Cross" study. a. The disciple listens to the discipler read the crucifixion account and is asked to say, "I am Judas -- I am Peter." b. The crucifixion is described in more of its unpleasant details and the discipler reads from the disciple's sin list. c. Often, sentences are spoken such as, "You punched him in the face." "You taunted Him." "You whipped Him." d. The disciple is supposed to be "broken" in this process, and often is...emotionally.

723

6.

7.

Baptism A. "The Boston Church of Christ teaches that when one initially receives Jesus Christ, one's response must include faith, repentance, confession, and water baptism. It teaches that apart from water baptism, one's sins are not forgiven" (The Issue of Water Baptism and the Boston Church of Christ, E. Bourland, P. Owen and P. Reid, p. 1). B. Not only must one be baptized, but one must also be baptized in the Boston Church of Christ. If a person had been a member of some other churc h, then joins the Boston Church, they must be rebaptized because their original baptism was done in a false church without a proper understanding of baptism. C. Therefore, salvation is gained by believing in Jesus' death on the cross and on being baptized. i. Also, a person must be baptized by someone in authority in the Boston Church of Christ, i.e., International Church of Christ Movement. Miscellaneous Info A. Many people have been injured by the church's authoritarian and intrusive structure, so much so that the Boston University, Marquette University, University of Southern California, Northeastern University, and Vanderbilt University are some of the schools that have banned the Boston Church of Christ (Miami Herald, 25 March 1992, p. 1A, 15A).

This group is definitely to be avoided. Along with its erring doctrine that baptism is necessary for salvation, it is legalistic, manipulative, and uses guilt and aberrant doctrines to keep its members in line. Though it is not a cult per se, it has many cult practices. It has destroyed many lives and left many others wary of anything Christian.

724

Verses showing justification by faith.

Justific ation is the legal act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his or her sins. It is not that the sinner is now sinless, but that he is "declared" sinless. This declaration of righteousness is being justified before God. This justification is based on the shed blood of Jesus, "...having now been justified by His blood..." (Rom. 5:9) where Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again (1 Cor. 15:1-4). God imputes (reckons to our account) the righteousness of Christ; at the same time our sins were imputed to Christ when he was on the cross. That is why it says in 1 Pet. 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." Also, 2 Cor. 5:21 says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Additionally, we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1) apart from works of the Law (Rom. 3:28). To be saved means that God has delivered us (saved us) from His righteous wrathful judgment due us because of our sins against Him. It means that we will not be judged for our sins and be sentenced to eternal damnation. To be saved means that we are justified before God. Only Christians are saved. Only Christians are justified. The issue at hand is whether or not this salvation, this justification, is attained by faith or by faith and something else. Following is a list of verses that show that salvation/justification is by faith. Bold references are particularly pointed. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction." Rom. 3:24, "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;" Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one." Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness," Rom. 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also," Rom. 4:16, "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," Rom. 5:9, Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him." Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith." Rom. 9:33, "just as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed. Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Rom. 10:9-10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

725

17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25.

Gal.3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations shall be blessed in you." Gal. 3:14, "in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Gal. 3:22, "But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith." Eph. 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvationhaving also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise." Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith." 1 Tim. 1:16, "And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life." James 2:24, not by faith alone

The scriptures clearly teach that we are saved (justified) by faith in Christ and what He has done on the cross. This faith alone saves us. However, we cannot stop here without addressing what James says in James 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." There is no contradiction. All you need to do is look at the context. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 17 instruct us to not show favoritism. Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works. James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith but has no works: verse 14. In other words, James is addressing the issue of a dead faith, an empty faith that is nothing more than a verbal pronouncement that is empty of life and action. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17, words without actions). Then he shows that that type of faith isn't much different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith that is words followed by actions. He writes of Abraham and Rahab as examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds. In brief, James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20). Also, notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul uses to support the teaching of justification by faith in Rom. 4:3. James 2:23 says, "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example. Conclusion Justification is by faith. True faith results in regeneration of the sinner which, in turn, results in good works. But it is not these works that earn our place with God nor keep it. Jesus accomplished that on the cross. All that we need, we have in Jesus. All we need to do to be saved, to be justified, is to truly believe in want God has done for us in Jesus on the cross. This true belief with justification before God and regeneration in the new believer, results in good works.

726

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

One of the most nagging questions in Christianity is whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. The answer is a simple, "No." But you might ask, "If the answer is no, then why are there verses that say things like . . .baptism that now saves you . . . (1 Pet. 3:21, NIV) and . . . Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins . . ." (Acts 2:38, NIV)? This is an honest question and it needs a competent answer. But, before I tackle this I need to lay a foundation of proper theology, then I'll address some of those verses that are commonly used to support the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation. God Works Covenantally First, you need to understand that God works covenantally. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. The New Testament and Old Testaments are New and Old Covenants. The word "testament" comes from the Latin testamentum which means covenant. So, the Bible is a covenant document. If you don't understand covenant you cannot understand, in totality, the issue of baptism because baptism is a covenant sign. If you don't think that God works covenantally then look at Heb 13:20 which says, "May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep" (NIV). The Eternal Covenant is the covenant between the Father and the Son before the creation of the world, whereby the Father would give to the Son those whom the Father had chosen. That is why Jesus says things like, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away" (John 6:37, NIV). And, "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day" (John 6:39, NIV). And, "I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours," (John 17:9, NIV). If you fail to understand that God works covenantally and that He uses signs as manifestations of his covenants (rainbow, circumcision, communion, etc.) then you will not be able to understand where baptism fits in God's covenant system. Second, you need to know what baptism is. It is an outward representation of an inward reality. For example, it represents the reality of the inward washing of Christ's blood upon the soul. That is why it is used in different ways. It is said to represent the death of the person (Rom. 6:3-5), the union of that person with Christ (Gal. 3:27), the cleansing of that person's sins (Acts 22:16), the identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2), and being united in one church (1 Cor. 12:13). Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus. It is in this sense a sacrament. A sacrament is a visible manifestation of something spoken. It is also said to be a visible sign of an inward grace. For example, the communion elements of bread and wine are called the sacrament of communion. When we take communion we are partaking of the sacrament. The Covenant of Grace is the covenant between God and Man where God promises to Man eternal life. It is based upon the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and the condition is faith in Jesus Christ. As the Communion Supper replaced Passover, baptism, in like manner, replaces circumcision. "They represent the same spiritual blessings that were symbolized by circumcision and Passover in the old dispensation," (Berkhoff, Lewis, Systematic Theology, 1988, p. 620.). Circumcision was the initiatory rite into the Abrahamic covenant; it did not save. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties and that is exactly what the Abrahamic covenant was. God said to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you" (Genesis 17:7, NIV). God later instructed Abraham to circumcise not only every adult male, but also 8 day old male infants as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-13). If the children were not circumcised, they were not considered to be under the promissory Abrahamic covenant. This is why Moses' wife circumcised her son and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet. (Ex. 4:24-25). She knew the importance of the covenant between God and her children. But at the same time we must understand that circumcision did not guarantee salvation to all who received it. It was a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born into the family of God (who were then the Jews).

727

An important question here is how is it possible for an infant to be entered into a covenant with God. There could be a lot of answers given but the point rem ains: it was done; infants were entered into a covenant relationship with God -- through their parents. In the New Testament, circumcision is mentioned many times. But with respect to this topic it is specifically mentioned in Col. 2:11-12: "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead," (NIV). In these verses, baptism and circumcision are related. Baptism replaces the Old Testament circumcision because 1) there was a New Covenant in the communion supper (Luke 22:20), and 2) in circumcision there was the shedding of blood but in baptism no blood is shed. This is because the blood of Christ has been shed. If you understand that baptism is a covenant sign, then you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration. It comes after faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 13:3) and the work of God (John 6:28). Third, the Bible says that it is the gospel that saves. "By this gospel you are saved..." (1 Cor. 15:2). Also, Rom. 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." What is the Gospel? It is clearly the gospel that saves us. But what exactly is the gospel? That too is revealed to us in the Bible. It is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4: "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." The gospel is defined as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins. Baptism is not mentioned here. Paul said that he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-17). If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Additionally, in Acts, Peter was preaching the gospel, people got saved, and then they were baptized. Acts 10:44-46 says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days" (NIV). These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This simply isn't an exception. It is a reality.

728

Let's Suppose... Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration. Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. Is that person saved? Of course he is. Let's further suppose that this person confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior and then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the m iddle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)? Saying that baptism is necessary for salvation is dangerous because it is saying that there is something we must do to complete salvation. That is wrong! See Gal. 2:21; 5:4. All right, so this sounds reasonable. But still, what about those verses that seem to say that baptism is part of salvation? I'll address those now. But, because this subject can become quite lengthy, in fact, sufficient for a book in itself, I'll only address a few verses and then only briefly. Baptism Verses John 3:5, "Jesus answered, I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'" Some say that water here means baptism. But that is unlikely since Christian baptism hadn't yet been instituted. If this verse did mean baptism, then the only kind that it could have been at that point was the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4). If that is so, then baptism isn't necessary for salvation because the baptism of repentance is no longer practiced. It is my opinion that the water spoken of here means the water of the womb referring to the natural birth process. Jesus said in verse three that Nicodemus needed to be born "again." This meant that he had been born once--through his mother. Nicodemus responds with a statement about how he can't enter again into his mother's womb to be born. Then Jesus says that he must be born of water and the Spirit. Then in verse 6 He says that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.." The context seems to be discussing the contrast between the natural and the spiritual birth. Water, therefore, could easily be interpreted there to mean the natural birth process. I would like to add that there are scholars who agree with the position and some who do not. Some believe that the water refers to the Word of God, the Bible, and others claim it means the Holy Spirit. You decide for yourself. Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This verse is a tough one. It seems to say that baptism is part of salvation. But we know, from other scriptures that it isn't, lest there be a contradiction. What is going on here is simply that repentance and forgiveness of sins are connected. In the Greek, "repent" is in the plural and so is "your" of "your sins." They are meant to be understood as being related to each other. It is like saying, "All of you repent, each of you get baptized, and all of you will receive forgiveness." Repentance is a mark of salvation because it is granted by God (2 Tim. 2:25) and is given to believers only. In this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized. Baptism is the manifestation of the repentance, that gift from God, that is the sign of the circumcised heart. That is why it says, repent and get baptized. 1 Pet. 3:21, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This is the only verse that says that baptism saves. But, the NIV translation of the verse is unfortunate. A better translation is found in the NASB which says, "and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means "copy," "type," corresponding to," "a thing resembling another," "its counterpart," etc. Baptism is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is "Of what is it a type?", or "Baptism corresponds to

729

what? The answer is found in the previous verse, verse 20: "who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you" (NASB). What does baptism correspond to? Is it the flood? Or, is it the ark? What was it that saved Noah and his family? Was it the water or the ark? Obviously, it was the Ark. Noah built and entered the ark by faith and was saved (Heb. 11:7). The flood waters destroyed the ungodly. Peter, when referring to the flood waters, refers to them as the means of destruction of the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:5; 3:6). It was the Ark that saved. Noah entered the ark by faith. Baptism here, in my opinion, refers to the Ark, not the waters. That is why the rest of the verse says, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God" which is consistent with what Paul said in Col. 2:11-12 where He equates baptism with being circumcised of heart. Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." Is the washing away of sins done by baptism, the representation of the circumcised heart (Col. 2:11-12) which means you are already saved, or is it by the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:14; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7)? Obviously it is the blood of Jesus and the washing here refers to the calling on Jesus' name. Rom. 6:4, "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." Because the believer is so closely united to Christ it is said that the symbol of baptism is our death, burial, and resurrection. Obviously we did not die--unless, of course, it is a figurative usage. Titus 3:5, "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." The washing of rebirth can only be that washing of the blood of Christ that cleanses us. It is not the symbol that saves, but the reality. The reality is the blood of Christ. Gal. 3:27, "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." This is speaking of the believer's union with Christ. It is identification with, a joining to, a proclamation of loyalty to, etc. In 1 Cor. 10:2 the Israelites were baptized into Moses. That means they were closely identified with him and his purpose. The same thing is meant here.

Conclusion Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25,26; Ez. 44:7,9) baptism refers to the washing away of sin (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5) and to spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12). The circumcision of the heart is signified by the circumcision of the flesh, that is, baptism (Col. 2:11-12). One last thought: If someone maintains that baptism is necessary for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of Christ? If the answer is yes, then that person would be in terrible risk of not being saved. If the answer is no, then why is baptism maintained as being necessary the same way as the Jews maintained that works were necessary?

730

Baptism and Mark 16:16

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned," (Mark 16:16). This verse is frequently used by baptismal regenerationists to show that baptism is necessary for salvation. It says he who believes and is baptized will be saved. Therefore, they conclude that baptism is a necessary part of becoming saved. But, does this verse prove that baptism is necessary for salvation? Not at all. Mark 16:16 does not say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Let me show you why. I could easily say that he who believes and goes to church will be saved. That is true. But it is belief that saves, not belief and going to church. Likewise, if you believe and read your Bible, you'll be saved. But it isn't reading your Bible that saves you. Rather, belief in Christ, in His sacrifice, is what saves. As I've stated in other papers on this subject, there are numerous verses that clearly demonstrate that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 3:9; etc.). Belief in what God has done, not what man can do, is what results in salvation. Baptism is simply a public demonstration of the inner work of regeneration. This is why the rest of the verse says, "...but he who does not to believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16 focuses on the issue of belief, not baptism. A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20 What I will share here may not be very popular with some readers. Therefore, I need to say upfront that I believe in the absolute inspiration and authority of the Bible. It is the word of God and what it says is authoritative. However, the simple fact is that there are textual variations within the biblic al manuscripts. The originals are what are inspired, not the copies. We have copies of inspired documents. These copies are not perfect, but they are very close to it. Again, I am not saying the Bible is untrustworthy. It is 98.5% textually pure. The remaining 1.5% of textual variation are almost entirely of insignificant spelling errors and minor word omissions or additions that do not change the meaning of the text. However, Mark 16:9-20 is a significant textual variant. Many scholars, Christian scholars, consider the ending of Mark to lack authenticity. Please consider the following evidence. 1. Mark 16:9-20 doesn't appear in many of the oldest ancient manuscripts. A. The last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are lacking in the two earliest parchment codices, B and Aleph, in the Old Latin manuscript k,, the Sinaitic Syriac, many manuscripts of the Old Armenian version, the Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Old Georgian version, and a number of manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ammonius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; other Church Fathers state that the section is absent from Greek copies of Mark known to them (e.g. Jerome, Epist. cxx. 3, ad hedibiam,)...The original form of the Eusebian sections makes no provision for numbering sections after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack it (so, for example, MSS. 1, 20,22, &c.), and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional sigla used by scribes to indicate a spurious addition to a literary document."1 2 1

121

"The Text of the New Testament," by Bruce Metzger (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary), 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York, 1968, p. 226.

731

2.

3.

4.

There are other endings to Mark. A. Another ending is found in L, Psi, 099, 0112, and minuscules 274mg 579, k, Syrh and more is as follows: i. "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." Apparent, theological error. A. Mark 16:12 says, "And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country." This verse may be problematic. Jesus rose in the same body that he died in (John 2:19), though it was a glorified body. this is problematic because it suggests "a different form." Jesus did not appear in a different form. He appeared in the same body he rose in. Evidence against the Mark authorship. A. There are 17 non- marcan words used in a non- marcan sense in these verses.

This information about the ending of Mark is not intended to cast doubt upon God's word. But the fact is that the ending is under a large cloud of doubt as to its authenticity. I would not use it as a defense for baptismal regeneration.

732

Baptism and Roman 6:3-5

Romans 6:3-5 is often used as a proof text for the claim that baptism is essential for salvation. It is a strong comparison between our baptism and Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. On the surface, one could conclude that from these verses, that baptism is part of salvation. "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection," Is this section of scripture teaching us that baptism is necessary for salvation? No, it is not. First, we know from the rest of scripture that salvation is by faith, not by faith and something we do Rom. 3:28-30. Second, we can see from other scriptures that baptism follows faith. Take a look at Acts 16:30-33 where the Jailer specifically asks what he must do to be saved and where baptism fits in. "and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household." 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household," (Acts 16:30-33, NASB). If baptism were part of salvation, then Paul should have said, "Believe and be baptized and you will be saved." But, he did not. Also, consider Acts 10:44-46. "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days," (NIV). These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-46 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This isn't an exception. It is a reality. This proves that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

733

What is Romans 6:3-5 saying? "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection," The phrase "baptized into" occurs five times in the NT in four verses as found in the KJV and the NASB.. 1. Rom. 6:3, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?" 2. 1 Cor. 10:2, "and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 3. 1 Cor. 12:13, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." 4. Gal. 3:27, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." To be baptized "into Christ," "into His death," "into Moses," and "into one body" is to be publicly identified with the thing you are being baptized into. The focus is not the baptism itself, but on the thing the baptism represents. In the case of Rom. 6:3-5, being baptized into Christ is a public identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection which is said to be the gospel that saves in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Baptism then is a public statement proclaiming that the person is trusting in the sacrifice of Christ. Baptism by immersion is a perfect symbol for this work of Christ with which the Christian is identifying himself. As Christ died and was raised to a new life, so to the Christian, in Christ, is said to have died (Rom. 6:11; Col. 3:3) and has a new life. This new life of regeneration is by faith, the internal work. Baptism is the external work of identification with Christ. This is why the reference to baptism in the Bible is dealing more with "our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism."1 2 2 Baptism Baptism Baptism Baptism Baptism is being identified as a disciple (Matt. 28:18-9). may be com pared to a new birth (John 3:5). is compared to Jesus' death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5). is compared to Israel's Exodus and passing through the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:2). is compared to Noah's escaping the flood waters by entering the ark (1 Pet. 3:21).

In each of the references above, baptism is identification with something. When people were baptized into John the Baptist's baptism of repentance, it wasn't the baptism that granted them repentance or made repentance real. Repentance is something that happens internally and is the work of God (2 Tim. 2:25). To participate in John's baptism was to publicly proclaim that the person being baptized was accepting John's message or repentance. Hence, it was called a baptism of repentance. It wasn't the baptism that brought repentance; rather, baptism was the result of repentance. The person had to first decide to repent, and then become baptized as a proclamation of his decision. Likewise, the Christian must first decide to repent, to receive Christ (John 1:12), to rely on the sacrifice of Christ, by faith, and then participate in the public proclamation of identifying with Christ's work. It is identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that baptism represents. Jesus' shed blood is what cleanses us from our sins (Heb. 9:22), not being washed with water. It is Christ's death that is the payment for sin. Jesus' burial is the proof that He, in fact, died. Jesus' resurrection is the proof of God the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ and that death is conquered. Again, for a Christian to be baptized is to make a public proclamation that he is trusting in Christ's work, that he is naming himself with Christ and trusting what Christ has done. This is why it says in
122

Enhanced Strongs Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

734

Rom. 6:11, "Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus," (NASB). Why? Because "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me," (Gal. 2:20). It is on the cross that Jesus paid for our sins, not in His baptism and not in our baptism. It is our identification with Him, being counted "in Christ" that allows us to say we have been crucified with Christ so that we can say we are dead to sin. We are not dead to sin by our baptism. Rather, we are dead to sin, by faith, in what Jesus did in His sacrifice. Conclusion Romans 6:3-5 speaks to us of Christ's work and our public identification with it. In that ancient world of religious plurality in Roman gods, in the strict Laws of the Jewish system, and in the gods of different cultures, to be baptized was to make a bold statement of commitment to Christ as the risen Lord. It was not the water that saved, but faith in Christ and His work.

735

Baptism and Gal. 3:27

Gal. 3:27 is often used by the baptismal regenerationists to support the idea that you must be baptized to be saved. They maintain that baptism is the place where a person "puts on Christ," where he is "clothed with Christ" and that it means that baptism saves. They teach that being immersed in the baptismal water is the place and time of deliverance from sins. This is simply not true. Gal. 3:27 cannot be understood alone. It must be examined in context. "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahams offspring, heirs according to promise," (Gal. 3:24-29). In Roman society, children were often committed to the care of trusted slaves. This would often happen when the child was between six or seven, and it would last until puberty. "These slaves were severe disciplinarians and were charged with guarding the children from the evils of society and giving them moral training. This was like the Laws function until Christ came and people could be justified by faith in Him."1 2 3 The Law was a harsh master to the Jews. It was very difficult to keep. This is why the Law points to Christ by showing us our inability to keep the Law and by showing us that we must rely on faith instead. That is why justification is by faith (vv. 24-26), because we cannot attain justification by Law (Rom. 3:28-30; Phil. 3:9). "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ," (Gal. 3:27). In Roman society when a child who had been under the care of a tutor and reached a matured enough age, he was given a special robe, or toga. It was symbolic of his full rights in the family. 1 2 4 Therefore, being "clothed with Christ" is a phrase meaning that the Christian moved out from the Law and into the gospel of grace and can enjoy full acceptance before God the Father. It is not saying that baptism is what saves us from our sins.

123

Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985, on Gal. 3:24. 124 ibid, on Gal. 3:27.

736

Baptism and 1 Pet. 3:21

1 Pet. 3:21 says, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This is the only verse that says that baptism saves. Is it teaching that we must be baptized to be saved? No. But, but to rightly understand it, we need to look at its context. "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves younot the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him," (1 Pet. 3:18-22, NASB). The above translation in verse 21 from the NASB is a good translation. "And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means "copy," "type," "corresponding to," "a thing resembling another," "its counterpart," etc. It is what the NIV translates as "symbolizes," the NASB as "corresponding to that," and the KJV as "like figure." Baptism, then, is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is "Of what is it a type?", or "baptism corresponds to what?" If we look at the context, an interesting possibility arises, though I will admit, not the favored interpretation among scholars. What does baptism correspond to? Is it the flood? Or, is it the ark? What was it that saved Noah and his family, the flood or the ark? Obviously, it was the Ark. Noah built and entered the ark by faith and he was saved (Heb. 11:7). The flood waters destroyed the ungodly. Also, Peter consistently refers to the flood waters as the means of destruction of the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:5; 3:6), not the salvation of Noah and his family. Rather, it was the Ark that saved, the ark that Noah entered faith. It may very well be that baptism refers to the Ark, not the waters. That is why the rest of the verse says, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God" which is consistent with what Paul said in Col. 2:11-12 where He equates baptism with being circumcised of heart. The problem with this interpretation is that it doesn't seem to fit the "water for water typology." It would seem more natural to equate the water of baptism with the water of the flood. Furthermore, if we were to look at the flood waters as the thing that removed evil from the land, we could say that "correspondingly," the waters of baptism remove removes the sin from our hearts. Though this reading seems a bit more natural, it too has problems. The water of baptism is not what saves us, the sacrifice of Christ does which we receive by faith. We read numerous verses about justification by faith (Rom. 5:1), salvation by faith (Eph. 2:8), etc., not justification "by faith and baptism," or salvation "by faith and baptism."1 2 5 The fact is that salvation is received by faith. Peter, not wanting to declare that baptism itself is what saves us, quickly adds, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience." Water baptism, then, must accompany the work of the Holy Spirit in the person. Peter's explanatory comment shows us that the act of physical baptism is not what saves, but the "baptism of appeal to God." This appeal to God is by faith the same as Noah's faith in God led him to build the Ark, enter it, and remain in it. It was the Ark that saved Noah, not the flood waters. The flood was for Noah a type of baptism even as the passage through the Red Sea was a type of baptism for the Israelites.

125

Mark 16:16 says, "He w ho believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Please see the article on Baptism and Mark 16:16 for an examination of this verse.

737

"I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3and all ate the same supernatural food 4and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ," (1 Cor. 10:1-4). The "baptisms" of both Noah and the Israelites served as types of a transition; that is, they moved people from the old world to the new, from the old covenant to the new covenant. It is not the water that saves, but the spiritual thing associated with that water that saves. For Noah it was faith in God. For Moses it too was faith in God. But some may say that the work of the Holy Spirit and the act of baptism are simultaneous, that the Holy Spirit works in and through baptism to bring regeneration. But this cannot be the case since the Bible tells us that salvation is by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8). Besides, we have a clear instance in scripture where people are saved before their baptism. Acts 10:44-48 "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days," (Acts 10:44-48). In these verses we see that Peter had been preaching the gospel and the Holy Spirit fell upon the listeners. In verse 45 we read that "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also." This gift manifested itself in speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a signgift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, verse 46 says they were "exalting God." Unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved because they are moving in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and glorifying God. It is the Holy Spirit who gives charismatic spiritual gifts to the church (1 Cor. 12:2728), not to unbelievers. Now, please notice that it was after this movement of the Holy Spirit that the believers are baptized. If baptism is necessary for salvation, then how is it that the people were speaking in tongues and exalting God before they were baptized? If you were to say that the Holy Spirit was simply working upon and through those not yet saved, then remember that tongues and praise to God are for the church, not the unbelievers. The church consists of people who are saved, not unsaved. If they were not saved until they were baptized, then they were not in the body of Christ and would not have moved in the charismatic gifts. Therefore, they were regenerate before they were baptized. This simply isn't an exception. It is a reality. Conclusion 1 Pet. 3:21 is not teaching us that baptism is what saves us. Rather, it is showing us that the water symbolizes a spiritual cleansing through the power of the Holy Spirit gained through Christs victory over death. It is the person's appeal to God that saves the soul, not the washing of water upon the body.

738

Baptism and John 3:5

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit," (John 3:3-8). There are five basic interpretations to this section of scripture in reference to water. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The The The The The water water water water water refers refers refers refers refers to to to to to the natural birth. the Word of God. the Holy Spirit. the ministry of John the Baptist. the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

The first option looks to the context of Jesus' words dealing with being born "again" (3:3). Nicodemus responds by mentioning the experience of being born from the womb (v. 4). Jesus then speaks of water and the Spirit and then says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (3:6). However, this view is not the most commonly held view. The second option holds that the water is referring to the Word of God. Eph. 5:26 says, "that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word." Some believe that the washing of water is done by means of the Word of God. The third view says that the water refers to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps Nicodemus was reminded of Ezek. 36:25-27, "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27"And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." Certainly, Jesus' own words are applicable here when He says in John 7:37-39, "Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. 38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.'" 39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." The fourth view holds that the water is in reference to the water baptism of repentance taught by John the Baptist. Matt. 3:1-6 describes John's ministry in the desert, his teaching about repentance, and baptizing people into that repentance. Contextually, the first chapter of John mentions John the Baptist in verses 6-8 and 19-36. Certainly, contextually, John and his ministry is in view here. If this is the case, then Jesus would have been speaking of the "baptism" (the initiatory ordinance) of repentance preached by John the Baptist. The fifth view is the one held by the International Church of Christ; namely, that the water is referring to baptism and that it is essential to salvation. Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is essential to salvation? As you can see, there are different interpretations to John 3:5. But, to simply say that John 3:5 does not teach the necessity of baptism isn't enough. Some sort of proof must be offered. The proof is found in God's word that has no contradictions. Clearly, salvation is by faith. For example, Rom. 5:1 stat es that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith. It does not say faith and baptism. If baptism were part of salvation, then it would say we were justified by faith and baptism. But it does not. If justification is by faith, then it is by faith. Baptism is not faith. It is a ceremony. Furthermore, please consider the following verses when declare how we are saved.

739

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction." Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Rom. 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness." Rom. 5:1, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham." Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith." Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."

Additionally, Paul tells us that the gospel is what saves us and that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Baptism is not included in the description of the gospel. This explains why said he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-174). If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Therefore, John 3:5 must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the rest of scripture. Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration. Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. Is that person saved? Of course he is. Let's further suppose that this person who confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior, then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)? Yes it does. Baptism is not necessary for salvation and John 3:5 cannot teach that it is.

740

Baptism and Acts 2:38

Acts 2:38 is one of the more controversy verses in the Bible regarding baptism and whether or not it is the requirement for salvation. On the surface it seems to support it. But upon closer examination, we will see that it does not teach baptismal regeneration: that baptism saves. First of all, rarely is doctrine ever made from a single verse. We need to look at all of what God's words says about a subject in order to accurately understand what it teaches. I will briefly tackle of this verse in the following manner. Examination of the verse's syntax, grammar and structure. Examine other verses dealing with the forgiveness of sins. Examine the verse in its covenant context. Grammar and Structure of Acts 2:38 In Acts 2:38 the main verb is metanoesate (change mind), the aorist direct imperative (a command) of metanoeo which means to repent (change mind). This refers to that initial repentance of the sinner unto salvation. The verb translated "be baptized" is in the indirect passive imperative (a command to receive; hence, passive voice in Greek1 2 6 ) of baptizo, which does not give it the same direct command implied in "repent." The preposition "for" in the phrase "for the remission of sins" in Greek is "eis," unto or into, and it is in the accusative case (direct object). It can mean "for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins." It is the same preposition we find in 1 Cor. 10:2 in the phrase "and were baptized unto Moses." Note that both contexts are dealing with baptism and identification. These people were baptized or spiritually identifying themselves with the purposes and vision of Moses. Repentance, therefore, is presented as identifying an individual with the remission of his sins, even as baptism following repentance provides an external identification visible by others. Repentance is something that concerns an individual and God while baptism involves others. That is why baptistheto (let be immersed) is in the passive voice indicating that one does not baptize himself, but is baptized by another usually in the presence of others. Repentance, however, is an act taking place within a person's heart as the Holy Spirit moves in the sinner. But, all this Greek stuff may be confusing. Let me break it down. All people are commanded to repent for their sins. This is what believers have already done by becoming Christians. Baptism, then, is the outward identification with being a Christian for those who have already repented. Also, as the Israelites were "baptized into Moses," (1 Cor. 10:2), so too, Christians are baptized into Jesus. That is, they are identifying themselves, publicly, with Christ. Likewise, in Rom. 6:1-5 where baptism is related to death, burial, and resurrection, it is again and identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. That is why it is said of Christians that we have died to sin (Rom. 6:2, 11; Gal. 2:20; Col. 2:20; Col. 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:24). This verse is not demonstrating that baptism is essential for salvation, but that baptism is the thing which we receive, in order to publicly identify ourselves completely and totally with Christ as a manifestation of the inward work God has done within us.

126

Active voice is "I hit the ball." Passive voice is "The ball hit me." Middle voice is "I was hit by the ball." In active voice, "I" performed the action. In passive voice, "I" received the action. In middle voice, "I" did something to myself.

741

Other verses dealing with salvation Justification is the work of God where the righteousness of Jesus is reckoned to the sinner so the sinner is declared, by God, as being righteous under the Law (Rom. 4:3; 5:1,9; Gal. 2:16; 3:11). This righteousness is not earned or retained by any effort of the saved. Justification is an instantaneous occurrence with the result being eternal life. It is based completely and solely upon Jesus' sacrifice on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and is received by faith alone (Rom. 4:5; 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9). No works are necessary whatsoever to obtain justification. Otherwise, it is not a gift (Rom. 6:23). Therefore, we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1). Nowhere in the Bible does it state that we are justified by grace and baptism or faith and baptism or faith and anything else. On the contrary, baptism is excluded from the gospel message. Paul said that he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-17). Likewise, Paul told us exactly what the gospel that saves is. He said in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." Note that Paul state and that the gospel is what saints and he did not include baptism in the definition of the gospel. So, we must ask if baptism is necessary for salvation, then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Further proof that baptism is not a requirement of salvation can be found in Acts 10:44-46. Peter was preaching the gospel, people became saved, and then they were baptized. Acts 10:44-46 says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days," (NIV). These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-46 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This isn't an exception. It is a reality. This proves that baptism is not necessary for salvation and that Acts 2:38 is not teaching its necessity either. But, if it isn't saying that, then why is baptism mentioned here? Biblical Covenant Context A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. Very often, covenants have visible signs to represent them. The elements of bread and wine in the communion support are good examples of this. Circumcision was both a covenant sign and and the initiatory rite into the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 17:10). But this covenant sign did not save anyone. God said to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you," (Gen. 17:7, NIV). God later instructed Abraham to circumcise not only every adult male, but also eight day old male infants as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-13). If the children were not circumcised, they were not considered to be under the promissory Abrahamic covenant. This is why Moses' wife circumcised her son and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet after Moses failed to circumcise him, (Exo. 4:24-25). She knew the importance of the covenant between

742

God and her children. But at the same time we must understand that circumcision did not guarantee salvation to those who received it. It was a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born into the family of God (who were then the Jews). It was an outward sign of the covenant promise. To reject it was to reject the covenant. But, accepting it did not guarantee salvation. Another theological debate at risk here There is debate within Christianity on the nature of baptism and to whom it may be administered. I am not here trying to convince anyone of the proper objects of baptism whether it be infant baptism or adult only baptism. I only present the following information as a proof that baptism is a covenant sign, and not essential to salvation. In the New Testament, circumcision is mentioned many times. But with respect to baptism it is specifically mentioned in Col. 2:11-12: "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead," (NIV). In these verses, baptism and circumcision are related. The extent of that relationship is still being debated. Nevertheless, Paul also says in Rom. 2:29, "But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." As you can see, for the Christian, circumcision is of the heart. And because it is, we Christians are now included the Abrahamic covenant where before, we, the Gentiles, were not. "Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world," (Eph. 2:12, NASB). In Gal. 3:8, Paul calls the promise of the Abrahamic covenant, the gospel. He says, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'All the nations shall be blessed in you, 9So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.'" (Gal. 3:8-9). So, Paul calls the Abrahamic covenant, the gospel. The sign of this Abrahamic covenant was circumcision. Here is the catch. Since the Abrahamic covenant is still valid (we are justified by faith -- Gal. 3:8), then is there a covenant sign for us today? I think the answer is a resounding, yes. I believe that baptism replaces the Old Testament covenant sign of circumcision because 1) there was a New Covenant in the communion supper (Luke 22:20), and 2) in circumcision there was the shedding of blood, but in baptism no blood is shed. The covenant sign has changed now that the Law has been fulfilled in Christ. If you understand that baptism is a covenant sign, then you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration, of "heart-circumcision." It comes after faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 13:3) and the work of God (John 6:28). Again, baptism is the covenant sign of our covenant with God. Acts 2:39 and "The Promise" This would explain why Peter in verse 39 of Acts 2 says, "For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." What promise is Peter speaking of when he says "the promise"? Notice that he does not say "this promise" but "the promise." If Peter was referring to baptism as the promise he would have said "this promise." Instead, he used a phrase "the promise." This is significant. The phrase "the promise" occurs in 26 Bible verses in the New Testament. It is used in reference to several different topics. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Holy Spirit, (Luke 24:49; Acts 2:33; Gal. 3:14). God's promise to Abraham to m ultiply his descendents in Egypt, physical as well as spiritual, (Acts 7:17; Heb. 6:13, 15, 17). The promise of the Messiah, (Acts 13:32; Acts 26:6-7; Rom. 4:13,14,16; Gal. 3:17,19,22; Eph. 3:6; 2 Tim. 1:1). The promise of eternal redemption (Heb. 9:15; 1 John 2:25). The promise that Sarah would have a child (Rom. 4:20; Gal. 4:23). The promise that through Isaac, the world would be blessed, (Rom. 9:8). The promise of Jesus' return (2 Pet. 3:4). The promise to kill Paul by Paul's adversaries (Acts 22:21).

743

But, we are most interested in its context in Acts 2 which begins with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-13). Peter then preaches a sermon and quotes many OT scriptures (Acts 2:14-35). In verse 2:22, Peter specifically says, "Men of Israel, listen to these words..." Peter is speaking to the Jews. It was to the Jews that "the promise" of the outpouring of the Spirit was given. Peter is speaking covenant language of God as He quotes the OT. Since Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-18, we can easily see what Peter is talking about when speaking of "the promise" in Acts 2:39. "And it shall be in the last days, God says, that I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams, Even upon My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit," (Acts 2:17-18). See also, "For I will pour out water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring, and My blessing on your descendants," (Isa. 44:3). Peter states in Acts 2:38, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Peter is clearly speaking of the promise of God to grant the Holy Spirit in a new and better way. But is he saying that people become saved by baptism in water or that baptism is part of salvation? Not at all. Peter is simply speaking covenantally about the covenant sign. Baptism! Consider this proof, from Peter, that people are saved before baptism. "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days," (Acts 10:44-48). Notice that Peter had been preaching the gospel and the Holy Spirit fell upon the people. In verse 45 we see that "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also." These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-48 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This simply isn't an exception. It is a reality. Conclusion Acts 2:38 so closely ties repentance and baptism because it is contextually covenant language and covenant concept. It is not stating that you must be baptized in order to be saved. It is saying that baptism is the complete and total covenantal identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. It is not the covenant representation (baptism) of what Christ did that saves us, but the reality of His sacrifice which we receive by faith (Rom. 5:1; Gal. 3:8). That is why we can see in Acts 10:44-48 a group of people who are saved before they are baptized. Baptism is not what saves. It is not part of salvation. It is something someone does who is already saved.

744

Cults
Introduction

Cults are everywhere. Some are mainstream and widely accepted. Others are isolationist and hide from examination at great expense. They are growing and flourishing. Some cause great suffering while others appear very helpful and beneficial. Which ever group it is, the ultimate end is their destruction when the Lord returns to claim His own.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

What is a cult? p. 745 What are some of the marks of a cult? p. 745 What makes a church or group non-Christian? p. 748 What is the Difference between justification and sanctification. p. 752 What would you say to a cultist who testifies that his faith is true? p. 757 Who is the True Jesus? p. 763

745

Cults!
1. What is a cult? A. Generally, it is a group that is unorthodox, esoteric, and has a devotion to a person, object, or a set of new ideas. i. New Teaching - has a new theology and doctrine. ii. Only True Teaching - often considers traditional religious systems to be apostate and it alone possess the complete truth. iii. Strong Leadership - often an individual or small but powerful leadership group holds control of the groups teachings and practices. iv. Asset Acquirement - often requires tithing and/or property transfer to the religious system. v. Isolationist - to facilitate control over the members physically, intellectually, financially, and emotionally. vi. Controlling - exercises control over the members. Sometimes this is through fear, threatening lose of salvation if you leave the group. Sometimes through indoctrination. vii. Indoctrination - possesses methods to reinforce the cults beliefs and standards where opposing views are ridiculed and often misrepresented. viii. Apocalyptic - to give the members a future focus and philosophical purpose in avoiding the apocalypse or being delivered through it. ix. Experience - various practices including meditation, repetition of words and/or phrases, and spiritual enlightenment with God are used as confirmation of their truth. a. Depravation - sleep and food deprivation which weakens the will of the subject. b. This is uncommon, though practiced by more severe cults x. Persecution - predictions of being persecuted and often combined with claiming any opposing views demonstrated against them as a form of persecution. B. Many have a non-verifiable belief systems i. For example, they would teach something that cannot be verified. a. A space ship behind Hale-Bop comet b. Or, that God, an alien, or angel appeared to the leader and gave him a revelation c. The members are seeded angels from another world, etc. ii. Often, the philosophy makes sense only if you adopt the full set of values and definitions that it teaches. a. With this kind of belief, truth becomes unverifiable, internalized, and easily manipulated through the philosophical systems of its inventor. C. The Leader of a Cult i. Often charismatic who is considered very special for varying reasons: a. The leader has received special revelation from God. b. The leader claims to be the incarnation of a deity, angel, or special messenger. c. The leader claims to be appointed by God for a mission d. The leader claims to have special abilities ii. The leader is often above reproach and is not to be denied or contradicted. D. Cult ethos i. Usually seek to do good works, otherwise no one would join them. ii. They are usually moral and possess a good standard of ethical teaching. iii. Many times the Bible is used or additional "scriptures" are penned. a. The Bible, when used, is always distorted with private interpretations. iv. Many Cults recruit Jesus as one of their own and redefine him accordingly E. Cult groups vary greatly. i. From the ascetic to the promiscuous. ii. From esoteric knowledge to very simple teachings. iii. From the rich and power to the poor and weak.

746

2.

3.

4.

5.

Who is vulnerable to joining a cult? A. Everyone is vulnerable. i. Rich, poor, educated, non-educated, old, young, previously religious, atheistic, etc. B. General Profile of cult member (some or all of the following) i. Disenchanted with conventional religious establishments. ii. Intellectually confused over religious and/or philosophical issues iii. Sometimes disenchanted with society as a whole iv. Has a need for encouragement and support v. Emotionally needful vi. Needs a sense of purpose. vii. Financially needful Recruitment techniques A. They find a need and fill it. One of the ways they do this is called i. "Love Bombing" - Constant positive affection in word and deed. a. Sometimes there is a lot of physical contact like hugging, pats on the back, and touching. b. Cult group members will lend emotional support to someone in need. c. Help them in various ways...whatever is needed. i. The person then becomes indebted to the cult. d. Compliment them, reassure them, and make them the center of attention. B. Many Cults use the influence of the Bible and/or mention Jesus as being one of their own; thereby adding validity to their system. i. Scripture twisting a. Those that use the Bible take verses out of context b. Then mix their misinterpreted verses with their aberrant philosophy. C. Gradualism i. Slow altering of thinking processes and belief system through repeated teaching a. People usually accept cult doctrines one point at a time. b. New beliefs are reinforced by other cult members. Why would someone join? A. The cult satisfies various needs: i. Psychological - Someone could have a weak personality, easily lead. ii. Emotional - Someone could have recently suffered an emotional trauma iii. Intellectual - Someone has questions that this group answers. B. The cult gives them approval, acceptance, purpose, and a sense of belonging. C. The cult is appealing for some reason. It could be . . . i. Moral rigidity and purity ii. Financial security iii. Promises of exaltation, redemption, higher consciousness, or a host of other rewards. How are they kept in the cult? A. Dependence i. People often want to stay because the cult meets their psychological, intellectual, and spiritual needs. B. Isolation i. Outside contacts are reduced and more and more of the life of the member is built around the cult. ii. It then becomes very easy to control and shape the member. C. Cognitive Reconstruction (Brainwashing): i. Once the person is indoctrinated, their thinking processes are reconstructed to be consistent with the cult and to be submissive to its leaders. ii. This facilitates control by the cult leader(s). D. Substitution i. The Cult and cult leaders often take the place of mother, father, priest, teacher, and healer. ii. Often the member takes on the characteristics of a dependent child seeking to win the approval of the leader and or group.

747

E.

6.

Indebtedness i. The member becomes indebted to the group emotionally, financially, etc. F. Guilt i. The person is told that to leave is to betray the leader, God, the group, etc. ii. The person is told that leave would mean to reject the love and help the group has given. G. Threat i. Threat of destruction by God for turning from the truth. ii. Sometimes physical threat is used, though not often. iii. Threat of missing the apocalypse, or being judged on judgment day, etc. How do you get them out? A. The best thing is to try not to let them get trapped in the first place. B. If you are a Christian, then pray. C. But, to get a person out of a cult takes i. Time, energy, and support. D. Teach them the truth. i. Give them a true replacement for their aberrant belief system ii. Show the cult group's philosophic inconsistencies iii. Study the group and learn its history seeking clues and information. E. Try and get them physically away from the cult group. F. Give them the support they need emotionally. G. Alleviate the threat that if they leave the group they are doomed or in danger. H. Generally, don't attack the leader of the group...that comes later. I. Converts often feel a loyalty and respect for the founder of the group. J. Confront them when needed.

Hopefully, this basic outline will give you information to see how Cults work and how to avoid them. If you have someone who is lost in a cult, you need to pray and ask the Lord to remove them and give you the insight and tools needed. It can be a long and arduous task and very often ends in failure. This is not an easy ministry.

748

What makes a church or group non-Christian?

There are many non-Christian religions and cults in America: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Unity, The Way International, Unitarianism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. They all claim special revelation and privilege and those that use the Bible invariably interpret it in disharmony with standard biblical understanding And, groups like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses object to the label "cult" because it often gets an emotional reaction as well as is a label they want to avoid. The dictionary defines cult as "a system of religious worship or ritual"; "devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle, etc.", "a group of followers." This is a typical secular definition and by it, any believer in any god is a cultist, even atheists since they have an admiration for a principle and are a group of followers of the philosophy of atheism. The definition I use for "non-Christian cult" or "non-Christian religion" is a group that may or may not include the Bible in its set of authoritative scriptures. If it does include the Bible, it distorts the true biblical doctrines that effect salvation sufficiently so as to void salvation.1 2 7 If it doesn't use the Bible, it is a non-Christian religion and does not participate in the benefit of divine revelation. In Christian bookstores, there are almost always 'cult' sections which include the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. So, I am not alone in describing what a non-Christian, bible based cult is. Nevertheless, what makes something non-Christian is when it denies the essential doctrines of the Bible. The Deity of Christ, which involves The Trinity The Resurrection, and Salvation by Grace

All of them add to the finished work of Jesus on the cross. Some cult groups even add to the Bible, i.e., Mormonism which has the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Also Christian Science has added Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. The Jehovah's Witnesses, however, have actually changed the text of the Bible to make it fit what they want it to. For information on this see Jehovah's Witnesses and how they have changed the Bible. Cults add their own efforts, their own works of righteousness to the finished work of salvation accomplished by Jesus on the cross. All Cults say that Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient, but our works must be 'mixed with' or 'added to' His in order to prove that we are saved and worthy of salvation. They say one thing but believe another. They maintain that they must prove themselves worthy and that they must try their best to please God and prove to Him that they are sincere, have worked hard, and are then worthy to be with Him. In other words, they do their best and God takes care of the rest. This is absolutely wrong. The Bible says that we are saved by grace not by works "For by grace you have been saved through faith...not as a result of works, that no one should boast, (Eph. 2:8-9, NASB); not by anything we do "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28, NASB). Because if there was anything that we could do to merit the forgiveness of our sins, then Jesus died needlessly "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified...I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly (Gal. 2:16, 21, NASB). People in cults will often cite James 2:26 where it says that faith without works is dead in an attempt to demonstrate that works are part of becoming saved. While it is true that faith without works is dead, it isn't the works that save us. James is saying that if you have real and true faith, it will result in real and true works of Christianity. In other words, you do good works because you are saved, not to get saved. He isn't saying that our works are what saves us, or that they, in combination with the finished work of Christ, save us. James is simply telling us that if we say we
127

This definition of "cult" is not sufficient to cover all that needs to be discussed in cult theologies and practices nor is it broad enough to address the topic of world religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam which are do not fall under the definition I've employed. The term cult can range from any group of worshippers of any God who pay no attention to the Bible, to a small, highly paranoid, apocalyptic people who gather around a charismatic leader that uses the Bible to control them. Nevertheless, I've chosen a definition. I'll probably modify it as I learn more.

749

have faith (James 2:14) but we have no works in correspondence to that faith, then that faith won't save us because it is a dead faith. This agrees with Paul who tells us that faith is what saves us, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ " (Rom. 5:1). This faith is real faith, or true saving faith, not just an empty mental acknowledgement of God's existence which is what those who "say" they have faith but show no corresponding godliness are guilty of. Incidentally, you should realize that faith is only as good as who you put it in. Just having faith in something doesn't mean you're saved. That is why it is important to have the True Jesus, because if you have great faith but it is in the wrong Jesus, then your faith is useless. In Mormonism Jesus is the brother of the devil begotten through sexual intercourse from a God who came from another planet. In Jehovah's Witnesses he is Michael the Archangel who became a man. In the New Age Movement he is a man in tune with the divine consciousness. Which is true? The only true Jesus is the one of the Bible, the one who is prayed to (1 Cor. 1:1-2 with Psalm 116:1; Acts 7:55-60); worshipped (Matt. 2:2, 11, 14:33, John 9:35-38, Heb. 1:8), and called God (John 20:28; Col. 2:9). The Jesus of the Cults is not prayed to, worshipped, or called God. And since the Jesus of the Bible is the only one who reveals the Father (Luke 10:22) so that you may have eternal life (John 17:3), you must have the true Jesus who alone is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Another common denominator among the Cults is their methods for twisting scripture. Some of the errors they commit in interpreting Scripture are: 1) taking Scripture out of context; 2) reading into the Scriptures information that is not there; 3) picking and choosing only the Scriptures that suit their needs; 4) ignoring other explanations; 5) combining scriptures that don't have anything to do with each other; 5) quoting a verse without giving its location; 6) incorrect definitions of key words; and 7) mistranslations. These are only a few of the many ways Cults misuse Scripture. If you want to be able to witness well to a person in a cult, you need to understand their doctrines as well as your own. It would be a good idea to study both Christian Doctrine: the Bible, God, Creation, Man... and Christian Doctrine: Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Salvation... as well as the The Three Essential Doctrines of Christianity to become better equipped. Through study you will be able to answer questions that often come up in witnessing encounters. A Christian should know his doctrine well enough to be able to recognize not only what is true, but also what is false in a religious system (1 Pet. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15). Jesus warned us that in the last days false Christs and false prophets would arise and deceive many (Matt. 24:24). The Lord knew that there would be a rise of the spirit of Antichrist (1 John 4:1-3) in the last days. Its manifestation is here in the forms of Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the New Age Movement, among others.

750

Comparison Chart
This chart is a simplification of various groups and their beliefs. It is, to be realistic, an oversimplification. But it gives the reader an idea of where the groups stand.
Jesus Resurrection Jesus rose in the same body he died in. Scripture and writings of group The Bible alone The Bible is inspired. Elpis Israel, Eureka written by founder. Bible, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, Miscellany Qur'an, Hadith Bible, Studies in the Scriptures, presently the Watchtowe r and Awake Magazines The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price

Group Name

Founder

The Gospel That Jesus saves from sin Faith in Christ and baptism

The Church Those who are saved

God

Jesus

Salvation

Christianity

Jesus Christ John Thomas (18051871) founded 1848

Trinity: 3 Persons in one God

God in flesh

by Grace

Christadelphianism

Members of their church

One God as one person

Created being. A man with a sin nature

Baptism is required

Yes

Christian Science

Mary Baker Eddy (18211910) Muhammad

Religious beliefs of Jesus' teaching s, not the atoneme nt. Faith in Allah and works

A collection of spiritual ideas

Impersonal Universal Presence

A man in tune with the Divine Conscious ness, not the Christ. Created being. A prophet. Not God. Created being. Michael the archangel who became a man Created being. The brother of the devil and of all people

Correct thinking

No

Islam

n/a

One God: Allah. Non Trinitarian

by Allah's grace and man's works Keeping the command ments, being in their Organizati on

No.

Jehovah's Witnesses

Charles T. Russell (18521916) founded 1879

Jesus opened the door for us to earn our salvation

Members of their church

One Person

No

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints (Mormons)

Joseph Smith (18051844) founded 1830

Jesus' atoneme nt plus the Laws and ordinanc es of the gospel

Members of their church

Triad - 3 gods.

Resurrecte d by grace, saved by doing works.

Yes

751

Oneness Pentecostal

N/A

Faith in Christ and baptism

Members of their church

One Person modalism

God in flesh

By faith and baptism "in Jesus' name" in their church

Yes

The Bible

Theosophy

Madme Helena Blavatsky (18311891) founded 1875 Charles Fillmore (18541948) founded 1889 Victor Paul Weirwell (19171985)

n/a

n/a

God is a principle

Created being. A great teacher

No

Unity

The overall principles of Unity

A collection of spiritual ideas

Impersonal Universal Power

Created being. A man, not the Christ Created being. A man, not God in flesh

Adopting the correct Unity thought principles

No

Way International

Earned

Members of their church

One Person

By works

Yes

The Secret Doctrine, Isis Unveiled, The Key to Theosophy and The Voice of the Silence Bible, Unity Magazine, Metaphysi cal Bible Dictionary. Bible, Jesus Christ is Not God, Power for Abundant Living

752

Justification and Sanctification: What is the Difference?

Understanding the difference between justification and sanctification can be as important as understanding the difference between salvation and damnation. Rightly dividing between the two is of crucial importance. When you understand the what they are, you can then draw a line in the sand and say, "This is what saves. This is not what saves." Justification is the work of God where the righteousness of Jesus is reckoned to the sinner so the sinner is declared by God as being righteous under the Law (Rom. 4:3; 5:1,9; Gal. 2:16; 3:11). This righteousness is not earned or retained by any effort of the saved. Justification is an instantaneous occurrence with the result being eternal life. It is based completely and solely upon Jesus' sacrifice on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and is received by faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9). No works are necessary whatsoever to obtain justification. Otherwise, it is not a gift (Rom. 6:23). Therefore, we are justified by faith (Romans 5:1). Sanctification, on the other hand, involves the work of the person. But it is still God working in the believer to produce more of a godly character and life in the person who has already been justified (Phil. 2:13). Sanctification is not instantaneous because it is not the work of God alone. The justified person is actively involved in submitting to God's will, resisting sin, seeking holiness, and working to be more godly (Gal. 5:22-23). Significantly, sanctification has no bearing on justification. That is, even if we don't live a perfect life, we are still justified. Where justification is a legal declaration that is instantaneous, sanctification is a process. Where justification comes from outside of us, from God, sanctification comes from God within us by the work of the Holy Spirit in accordance with the Bible. In other words, we contribute to sanctification through our efforts. In contrast, we do not contribute to our justification through our efforts. Does this mean that those justified by grace can sin as much as they want? Romans 6:1-2 says, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer in it?" 1 Thess. 4:7 says, "God has called us not for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification." The Scriptures teach us that we are to live holy lives and avoid sin (Col. 1:5-11). Just because we are saved and eternally justified before God (John 10:28), that is no excuse to continue in the sin from which we were saved. Of course, we all sin (1 John 1:8). But the war between the saved and his sinfulness is continuous (Rom. 7:14-20) and it won't be until the return of Jesus that we will be delivered from this body of death (Rom. 7:24). To continually seek sin and use God's grace to excuse it later is to trample the blood of Christ underfoot (Heb. 10:29) and to reveal the person's true sinful, unsaved nature (1 John 2:4; 2:19). (Other verses worth checking out are: Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 1:1416; and 1 Pet. 2:21-22.) What the cults do with justification and sanctification The cults consistently blur the meanings of the two terms and misapply the truths taught in God's word. The result is a theology of works righteousness, of earning their salvation which only leads to damnation. This is because by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified (Gal. 2:16). Man cannot contribute to his salvation (Gal. 5:1-8). Because man is sinful even his best deeds are stained and filthy before God (Isaiah 64:6). Therefore, making a person right before God can only be God's work (Gal. 2:20). Typically, in cult theologies, a person is not justified (declared righteous in God's eyes) until the final day of judgment when his works are weighed and a reward is given or he is found worthy of his place with God. Thus, a person with this errant theology can not claim 1 John 5:13 as their own which says, "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God." Contextually, "These things" refers to loving God, being obedient to Him, belief in Christ, and eternal life in Jesus. Therefore, 1 John 5:13 can be considered a test. If you are believing and doing the right things, then you will know if you have eternal life. Can a cultist know he has eternal life? No. He cannot. But a Christian can.

753

Do we have the right to make these judgments?

To pronounce another religious group to be false can seem a pompous undertaking, especially in a culture that preaches tolerance for everything from homosexuality to a mother's "right" to kill her unborn child. Tolerance is the banner that unites much of our culture and anyone who points a judging finger at someone or something is often ridiculed. But Christians are told in the Bible to separate themselves from the sinful practices of man and to expose error. "Examine all things and to hold fast to that which is true" says God's word (1 Thess. 5:21). So we do. What does it mean to examine if we do not judge what is right and wrong? Jesus judged the Pharisees as hypocrites. Peter judged Ananias and Saphira as liars (Acts 5:3-4). Paul judged the Galatians as fools (Gal. 3:1). The reason something can be said to be right or wrong is because the Bible has laid out before us a moral and doctrinal standard that is clear. It is wrong to lie. So, we are able to say to someone who lies, "What you are doing is wrong." That is making a judgment. Likewise, with the cults, as Christians we are commanded to be able to give answers to everyone (1 Pet. 3:15) and to contend for the faith that was delivered by the apostles (Jude 4). If we do not fight for the faith, the faith will be lost. If we do not expose the errors of the cults then the cults will move unchecked in the world and lead even more into eternal destruction. To make a judgment means that we must recognize that there are absolutes. In a world that worships relativism, absolutes are not welcome and the cults that espouse their demonic doctrines beg tolerance. CARM stands for the truth of God's word, not a compromising collection of beliefs that changes as people's whims change. The cults are cults because they deny the true God, add works to salvation, and corrupt a multitude of biblical truths. Their end and the end of all who follow them is damnation. To do anything other than warn people about them would be unloving.

754

What is the truth?

Truth is not a feeling. Truth is not an idea. The truth is found in the Bible. The cults are wrong because they do not have the truth. That is, they have a false understanding of God the Father, of God the Son, of the Holy Spirit, and the work of Christ on the Cross. Because they are in error in these things, they are in error concerning the doctrine of salvation. Sincerity and good works do not bridge the gap of sin between God and man. Only the blood of Jesus can cleanse a person (Heb. 9:22; John 14:6). Sincerity and good works are merely the reliance upon what is in the individual to merit favor with God. Sincerity is a form of pride when it is appealed to as a justification for being accepted by God: "But God, look at my heart. See how sincere I was? I deserve to be in heaven." No. If sincerity and good works were good enough to satisfy God, then He wouldn't have given us the Bible to correct our sincerely wrong ideas, and He wouldn't have sent His Son to do what our good works cannot. Truth is what God says is true. Below is an example of someof the different teachings of Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses as they define Christianity, God, Jesus, salvation, etc. Notice how not all can be true. Only One God 1. Christianity: True Christian doctrine is that there is only one God who has ever existed anywhere, anyplace, anytime. There is no God formed before God; there will be no God formed after God (Isaiah 43:10). God doesn't even know of any other Gods (Isaiah 44:8). There is only one God in existence in the entire universe. Just one. This is called monotheism. Mormonism: The god of earth is only one of many, many gods (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163). This is called polytheism. However, they worship only one of the many gods, the one called Elohim. This is called monolatry. Elohim (as the Mormons like to call the Father) used to be a man on another planet (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Elohim became a God and came to this world with his goddess wife (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443). Mormons have the potential of becoming gods of their own worlds (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354). This contradicts the teachings of scripture. Mormons are polytheists. Christianity is monotheistic. Mormonism is very wrong. J.W.: They believe in only one God (Make Sure of All Things, p 188). They call God "Jehovah." In this, the J.W.'s are correct. There is only one God. The Trinity 1. Christianity: God is a trinity of persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son. The Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the same person as the Father. They all are eternal, divine, and omniscient. Objections to the Trinity are that it is not logical. Logic should not rule scripture. If it is from God, there will be things in it that are difficult to understand. Additionally, the fingerprints of God are seen all over creation. In Romans 1:20 it says that the invisible attributes of God are clearly seen in creation. Creation is made up of a trinity of trinities: time, space, and matter. Time is past, present, and future. Each "part" is different, yet they are all of the same nature: time. Space is height, width, and depth. Each "part" is different, yet they are all of the same nature: space. Matter is solid, liquid, and gas. Each "part" is different, yet they are all of the same nature: matter.

2.

3.

755

2.

3.

Mormonism: The Trinity is an office held by three separate gods: a god called the father, a god called the son, and a god called the holy spirit. They error in assuming that a "person" must be in a fleshly form (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22) -- something like flesh and blood. This contradicts the orthodox view of the Trinity as well as teaching that there is more than one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). J.W.'s: They deny the Trinity (Let God be True, p. 100-101; Make Sure of All Things, p.386). They say there is only one person in the Godhead: the Father. They error in denying the truth doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus

1.

2.

3.

Christianity: Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. Jesus is both God and man. He is fully God and fully man (Col. 2:9). He was in the form of God, emptied Himself, and became a man (Phil. 2:5-8). As the God man, He is the mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). Jesus was not created (John 1:13), but is the creator of all things (Col. 1:16-17). Mormonism: Jesus, the devil, and all of us are literal spirit children born in a pre-existence, the literal offspring of God the Father and his goddess wife (Mormon Doctrine p. 516; Journal of Discourse, Vol. 4, p. 218). J.W.'s: Jesus is Michael the Archangel who became a man, died on a stake -- not a cross -- rose in a spirit body, and returned to heaven to be an angel again (The Watchtower, May 15, 1963, p. 307; The New World, 284). The problem here is that Jesus (Michael) would be a created thing. This is why the J.W. Bible adds the words "other" four times in Col. 1:16-17. The word "other" is not in the original text of the Bible. Salvation

1.

2.

3.

Christianity: Salvation, or the forgiveness of sins, is something that is given to you by God. It is a free gift (Rom. 6:23). The sinner is made righteous in God's eyes solely by the faith that the believer has in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Justification, or being declared righteous, is accomplished by faith (Rom. 5:1). Our works play no part in salvation. If our works could play any part at all, then Jesus died needlessly (Gal. 2:21). Mormonism: The doctrine of the forgiveness of sins in Mormonism is that you are saved by grace after all you can do (Article 8 of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 92). They add to the finished work of Christ on the cross and say that Jesus made it possible for us to be forgiven. Our works must be mixed with the finished work of Christ and then our forgiveness of sins is merited before God. This error is that works play a part in our salvation, our forgiveness of sins. They do not. In Galatians chapters 3 and 5, Paul addressed the issue and condemned the thought of keeping even one part of the Law in order to be righteous with God. Salvation is a free gift, paid for by the blood of Christ. J.W.'s: Forgiveness of sins is by good works and cooperation with God (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp. 150, 152). They maintain that the sacrifice of Jesus (really Michael the archangel) opened the door that Adam closed. In other words, because of Jesus' sacrifice you are able to cooperate with God and earn salvation. The error here is the same as that in Mormonism listed above. Works do not play a part in our salvation. They come after we are saved, not before, and not in cooperation with anything. To add to the work of Christ is to say that what Jesus did on the cross isn't enough. This is an insult to God.

756

Conclusion The truth is important not because it is simply true. It is important because truth is what defines who and what we believe in. Is Jesus the brother of the devil as in Mormonism? Is he an angel who became a man? Or, is He the creator of the universe, second person of the Trinity? Only one is right. Faith is vital. But faith placed in something false is the same as having no faith at all. Faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. That is why it is important to have the true Jesus, the one of the Bible, not the one of Mormonism, nor the one of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Eternity is a long time to be wrong, especially about Jesus.

757

What about the testimonies of people in cults?

We cannot deny that people in different and contradictory religious systems have equally strong testimonies of the truth of their beliefs. Mormons, for example, frequently appeal to a "burning in the bosom" as a way of knowing that Mormonism is true. Likewise, Jehovah's Witnesses "know" that their religion is correct. Christian Scientists, Christadelphians, and others each have countless members who sincerely believe in the validity of their religions and will testify to their truth. These groups emphasis "inner testimonies" to different degrees. But the fact remains: contradictory belief systems have members who testify to the truth of contradictory religious systems. Christians likewise bear their testimonies concerning the truth of Christianity. We testify to the validity of monotheism (in opposition to Mormonism's polytheism1 2 8 ), of salvation by grace alone (in opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching that obedience to Law requirements are necessary 1 2 9 ), of the reality of sin (in opposition to Christian Science's non-existence of actual sin1 3 0 ), and, of course, that Jesus has saved us from our sins. Obviously, not all contradictory belief systems can be true. So, what can we conclude about these testimonies that affirm the validity of different and contradictory religious systems? We can conclude three things. First, testimonies are subjective. They are not absolute. They are conveyed to us by people who have feelings about a religious experience or belief. In essence, it is an experience and experiences are, by nature, subjective. Second, the fact that people bear witness to contradictory belief systems means that testimonies are not proofs of the validity of any religion -- no matter how strong they might be. Someone who appeals to his testimony as proof of his religion can easily be countered by someone else stating he has an equally strong testimony of something to the contrary. Yet, both parties will still assert they are right. And third, if we assume that at least one person (or group) is correct, then that would mean that all the other people who have a testimony of the truth are, in actuality, being deceived in some way. From this we can affirm that many people are being deceived who "know for a fact" that their religion is correct. How would you know if you are deceived? If it is true that people who sincerely believe in something can be deceived, how would they discover whether or not they are, in fact, being deceived? Simple. Turn to God's word. I believe that in order to escape deception, a person would need an authoritative and reliable source of information outside his "testimony" by which he can judge spiritual truths and compare his experience. He must be willing to subject his "testimony" to something other than the grilling of his own subjective experience which he claims to be from God. Why? Because if the person used his own testimony to validate his experience then he could not determine whether or not he is deceived since that is appealing to that which is part of the deception to discover truth. It won't work. Therefore, in order to discover if you are being deceived, you must appeal to God's word and compare your "testimony" to it. If what your testimony points to is in contradiction to God's word, then your testimony is not true. Testing the Testimony If someone had a testimony that a religious system was true and that system said it was okay to lie, we could easily conclude that his testimony was incorrect since it supports something that goes against God's revealed word. The person would be deceived. This is simple. However, applying this principle to people isn't easy because since they believe they are not deceived, they will find a way to adopt an interpretation consistent with their belief systems.
128 129

Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 163; Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443. In the Watchtower magazine of Feb. 15, 1983, p. 12, four requirements for salvation are listed. The second one states, "Many have found the second requirement more difficult. It is to obey Gods laws, yes, to conform ones life to the moral requirements set out in the Bible. This includes refraining from a debauched, immoral way of life.1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; 1 Peter 4:3, 4." Hence, JW theology denies salvation by grace through faith alone. 130 Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, 447:24.

758

Some people will believe their testimonies (feelings) even if the Bible says something to the contrary. Why? Because they will subject God's word to they own testimony. This is commonly done by Mormons. For example, the Bible states that God does not even know of any other Gods (Isaiah 44:8). Yet, in Mormonism God has a goddess wife.1 3 1 So, Mormons reinterpret the verse to agree with their testimony. They will state that God knows of no other gods "of this world." They, in effect, add words to the text . We then can become locked in the horns of an interpretive dilemma which is sometimes difficult to overcome. Nevertheless, among biblically based cult groups, it is almost unanimously agreed that a testimony comes from the Holy Spirit who, according to Scripture (1 John 2:27), resides within the true believer and bears witness of the truth (John 16:13). This testimony comes from the Holy Spirit who is supposed to testify of Jesus (John 15:26). 1 3 2 This is what all cults claim in one form or another. Yet, there is one factor I've encountered that is an important part of the witness of the Spirit in a true believer. Assurance of forgiveness of sins "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" (1 John 5:13) Because the cults serve false gods, they also have a false gospels (Gal. 1:8-9). All these "other" gospels are works oriented. That is, because the members of cults must cooperate with God in some form (obeying commandments, being baptized, etc.) in order to get or maintain the forgiveness of sins, they cannot have assurance of salvation. Yet, the Bible tells us that we can know we have eternal life. I know that I have eternal life. I know that all my sins are forgiven right now. I know and testify that I am saved by the true and living God and that Jesus is my only Savior. My sins are forgiven and I know I have eternal life. Of all the cult members I've spoken to, none have told me that they have assurance of eternal life. I can only conclude that they do not have the testimony that is from God. Therefore, they are wrong. They are deceived. It becomes necessary for all of us to examine our beleifs in the light of God's word and to change our beliefs accordingly. Ultimately, we should come to that place where we have assurance of eternal life -- in agreement with God's word. Do you have this assurance?

131

Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443.

132

I recommend going to the Christian Doctrine section of CARM and reading about who Jesus really is. In cults, the definitions of who Jesus is are also contradictory.

759

An easy way to witness to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses

The following method of witnessing to Cultists is non-offensive and powerful. It focuses on Jesus, the gospel, and uses Scripture. This is important for three reasons: first, Jesus draws all men to Himself (John 12:32); second, the Gospel is powerful for salvation (Rom. 1:16); and third, Gods Word accomplishes what God wants it to (Isaiah 55:11). If someone puts his faith in the Jesus of Mormonism, Jehovahs Witnesses, or any other cult, then his faith is useless. The validity of faith does not rest in itself, but in its object. The greatest faith in someone false is the same as no faith at all. That is the case with the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses. Each group believes in a Jesus, but not in the Jesus of the Bible, and because they each have a false Jesus (2 Cor. 11:4), they each preach a false gospel (Gal. 1:8-9). They may be sincere, but they are sincerely wrong dead wrong. The official theologies of the Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses do not permit prayer to nor the worship of Jesus. They also deny that He can be called their God. But the Bible permits, even encourages, these things for the true believer. The true Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible, is prayed to, worshiped, and called God. And, this is where we must begin. If you can prove a Cultist wrong in a minor point of theology, he is still a Cultist. But, if you show him that the Jesus he believes in is not the same one found in the Bible, then you have undermined his entire theology. In brief, you should introduce the Cultist to the real Jesus: the one of the Bible who is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:1-2), worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6), and called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Titus 2:13). The hope is that once the Cultist sees that he is without the Jesus of the Bible, he will realize he doesnt have the true God. Then, hopefully, he will accept Christ and leave his cult. If not, at least the seeds of truth will have been planted and he will have been exposed to the true Jesus. The "approach" is simple. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Establish a common ground: the need to know the Father. Establish that the only way to the Father is through Jesus: the Jesus of the Bible. Show the need for having the correct Jesus, the one of historical (and Biblical) Christianity. Establish that the Jesus of the Bible is prayed to, worshiped, and called God. Ask the Cultist if he prays to, worships, and calls Jesus God. Ask the Cultist why he is right and you are wrong if you do what the scriptures teach and he doesnt. 7. Present the gospel Remember, a false Jesus cannot save. Sincerity and false messiahs do not bridge the gap of sin between God and man, only the Jesus of the Bible does that. Here is a sample dialogue between a Christian and a Cultist. Christian: Would you agree with me that we both want to know the Father and do what He wants us to do?" Cultist: Yes. Christian: How, then, do we get to know the Father? Cultist: Through prayer and reading the Bible. Christian: Well, thats not a bad answer. But Jesus said that he was the One who revealed the Father to us (Matt. 11:27 and Luke 10:22). So, to know the true Father we must first know the true Jesus, right? Cultist: Yes, that seems reasonable.

760

(You are not attacking his doctrine, you are appealing to his desires which, on the surface, are identical to yours: to serve and love God. You can catch more bees with honey than with a hammer.) Christian: Well, let me ask you another question. Will a false Jesus reveal the true God? Cultist: No. I suppose not. Christian: Thats right. The real issue then, isnt that we are going to church or are nice people. Its whether or not we know the true Jesus so that He can reveal to us the true God. Right? Cultist: Right? Christian: The question is, "How do we find the true Jesus?" The only way I can think of is if we go to the Bible. That is where the true Jesus is, right? Cultist: Right. But you could also pray and ask God to reveal Him to you. Christian: I see what you mean. But how could you pray to God if the only way to get to Him is through Jesus, and you dont have the right Jesus? Wouldnt prayer, then be useless? Cultist: Not if youre sincere. Christian: But then you are saying that if you are sincere, you dont need Jesus. Do you see the problem with that? Sincerity doesnt make access to God possible. Only Jesus does that. Remember, Jesus said that no one comes to the Father, except by Him (John 14:6). Cultist: But doesnt James 1:5 say if you lack wisdom to ask of God and He will give it to you? So couldnt you ask God for wisdom about what is true? Christian: James was written to those who were already believers; they already had the true Jesus and, therefore, the true Father. Also, wisdom is the proper use of knowledge. It isnt the gaining of knowledge, nor is it gaining access to God. Do you see that you still have to have the true Jesus. Because if you were to pray to God for wisdom, and you served a false Jesus, then who is going to answer your prayers? It wouldnt be God would it? Cultist: I see your point. Christian: Good. Now let me ask you a couple of questions to get things started. If you were to say, "Father receive my spirit," who would you be praying to? Cultist: I would be praying to the Father. Christian: Right. If you were to say, "Jesus receive my spirit," who would you be praying to? Cultist: I wouldnt pray to Jesus. I would only pray to the Father. That is what He said to do in Matt. 6. He said to pray, "Our Father who art in heaven..." Christian: Yes, thats true. But if you believe it do you do it? Do you pray that way all the time? Cultist: Of course I do. Christian: No, what I mean is. Do you pray that prayer. If you believe that is what you are to pray, then you could only pray that particular prayer. You would have to repeat it every time you prayed. But that isnt what Jesus intended. It was a model prayer. It is what we are to follow. May we continue? Youll see what Im getting at in a moment. Cultist: Sure. Go ahead. Christian: Just for the sake of argument, if you were to say, "Jesus receive my spirit," who would you be praying to? Cultist: I would be praying to Jesus. Christian: Right. Now, in Acts 7:55-60, Stephen, while full of the Holy Spirit, prayed to Jesus. It says, "And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (See also, Acts 9:14; Rom. 10:13.) Stephen prayed to Jesus, not just through Him. If it is acceptable for him then it should be alright for you. The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to. I pray to Jesus. Do you? If yes, good. If not, why not?

761

(If you are talking to a Mormon, you may want to mention that in the Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi 19:18, Jesus is prayed to -- not just through!) Cultist: Jesus said to pray to the Father. So, I do. Christian: Yes, I agree. I do too. But I also pray to Jesus as Stephen did. If the church is only to pray to the Father, then why did Stephen, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, address Jesus in His prayer? Was he wrong? Cultist: I dont have an answer. Christian: Also, what does it mean to call upon the name of the Lord? Cultists: I dont know. What does it mean? Christian: It means to seek God, even to pray to God. For example, in Psalm 116:4 it says, "Then I called on the name of the LORD: O LORD, save me!" In 1 Cor. 1:1-2 the church calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus. That is, they prayed to Jesus. Now, if Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, could pray to Jesus, and the church in 1 Cor. 1:1-2 could too, then shouldnt you be able to do the same thing? Cultist: Well, Im not sure. Ive never really considered this before. Christian Glad to see youre honest. Lets continue. Jesus was also worshiped. The verses for these are: "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, You are certainly Gods son!" (Matt. 14:33). "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him " (Matt. 28:9). (See also Matt. 2:2,11; John 9:35_39; Heb. 1:6.) Do you do what His disciples did? Do you worship Jesus? (Mormon theology does not allow worship of Jesus. However, some Mormons do anyway. They just dont know that their church has, and still does, teach against doing so. If the person says he worships Jesus, ask him how he can do that without praying to Him. If, on the other hand, the Mormon has said he does pray to Jesus and that he does worship Jesus, then encourage him to continue and remind him that it is Jesus who has the authority (Matt. 28:18) to forgive sins (Luke 5:20-24; 7:48-49); He judges (John 5:22,27); He gives eternal life (John 10:28; 5:40), etc. -- See 100 Truths About Jesus. The whole point is to try to get him to ask the true Jesus to forgive him of his sins and reveal the Father to him.) (All Jehovahs Witnesses say no to worshiping Jesus. They have their own Bible where they have mistranslated the word worship, wherever it refers to Jesus, to the words do obeisance which means to show respect or honor to someone. Because of this, using the verse about worship will not carry much weight. In that case, you will want to substitute this...) Christian: Do you honor Him equally with the Father as Jesus said to do in John 5:23? Cultist:: Not equally. The Father is greater than Jesus. Christian: The Father was greater in position. Remember, Jesus was made for a little while lower than the angels (Heb. 2:9). It was in this humbled state that He said the Father was greater than He. He didnt say different or better, only greater. You must understand that Jesus was fully man as well as fully God and as a man was in a lessor position. Still though, Scripture requires that you honor Him equally with the Father as Jesus said. If you dont, then why not? Cultist: I dont have an answer. Christian: Alright. There is just one more issue to address. Do you call Jesus your Lord and your God? Cultist: No, I dont. Christian: After Jesus resurrection He showed Himself to many people. One of them was Thomas. John 20:28 says, "Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], My Lord and my God! Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, have you believed?" In addition, God calls Jesus God in Hebrews 1:8, "But of the Son He [the Father] says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever..." The Father calls Jesus God. Thomas called Him his Lord and God. Do you call Jesus your Lord and your God?

762

Cultist: No. I dont call Jesus my Lord and God. (Jehovahs Witnesses will say that Thomas was swearing. Ask them why Jesus didnt rebuke Thomas for swearing? Besides, in the Greek, Thomas literally said, "The Lord of me and the God of me.") (With a Mormon, you can again mention the reference in the Book of Mormon 3 Nephi 19:18 where Jesus is also called Lord and God.) Christian: My question to you is this. If I have the wrong Jesus, and therefore I serve the wrong God, then why do I pray to Jesus, worship Him, and call Him my Lord and God as the Scriptures teach? But, if you have the true Jesus, why is it you dont do those things? Cultist: (Silence!) Christian: It seems clear that if you want your sins forgiven then you need to go to Jesus and ask Him to forgive you. Remember, the true Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible, is prayed to, worshiped, and called God. That is the same Jesus I serve. Which one do you serve? Christian: Since Jesus is the one who forgives sins, then I go to Him. You can too. All you have to do is pray to Him and ask Him to forgive you of your sins. You already know you are a sinner. So simply go to Him, the real Jesus, and receive the forgiveness of sins through faith in Him. This brief approach is powerful because it brings the Cultist face-to-face with the Jesus of the Bible. Though the Cultist wont respond by dropping to his knees, at least you will have exposed him or her to the real Jesus. Also, remember that the Word of God will accomplish what God wishes it to: "So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire," (Isaiah 55:11).

763

The True Jesus

There is a simple way to see if someone has the true Jesus or not. By true Jesus, I mean the one of the Bible, not the one of Mormonism who is the brother of the devil, nor the Jehovah's Witness Jesus who is Michael the Archangel, and certainly not the one of the New Age Movement who is simply a man in tune with the divine consciousness. The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:12). The Jesus of the Bible is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6) The Jesus of the Bible called God (John 10:28; Heb. 1:8).

In cult theologies, Jesus is a creation in one form or another (this is why the Jehovah's Witnesses add the word other' four times to Col. 1:16-17). Therefore, He is not to be prayed to, worshiped, or called God. If you are a Christian then you will be able to pray to Jesus, not just through. You will be able to worship Jesus equally with the Father. And you will be able to call Jesus your Lord and God. A cultist cannot do this. A cultist has a false Jesus, and, therefore, a false hope of salvation. The following is an expansion of the above points If you put your faith in a Jesus that is not true, then your faith is useless. The power of faith does not rest in the act of believing, but in its object; the greatest faith in someone false is the same as no faith at all. Sincerity and false messiahs do not bridge the chasm of sin between God and man, only the Jesus of the Bible does that. Who then, is the true Jesus? Jesus said that He was the only One who reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27 and Luke 10:22): "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him," (NIV). So, to know the true Father you must first know the true Jesus. The question is, how do you recognize the true Jesus? Simple, look in the Bible. If you were to say, "Father receive my spirit," who would you be praying to? The Father, right? If you were to say, "Jesus receive my spirit," who would you be praying to? Jesus. In Acts 7:59, Stephen, while full of the Holy Spirit (v. 55), prayed to Jesus: And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (See also Acts 9:14; Rom. 10:13.) Stephen prayed to Jesus, not just through Him. If it is acceptable for him then it should be alright for you. The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to. I pray to Jesus. Do you? If yes, good. If not, why? But you might say, "Jesus said to pray to the Father." I do. But I also pray to Jesus as Stephen did. If the church is only to pray to the Father then why did Stephen, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, address Jesus in His prayer? Was he wrong? See also 1 Cor. 1:1-2 with Psalm 116:4 where calling upon the name of the Lord is prayer and prayer is addressed to Jesus by the Corinthian church. Jesus was also worshipped. The verses are: And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's son! (MMatt. 14:33). And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him (Matt. 28:9). See also Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6. The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to and worshiped. Do you do what Jesus' disciples did? Do you pray to and worship the true Jesus?

764

Since it is against Mormon and Jehovah's Witness theologies to pray to Jesus but only through if you do worship Jesus, how can you do that without praying to Him? And, do you honor Him equally with the Father as Jesus said to do in John 5:23? If you do not, then why not? There is just one more issue to address. Do you call Jesus your Lord and God? After Jesus' resurrection He showed Himself to many people. One of them was Thomas. John 20:28: Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], "My Lord and my God!" The literal Greek says, "The Lord of me and the God of me." "My God!" is a pagan expression used today. Two points can be made from this. First, do you agree that Thomas a devout Jew was swearing, like a pagan of today? Second, there is no biblical account of swear words. Peter did swear in Mark 14:71 by swearing he did not know Jesus. To say Thomas was swearing, or merely exclaiming profound surprise has no evidence. God calls Jesus God in Heb. 1:8: But of the Son He [the Father] says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever..." Unfortunately, in the Jehovah's Witness Bible in Heb. 1:8 you'll see that it says, "God is your throne, forever and ever." This, technically speaking, is a legitimate translation. The reason this is so lies in the nature of the Greek language and the fact that the form of the word "God" and "Throne" both end in a noun construction that is interchangeable, therefore making the NWT translation legitimate. It is unfortunate that the Watchtower has chosen to do this. Nevertheless, if you'd like to read more about this, then go to The Jehovah's Witnesses and Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6. Conclusion: The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2), worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6), and called Lord and God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8). If I have the wrong Jesus, and therefore I serve the wrong God, then why do I pray to Jesus, worship Him, and call Him my Lord and God as the Scriptures teach? But, if you have the true Jesus, why is it you don't do those things? Why does JW theology not agree with the scriptures? I think the answer is simple. The Jesus of the cults is not the true Jesus. Therefore, they are wrong.

765

766

Jehovahs Witnesses Introduction

The Jehovahs Witnesses are known for going door-to-door bringing their Watchtower and Awake magazines. They claim to be Christian, but they bring a non-historical and altered message about God, Jesus, and biblical truth. They are not Christian.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

What are the basic beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses? pp. 768-770 Why is the Jehovah's Witness religion not Christian? p. 772 Where do the Jehovah's Witnesses get their theology from? p. 773 How does the Watchtower organization control the JW's thinking? p. 777-778 Why are the JW's not the faithful and discreet slave? pp. 784-785 How is one saved as a Jehovah's Witness? p. 786 What are some of the bad translations of the JW Bible? p. 791 Which quotes quotes from the Watchtower strike you as interesting? Why? pp. 797-799 Has the Watchtower organization ever made a false prophecy? pp. 800-801 What do the JW's say about Jesus' resurrection that is incorrect? pp. 808-809 Did Jesus die on a stake or a cross? p. 810 What do the JW's do with John 8:58? p. 817 How would you respond to the JW's use of John 17:3? p. 823 What does it mean to call upon the name of the Lord in respect to Jesus? p. 825-830 What do the JW's do to Col. 1:16-17? p. 832

767

Jehovah's Witnesses in a Nutshell

According to Jehovah's Witness' theology, God is a single person, not a Trinity, who does not know all things and is not everywhere. He first created Michael the Archangel through whom He created all "other things," including the universe, the earth, Adam and Eve, etc. This creative work took God 42,000 years. At one point, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society taught that God ruled the universe from somewhere in the Pleiades star system. They have since modified this to say that the "Pleiades can no longer be considered the cent er of the universe and it would be unwise for us to try to fix God's throne as being at a particular spot in the universe."1 3 3 Such changes and even contradictions in teaching are frequent in the Watchtower organization and when a doctrine changes, they tell their followers that the light of truth is getting brighter. After Adam sinned, the paradise which God had created for them, was ruined. So, God instituted a system of redemption which was revealed in the Bible and would ultimately lead to the crucifixion of Jesus the messiah. But, in the meantime, God needed to have a visible, theocratic organization on earth to accurately represent Him. Throughout history, this true organization had a remnant of faithful Jehovah's Witnesses (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc.) but it wasn't until the late a00's that Charles Taze Russell formerly began what is now known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society which is run out of Brooklyn, New York. This organization claims to be the only true channel of God's truth on earth today and that it alone can properly interpret God's word since it is the angel directed, prophet of God on earth. When it came time for the savior to be born, Michael the Archangel became a human, in the form of Jesus. Jesus grew and kept all the laws of God and never sinned. Finally, when Jesus died, it was not on a cross, but on a torture stake, where he bore the sins of mankin77 d -- but this did not include Adam's sins. Jesus rose from the dead as a spirit, not physically (his body was dissolved and taken by God) and during his visitations to people on earth, he manifested a temporary physical body for them to see and touch. Thus began the true Christian church of Jehovah's followers. Throughout history there have been faithful Jehovah's witnesses who have managed to keep The Truth in spite of the "demonic" doctrine of Trinitarianism that has permeated the Christian church in "Christendom." Christendom is filled with pastors who are antichrists, in churches run by Satan, and who support the earthly governments which are all of the devil. In other words, all of Christianity is false and only the Jehovah's Witness "theocratic" organization lead by several men in Brooklyn, New York, is true. In the late 1800's, a young man of 18 years, by the name of Charles Taze Russell, organized a Bible class in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In 1879 he sought to popularize his ideas on doctrine so he co-published The Herald of the Morning magazine with its founder, N. H. Barbour and by 1884 Russell controlled the publication and renamed it The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom, and founded Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society (now known as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society). Russell served as the teacher and guide for the organization which taught that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 and is now reigning in heaven. When Jesus finally returns physical to earth, which will happen at the time of the Battle of Armageddon, He will set up his earthly 1000 year kingdom. During this 1000 year period, people will be resurrected and have a second chance to receive eternal salvation by following the principles of Jehovah's Organization on earth known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. After the millennium, those who reject God and His organization will be annihilated; that is, they will cease to exist. The rest of the Jehovah's Witness who have faithfully followed God's organization on earth will be saved from eternal annihilation and reside forever on Paradise earth. Heaven, however, is a place for a special group of 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses -- the only ones who are "born again" and who alone are allowed to take communion in their annual communion service.

133

Watchtower 11/15/53, page. 703.

768

These are the ones who have "immortal life," all other Witnesses have "everlasting life." Those with immortal life do not have resurrected bodies. They have "spirit bodies." Those on Paradise Earth have everlasting life and consist of a resurrected body that must be maintained through eating, rest, etc. When you study with the Jehovah's Witness, you agree to attend five meetings a week where you are taught from Watchtower literature. You cannot be baptized until you have studied their material for at least six months and have answered numerous questions before a panel of elders. Men are not supposed have long hair or wear beards and women are to dress in modest apparel. They refuse to vote, salute the flag, sing the "Star Spangled Banner, celebrate birthdays or Christmas, won't take blood transfusions, and they can't join the armed forces. A schedule of door-to-door canvassing is required where you distribute the Watchtower literature, acquire donations, and forward all monies to the headquarters in Brooklyn, New York. If you ever leave the Jehovah's Witness organization, you are considered an apostate and are to be shunned.

769

What do the Jehovah's Witnesses Teach?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. There is one God in one person, Make Sure of All Things, p 188. There is no Trinity, Let God be True, p. 100-101; Make Sure of All Things, p.386. The Holy Spirit is a force, not alive, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 406-407. The Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, The Watchtower, June 1, 1952, p. 24. Jehovah's first creation was his 'only-begotten Son'. . . was used by Jehovah in creating all other things", Aid to Bible Understanding, pp. 390-391. Jesus was Michael the archangel who became a man, The Watchtower, May 15, 1963, p. 307; The New World, 284. Jesus was only a perfect man, not God in flesh, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 306. Jesus did not rise from the dead in his physical body, Awake! July 22, 1973, p. 4. Jesus was raised "not a human creature, but a spirit." Let God be True, p. 276. Jesus did not die on a cross but on a stake, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 89-90. Jesus returned to earth, invisibly, in 1914, The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 300. Jesus' ransom sacrifice did not include Adam, Let God be True, p. 119. Their church is the self-proclaimed prophet of God, The Watchtower, April 1, 1972, p. 197. They claim to be the only channel of God's truth, The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981, p. 19. Only their church members will be saved, The Watchtower, Feb, 15, 1979, p. 30. Good works are necessary for salvation, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp. 150, 152. The soul ceases to exist after death, Let God be True, p. 59, 60, 67. There is no hell of fire where the wicked are punished, Let God be True, p. 79, 80. Only 144,000 Jehovah's Witness go to heaven, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 166-167, 361; Let God be True, p. 121. Only the 144,000 Jehovah's Witness are born again. Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, p. 76.; Watchtower 11/15/54, p. 681. Only the 144,000 may take communion, Blood transfusions are a sin, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 72-73. The Cross is a pagan symbol and should not be used, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 90-92. Salvation is by faith and what you do, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp. 150,152. It is possible to lose your salvation, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 358-359. The universe is billions of years old, Your will Be Done on Earth, p. 43. Each of the 6 creative days of God in Genesis 1, was 7000 years long. Therefore, Man was created toward the end of 42,000 years of earth's preparation, Let God be True, p. 168. They also refuse to vote, salute the flag, sing the "Star Spangled Banner," or celebrate Christmas or birthdays. They are not allowed to serve in the armed forces. Satan was entrusted with the obligation and charged with the duty of overseeing the creation of the earth, Children, p 55

29.

770

Jehovah's Witness History

The Jehovah's Witnesses was begun by Charles Taze Russell in 1872. He was born on February 16, 1852, the son of Joseph L. and Anna Eliza Russell. He had great difficulty in dealing with the doctrine of eternal hell fire and in his studies came to deny not only eternal punishment, but also the Trinity, and the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. When Russell was 18, he organized a Bible class in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In 1879 he sought to popularize his aberrant ideas on doctrine. He copublished The Herald of the Morning magazine with its founder, N. H. Barbour and by 1884 Russell controlled the publication and renamed it The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom, and founded Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society (now known as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society). The first edition of The Watchtower magazine was only 6,000 copies each month. Today the Witnesses' publishing complex in Brooklyn, New York, churns out 100,000 books and 800,000 copies of its two magazines--daily! Russell claimed that the Bible could be only understood according to his interpretations. A dangerous arrangement since he controlled what was written in the Watchtower magazine. This kind of assertion is typical among leaders of cult religions. After the death of Russell on Oct. 31, 1916, a Missouri lawyer named Joseph Franklin Rutherford took over the presidency of the Watch Tower Society which was known then as the Dawn Bible Students Association. In 1931 he changed the name of the organization to "The Jehovah's Witnesses." After Rutherford's death, Nathan Knorr took over. After Knorr, Frederick William Franz became president. Today the Society is led by Mr. Henschel. The group has over 4 million members world wide. The Watchtower Society statistics indicate that 740 house calls are required to recruit each of the nearly 200,000 new members who join every year. The Jehovah's Witnesses have several book studies' each week. The members are not required to attend, but there is a level of expectation that gently urges converts to participate. It is during these book studies' that the Jehovah's Witness is constantly exposed to counter Christian teachings. The average Jehovah's Witness, with his constant Watchtower indoctrination, could easily pummel the average Christian when it comes to defending his beliefs. The Jehovah's Witnesses vehemently portray the doctrine of the Trinity as pagan in origin and that Christendom, as a whole, has bought the lie of the devil. Along with denying the Trinity is an equally strong denial of the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, the belief in hell, and eternal conscious punishment in hell.

771

Is the Jehovah's Witness religion Christian?

The answer to the question is, no. It is not Christian. Like all non-Christian cults, the Jehovah's Witness organization distorts the essential doctrines of Christianity. It denies the deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, and salvation by grace. This alone makes it non-Christian. To support its erring doctrines, the Watchtower organization (which is the author and teacher of all official Jehovah's Witness theology), has even altered the Bible to make it agree with its ever changing and nonChristian teachings. Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors: Taking verses out of their immediate context. Refusing to read verses in the entire biblical context. Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text. Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs. Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others. Changing the meanings of words. Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines. Adding to the Word of God.

Additionally, the Jehovah's Witness organization requires of its members regular weekly attendance at their "Bible Study" meetings where they are repeatedly indoctrinated with anti-Christian teachings. This is done by reading the Watchtower magazine, following along with what it says, reading the questions it asks, and reciting the answers it gives. In other words, the Watchtower Organization carefully trains its members to let the Organization do their thinking for them. The Witnesses are told they will be persecuted when they go door to door teaching their doctrines. They are further told that this is simply the enemy fighting against God's organization because they are in "the truth." So, when someone disagrees with them, they then feel confirmed in being in the truth (like all cults claim). They are strongly encouraged to have friends and acquaintances that are only JWs, thereby keeping outside examination to a minimum. They are told to shun those who leave their group. That way there is no way to see why someone has left and no way to find out that they are in error from those who have found the truth in Christ. They are conditioned to shy away from any real biblically knowledgeable person. An example of this is frequently found on the Internet. I was once banned from a Jehovah's Witness chat room after I not only answered their objections to the Trinity and deity of Christ, but challenged them in return. Subsequently, my name was passed around to all other Jehovah's Witness rooms where I was banned from them as well. The Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be Christians because they believe they are serving the true and living God. Like many cults, they think they are the only true church on earth. Yet, they deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' physical resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith. In addition, the Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged from looking into Jehovah's Witness history or old Watchtower literature which is replete with contradictions, altered doctrines, and false prophecies. Instead, they are indoctrinated repeatedly against basic Christian doctrines (Trinity, deity of Christ, etc) and into the notion that they alone are the true servants of God and that all others are either in "Christendom" or simply unbelievers. Primarily, the Jehovah's Witness organization is a mind control organization that uses its people to pass out literature and send in "donations" to the headquarters in Brooklyn, New York. "Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible." The Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967. p. 587. The Watchtower organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses is a non-Christian organization that uses its people to promulgate false doctrines, sell a multitudinous amount of literature, and expand its grip into the lives of its members and their families. It is a non-Christian cult.

772

Are Jehovah's Witness are Really Watchtowerites?

Jehovahs Witnesses faithfully go door-to-door preaching the "Kingdom of God" that is taught them via the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. They are usually quite polite and sincere in their efforts of communicating "Jehovahs Good News." As always, they carry with them several books and magazines, some of which are the New World Translation (their Bible which has been altered in many places), the Awake Magazine, and, of course, the ubiquitous Watchtower Magazine. The Jehovahs Witnesses receive their direction from The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. This organization claims to be the channel of communication from God to his people, that it represents Jesus on earth, and that you cannot find Scriptural guidance outside of it as an organization. Consider the following quotes: "It should be expected that the Lord would have a means of communication to his people on the earth, and he has clearly shown that the magazine called The Watchtower is used for that purpose." 1939 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 85. " Make haste to identify the visible theocratic organization of God that represents his king, Jesus Christ. It is essential for life. Doing so, be complete in accepting its every aspect." The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 591. "We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the faithful and discreet slave' organization." The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981.

Obviously, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society assume s a great deal, including being Gods "visible theocratic organization" and the faithful and discreet slave" teaching true Christian doctrine. The only problem is that the Watchtower brand of doctrine is not biblical doctrine. It is heavily filtered doctrine through Watchtower interpretations combined with selective questions and scripture quotes. Of course, the Jehovahs Witnesses will strongly disagree with this statement. They say that they read and study their Bibles and only use the Watchtower literature as a guide to understanding Gods word. But it is this very admission which condemns them because their doctrines are not found in the Bible. The proof is found, believe it or not, in the Watchtowers own writings. Consider this quote from The Watchtower Magazine, August 15, 1981 that says: "From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago..." The Watchtower, August 15, 1981. Did you get that? If you read the Bible by itself, you will become a Trinitarian because that is exactly what the Watchtower is referring to here when it says "apostate doctrines." In other words, if you read the Bible alone, you will not arrive at Watchtower doctrines. This is an amazing admission by the Watchtower organization. It is clear, Jehovah's Witnesses do not get their teachings from the Bible, but from the Watchtower literature. Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses are Really Watchtowerites The average Kingdom Hall (Jehovah's Witness church) has "Book" studies several times a week. It is in these meetings that the Jehovah's Witness gets new Watchtower publications, studies with the help of the Watchtower aids, and discusses doctrines in Bible studies." This is how they are indoctrinated. Whether or not a Jehovah's Witness likes or dislikes what is being taught is not the issue. Rather, the Jehovah's Witness is supposed to accept and believe what is taught via the Watchtower Literature and is discouraged from independent thinking. Another quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us, without shying away from parts of the food because it may not suit the fancy of our mental taste...We should meekly go along

773

with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further clarification" The Watchtower, February 1, 1952, pp. 79-80. This quote clearly shows that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is the Jehovah's Witness' teacher and those who follow its teachings are Watchtowerites. That is, they are students of the Watchtower which is why, basically, all Jehovah's Witnesses all believe the very same thing. Of course, they will say that this is unity and not confusion as is found in Christendoms denominations. But precise unity in beliefs among a people is a sign not of freedom, but of control. Within Christianitys denominations are the core beliefs that unite Christians all over the world. We are allowed differences of opinions on non-essential doctrines (Rom. 14:1-7). Not so with the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are all taught the same doctrine from the same publications. They each give identical Watchtower responses to questions and challenges, and all present the identical claims of "The Kingdom of God," "the Errors of the Trinity," the "Coming Armageddon," etc. Essentially, if youve spoken to one Jehovah's Witness, youve spoken to them all. If you want to learn what the average Jehovah's Witnesses believes, you dont read the Bible, you read the Watchtower Magazine. This is because the Watchtower is the source of their theological beliefs, not the Bible. If you want to quickly learn what the Watchtower teaches, spend an hour with any Jehovah's Witness. The Jehovah's Witness is, quite plainly, a Watchtowerite.

774

Has Jehovah performed the greatest act of love?

According to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, God is not a Trinity and Jesus is not God in flesh. Because of their position, I sometimes ask the question "Has Jehovah performed the greatest act of love?". I get different answers but because they have not been indoctrinated by the Watchtower Magazine, they often actually think on their own instead of repeating what the Watchtower says. Of course, the Jehovah's Witness almost always says that the greatest act of love performed by God was sending His Son to die for us. This is a good answer, but is it correct? I then quote them what Jesus said in John 15:13, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends" (NASB). The KJV says, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." The Jehovah's Witness Bible, the NWT says, "No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends." We can see that the greatest act of love is to sacrifice one's own life for another. Note that Jesus said that this self sacrifice is the greatest act of love. I then again ask the Jehovah's Witness, "Has Jehovah performed the greatest act of love?". That is when the problem arises for the Jehovah's Witness. I tell them that as a Trinitarian, my Lord has performed the greatest act of love. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14). Therefore, God has laid His life down for a friend; He has performed the greatest act of love that someone can do -- just as Jesus said. I then ask the Jehovah's Witness, "Why do you want me to give up the greatest act of love performed by my God, for your God who cannot perform the greatest act of love?" The conversation can take many turns at this point. But it always is good to focus on God's love for us on the cross. Following is an outline that helps clarify the issue as it quotes scripture. 1. God is love A. 1 John 4:16, "And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him." i. The New World Translation says, "And we ourselves have come to know and have believed the love that God has in our case. God is love, and he that remains in love remains in union with God and God remains in union with him." God demonstrates the greatest love A. He is infinite, holy, loving, and no one can demonstrate these qualities better than God Himself. God has full ability to demonstrate His own nature. Can anyone "out do" God in love? Jesus accurately represents the Father A. Heb. 1:3, "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high," (NASB). i. The New World Translation says, "He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being. And he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made purification of sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places." B. John 14:8, ". . . Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. . ." i. The NWT says, ". . . He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. . ." Jesus said, . . . A. John 15:13, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." i. (The NWT says, "No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends.") Conclusion A. If Jesus is not God and He laid down His life, then He is doing something greater than the Father can do. B. If Jesus is God and He laid down His life, then God is performing the greatest act of love.

2.

3.

4.

5.

775

The Watchtower Organization points to itself as the truth.

"Consider, too, the fact that Jehovah's organization alone, in all the earth, is directed by God's holy spirit or active force (Zech. 4:6). Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book . . . How very much true Christians appreciate associating with the only organization on earth that understands the 'deep things of God"! . . . Furthermore, this organization alone is supplied with 'gifts in men,' such as evangelizers, shepherd and teachers..." (The Watchtower, July 1, 1973. It is always a problem when a group points to itself as being the only way to God's truth. Apparently, they aren't as is evidenced by their failed prophecies. Consider the following. "And the period of falling also corresponds; for the time our Lord said, 'Your house is left unto you desolate, ' A.D. 33, to A.D. 70 was 36 1 /2 years; and so from A.D. 1878 to the end of A.D. 1914 is 36 1 /2 years. And with the end of A.D. 1914, what God calls Babylon, and what men call Christendom, will have passed away, as already shown from prophecy" (Thy Kingdom Come, 1891 ed. p. 153). "The date of the close of that 'battle' is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874" (The Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1892, pp. 21-23). "For instance, as we look back and note that the Scriptures marked 1873 as the end of six thousand years from Adam to the beginning of the seventh thousand, and the fall of 1874 as the beginning of the forty-year harvest of the Gospel age and day of wrath for the overthrow of all the institutions of 'this present evil world [or order of affairs], we can see that facts have well borne out those predictions of Scripture" (View from the Tower, Allegheny, PA., July 15, 1894. - Vol. 15, No. 14 [1675].) "Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A. D. 1878, and that the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced" (The Time is at Hand, 1911 ed., p. 101). "The Scriptural proof is that the second presence of the Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874 A.D." (Prophecy, 1929, p. 65).

It is obvious that the Watchtower Organization was wrong. It claims to be the only channel of God's truth yet it has missed the mark from the very beginning. Can it be trusted? No.

776

Does the Watchtower organization control the Jehovah's Witnesses' thinking?

Following are quotes from the literature of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, better known as the Jehovah's Witnesses organizatio n. After reading the quotes below, it is obvious that the Watchtower discourages individual thinking among the Jehovah's Witnesses and requires them to submit to the teaching of the Watchtower organization. Romans 14:5 says, "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind." The Bible wants us to think and to be convinced in our own minds about issues that are debatable (Rom. 14:1-12). However, the Watchtower does not want its people to be convinced in their own minds. It wants them to submit to the Watchtower. 1. The Bible can only be understood via the Watchtower organization. A. Quote: "Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book." The Watchtower; July 1, 1973, pp. 402. B. Comment: This is an amazing quote. Only the watchtower organization can properly interpret the Bible. It is saying that the Lord Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, cannot give a Christian a proper understanding of the Bible even though it is Jesus who opens the mind to understand Scripture (Luke 24:45). This effectively prevents the Jehovah's Witness from thinking and interpreting the Bible for himself apart from the watchtower organization's guidance. Individuals are not able to rightly interpret the Bible apart from the Watchtower organization. A. Quote: "Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible." The Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967. p. 587. B. Comment: The Watchtower restricts its followers from looking at the Bible by itself without the guidance of the organization's input. This is not freedom to think for oneself and it is a sure way to keep the Jehovah's Witnesses intellectually in line with Watchtower teachings. Also, contrast the quote above with the following quote from the Watchtower: "The Vatican belittles Bible study by claiming it is the only organization authorized and qualified to interpret the Bible." The Watchtower, 7/1/1943, p. 201. The funny thing is that that is exactly what the Watchtower does. It claims to be the only source of true spiritual knowledge. If you don't understand something, meekly wait for the Watchtower to tell you what the truth is, otherwise you are foolish. A. Quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us, without shying away from parts of the food because it may not suit the fancy of our mental taste...We should meekly go along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms and opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's provision of spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's channel their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings." The Watchtower, February 1, 1952, pp. 7980. B. Comment: Here, the watchtower tells us that submission is to God's "theocratic organization", the watchtower organization and that submission must be complete and meek. Undoubtedly, this is clearly teaching that independent thought is not welcome in the Watchtower Organization.

2.

3.

777

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

The Watchtower magazine is the means of God's communication A. Quote: "It should be expected that the Lord would have a means of communication to his people on the earth, and he has clearly shown that the magazine called The Watchtower is used for that purpose." (1939 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 85.) B. Comment: This says that the Jehovah's Witness organization is the means God uses to communicate on earth today. But, the Bible says that God speaks to us through His Son: Heb. 1:1-2 says it is Jesus: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." Cannot understand the Bible outside of watchtower organization A. Quote: "We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the faithful and discreet slave' organization." (The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981.) B. Comment: The Jehovah's Witness organization has set itself up as the sole means of understanding the Bible. In contrast to this, Jesus opens the mind to understand the scriptures (Luke 24:45). It isn't the Watchtower organization that does this, but God. Admittedly, we have denominational differences. But the differences are not in the essentials and we certainly are able to understand those essentials apart from the Watchtower. Those who think apart from the Watchtower's guidance are like Satan A. Quote: "From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago..." The Watchtower, August 15, 1981. B. Comment: So, if you think independently, find fault with something the Watchtower says, then you are like Satan. Is this freedom of thought? Is this how Christ works in the church? Hardly. Also, what are the apostate doctrines spoken of in the above quote? Of course, that would be the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, the physical resurrection of Christ, etc., all things the Watchtower organization denies. So, if you read the Bible by itself, reading it for what it says, without the watchtower guiding you, you will adopt these doctrines -- which the Watchtower says are not true! If you love God, then you accept the Watchtower. A. Quote: "We cannot claim to love God, yet deny his word and channel of communication." The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 591. B. Comment: In other words, if you love God then you will be "in" the watchtower organization. If you reject the organization, then you reject God. Amazing! So, the Jehovah's Witness is urged to not leave the organization lest they end up rejecting God. Is this encouraging freedom on thought? No. The truth of God can be known only through the Watchtower organization. A. Quote: All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the "greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave. The Watchtower; 10/1/1994; p. 8. B. Comment: Here, the Watchtower states that the only way to understand God's word is through the Watchtower organization. In other words, your thinking must be in submission to the teaching of the Watchtower.

These few quotes should be more than adequate to demonstrate that the Watchtower not only maintains a control over the thinking of its adherents, but actually discourages independent thought. This is definitely one of the signs of a cult.

778

Does Annihilation and resurrection make sense?

According to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, when you die, you cease to exist: Let God be True, p. 59, 60, 67. On Judgment Day, only faithful Jehovah's Witnesses will be resurrected to life eternal on Paradise Earth. The rest of all mankind will be annihilated, wiped out, made to not exist with no eternal punishment in a fiery hell. O There is a logical problem with this view. If a Jehovah's Witnesses believes that he ceases to exist when he dies and that he will be resurrected at the Judgment Day, then is he really being resurrected? In other words, if he was alive and then has ceased to exist, he is in the same state he was before he was created. That is, he isn't. He has no existence. He is gone. The only remnant of this person would be in the memory of God (not counting family and friends, etc.). Only God would know if this Jehovah's Witness was good enough for Paradise Earth. If he was, then the reward would be a new creation of someone in the exact image of the Jehovah's Witness who previously lived and did all the works mandated by the Watchtower Organization. But, it wouldn't be the exact same person, because that person ceased to exist and there is no continuity, no continuance of the person since he has ceased to be. Therefore, on Judgment day, how can he be resurrected? That is, how is he, as the same person, resurrected when he doesn't exist any more? Is he the exact same person or has God make an exact copy of the person upon which to shower the blessings of Paradise Earth? It would seem that simple logic would contradict the idea of existence, non-existence, and then existence all being the same person. It also contradicts scripture which says, "We are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord," (2 Cor. 5:8). I know a man in Christ who fourteen years agowhether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knowssuch a man was caught up to the third heaven," (2 Cor. 12:2).

The Bible teaches us that we have an existence away from out bodies once we die. The Jehovah's Witnesses are incorrect. We continue on after death.

779

Does the Watchtower say the Bible teaches the Trinity?

The Watchtower organization claims to be the Faithful and Discreet Slave spoken of in Matthew 24:45. "We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the faithful and discreet slave' organization." (The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981.) All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the "greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave. The Watchtower; 10/1/1994; p. 8.

This Watchtower organization, the faithful and discreet slave, claims to the means by which God communicates His truth to us in this world. Therefore, by deduction, what the Watchtower says is truth. Alright, let's take a look at one quote from the Watchtower. "From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago..." (The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, p. 29).

The Watcht ower says that the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the physical resurrection of Christ are all false doctrines. Yet, the Watchtower says that if you read the Bible by itself you will end up believing these doctrines. In other words, if you read the Bible by itself, then you will become a Trinitarian, believe that Jesus is God, and believe that Jesus rose from the dead physically. Why is that? Could it be because the Bible teaches these things? So I ask the Jehovah's Witnesses, what is it in the Bible that would lead someone to this conclusion? Again, what is in the Bible that reading it by itself would lead you to believe in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and His physical resurrection? This quote from the Watchtower is proof that it is teaching contrary to the natural reading of the Bible and that it is controlling the beliefs of those who follow it.

780

Questions for Jehovahs Witnesses

1. The Watchtower organization has claimed to be the prophet of God (The Watchtower, April 1, 1972, p. 197) yet it has made numerous false prophecies. The excuse given for their false prophecies has been to quote Proverbs 4:18 which says, "But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established." Whether or not the "light gets brighter" or not does not change the fact that the Watchtower made false prophecies. The Bible says in Deut. 18:20-22, "However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. And in case you should say in your heart: "How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?" When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak..." If the NWT condemns false prophesying and states that it is proof that God is not speaking through that prophet, then doesnt this prove that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is not speaking for God? Why does the New World Translation insert the word Jehovah in the New Testament when there are absolutely no Greek manuscripts that have it in there? Isnt this playing with the text? In the book, "Salvation" by J. F. Rutherford, 1939, p. 311, (a Watchtower Publication) it says, "At San Diego, California, there is a small piece of land, on which, in the year 1929, there was built a house, which is called and known as Beth-Sarim. The Hebrew words Beth Sarim mean "House of the Princes"; and the purpose of acquiring that property and building the house was that there might be some tangible proof that there are those on earth today who fully believe God and Christ Jesus and in His kingdom, and who believe that the faithful men of old will soon be resurrected by the Lord, be back on earth, and take charge of the visible affairs of earth. The title to Beth-Sarim is vested in the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society in trust, to be used by the president of the Society and his assistants for the present, and thereafter to be forever at the disposal of the aforementioned princes on earth [italic added]. . . . while the unbelievers have mocked concerning it and spoken contemptuously of it, yet it stands there as a testimony to Jehovahs name; and if and when the princes do return and some of them occupy the property, such will be a confirmation of the faith and hope that induced the building of Beth-Sarim." This place was sold in 1942 after Rutherfords death. Therefore, it appears that the faithful were misled since the house was to "be forever at the disposal of the aforementioned princes." Is this really a testimony to Jehovahs name as it said? How can it be if they sold the house? The Watchtower organization states that Jesus died on a stake, not a cross. The typical Watchtower representation of this is with Jesus on a single vertical stake, hands over his head with a single nail in his wrists. If Jesus were crucified on a cross, then two nails would be necessary, one in each hand. How then does the Watchtower organization handle the verse in the Bible that states that Jesus had nails (plural) in his hands: "Consequently the other disciples would say to him: "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them: "unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe" (John 20:25, NWT). Jesus had one nail in each hand. This is made clear by the use of the word nails not nail. Jesus must have been crucified on a cross, and not a stake as the Watchtower organization teaches. Why is it, then, that the Watchtower teaches something that is so clearly unbiblical? The Watchtower organization states that through good works and sincere effort only 144,000 elite JWs will go to heaven. The 144,000 are mentioned in two chapters in the Bible: Revelation 7 & 14. By looking at the verses it is obvious that the 144,000 are literal Jews of the ancient tribes with no Gentiles among them (7:4-8). They are all males (14:4) and virgins (14:4). If the JW states that the usage of Jewish male virgins is figurative, what gives them the right to state that number of 144,000 is literal? Where does it teach in the Bible that Jesus is Michael the archangel? Why isn't Jesus called Michael right now since he is in heaven?

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

781

The Lord's Supper and the 144,000 Anointed Class of Jehovah's Witnesses.
The Jehovah's Witness organization teaches that not all members of their group can take communion. Only the 144,000 members called the "anointed class" have the right to take Communion and they are the only ones who go to heaven (Watchtower 2/15/85, page 13). In fact, the 144,000 "anointed class" within the Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones who are "born again." "This "little flock" of 144,000 Kingdom heirs, then, are those ones from among mankind who are "born again." Watchtower 11/15/54, p. 681. Watchtower CD. The Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate the communion supper only once a year, (Watchtower CD, Watchtower 4/1/65, p. 199.) In their annual communion service, the congregations gather in their various kingdom halls. This is done on the 14th of Nissan, the Passover date on the Jewish calendar, which usually falls in March or April of each year in the Gregorian calendar. During the service, the cup is passed from Jehovah's Witness to Jehovah's Witness. None of them partake -- except the very few who are of the 144,000. In John 6:53-54, Jesus said, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day," (NASB). I am not here going to discuss the nature of the communion and compare Catholic and Protestant views of the elements; rather, the issue is that Jesus said to the Jews that they must take of the communion, which He later instituted in Matt. 26:26-28, and that if they did not partake, then they had no life in them, v. 6:53. According to the Watchtower, the "life" spoken of in 6:53 is everlasting life. "On that occasion Jesus was not speaking to those circumcised Israelites about "everlasting life" as human creatures on a Paradise earth under his millennial kingdom. Rather, he was speaking about the very same opportunity that he was setting before the apostle Peter and his fellow apostles by means of the "sayings of everlasting life." It was the opportunity to gain inherent life with the Christ in the heavens, "life in yourselves." (John 6:53) By reigning with him in heaven they could pass on to mankind the life-giving benefits of his sacrifice. Watchtower, 3/1/78, p. 10. According to Jehovah's Witness theology, some Witnesses will be raised to "immortal life" and others to "everlasting life." Immortal life is only for the 144,000 that go to be with the Lord in heaven. They do not have resurrected bodies, but have "spirit bodies." Everlasting life is for those on Paradise earth and consists of a resurrected body that must be maintained through eating, sleeping, etc. As we see in the quote above, according to the Watchtower, the life that Jesus was speaking of was "everlasting life"; that is, life in heaven for the 144,000. Therefore, the Witnesses teach that the communion supper is instituted only for the 144,000 Jews, not for all Witnesses. Since Jesus bought the church with His blood (Acts 20:28), and His blood is the blood of the covenant for the church (1 Cor. 11:25), then communion is supposed to be for all Christians, not just 144,000 elite Jehovah's Witnesses. What does the Bible say? The Communion supper is for the body of Christ, for the believers. The bread and the wine represent the body and the blood of Christ that was sacrificed for the believer so the believer could have redemption of his sins. Therefore, Communion is only for those people who have trusted in Christ's sacrifice. Communion is not for those who are not covered by Christ's sacrifice. This is significant since the great majority of the Witnesses do not take communion. Paul the apostle said that the bread is a sharing in the body of Christ, that there is only one body of

782

Christ (the church) of which we all partake. Within the Christian Church, there is no limitation on the who takes the Lord's supper. "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 18Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?" (1 Cor. 10:16-18, NASB). for"And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight," (Acts 20:7, NASB). There is no mention of limiting communion to anyone except that they examine themselves and rightly discern that the elements represent Christ's sacrifice, not a mere meal to satisfy hunger. "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly," (1 Cor. 11:28-29, NASB).

No place in the Bible is communion restricted to only the 144,000, as the Witnesses teach. This is a fabrication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. The fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not take communion is a demonstration that they are not in the body of Christ and do not have a covenant relationship with Christ. The Lord's Supper is meant for the body of believers in the true and living God who have been redeemed by the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord's Supper is not for those who are outside the camp of Christ. Since the great majority of the Jehovah's Witnesses do not take communion, this is a testimony against them.

783

Are the Jehovah's Witnesses the faithful and discreet slave?

"Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. 43But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. 44Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. 45Who then is a faithful and wise [NWT = discreet] servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? 46Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing," (Matt. 24:42-46). The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, commonly known as the Jehovah's Witnesses, claims to be the faithful and discreet slave spoken of in Matt. 24:42-46, All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the "greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave," (The Watchtower; 10/1/94; p. 8). "We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the faithful and discreet slave' organization." (The Watchtower, 2/15/81, page 19.)

As "The faithful and discreet slave" it claims that only its organization is capable of rightly understanding God's word: "Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book. The Watchtower; July 1, 1973, pp. 402. The Jehovah's Witnesses are certainly zealous for their beliefs, but they are misguided in those beliefs. The Watchtower Organization, including all the Jehovah's Witnesses, is not the faithful and discreet slave spoken of by Jesus in Matt. 24:42-46. The faithful and discreet slave is simply all who are true Christians. A faithful slave of God does not make false prophecies Dismantling the Watchtower claim that it is the faithful and discreet slave is easy. All we need to do is look at the track record of the Watchtower as an organization and see if it has been faithful. Consider the following false prophecies made by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society over the years. 1899 "...the battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced." (The Time Is at Hand, page 101 - 1908 edition). 1918 "Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection." (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, page 89.) 1922 "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914." (The Watchtower 9/1/22, page 262.) 1923 "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." (The Watchtower, PAGE 106 4/1/23.) 1931 "There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1917, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time...and they also learned to quit fixing dates." (Vindication, page 338.) 1941 "Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon." (The Watchtower, 9/15/41, page 288.) 1968 "True, there have been those in times past who predicted an end to the world', even announcing a specific date. Yet nothing happened. The end' did not come. They were guilty

784

of false prophesying. Why? What was missing?...Missing from such people were God's truths and evidence that he was using and guiding them." (Awake, 10/8/68.) I agree with the final quote in the Awake magazine. The previous false prophecies of the Watchtower organization demonstrate that it is lacking God's truths. If it is, then it is not the faithful and discreet slave. Charles Taze Russell was called the Faithful and Discreet Slave Apparently, Charles Taze Russell the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses was called the "faithful and discreet slave." Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office of 'that faithful and wise servant,' and that his great work was giving to the household of faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation, Watchtower 12/1/1916, page. 357. Which is it? Is the Watchtower right or wrong about Russell? Given that it has made many errors in the past in its prophecies which proves it does not speak for God, it seems clear that the Watchtower Organization is clearly not the "faithful and discreet slave" mentioned by Jesus. A slave of God would not go around changing its doctrines, making false prophecies, or attempt to control the thinking of its people. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is not the faithful and discreet slave.

785

Salvation according to the Watchtower Organization

According to the Watchtower Organization, Feb. 15, 1983, p. 12, there are four requirements for salvation as taught by the Watchtower magazine. Please check out the list. 1. Jesus Christ identified a first requirement when he said in prayer to his Father: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3) Knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ includes knowledge of Gods purposes regarding the earth and of Christs role as earths new King. Will you take in such knowledge by studying the Bible? Many have found the second requirement more difficult. It is to obey Gods laws, yes, to conform ones life to the moral requirements set out in the Bible. This includes refraining from a debauched, immoral way of life. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; 1 Peter 4:3, 4. A third requirement is that we be associated with Gods channel, his organization. God has always used an organization. For example, only those in the ark in Noahs day survived the Flood, and only those associated with the Christian congregation in the first century had Gods favor. (Acts 4:12) Similarly, Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it. The fourth requirement is connected with loyalty. God requires that prospective subjects of his Kingdom support his government by loyally advocating his Kingdom rule to others. Jesus Christ explained: "This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth." (Matthew 24:14) Will you meet this requirement by telling others about Gods Kingdom?

2.

3.

4.

According to the Bible, salvation is obtained by faith in Christ and what He did on the cross. That is why the Bible says we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1). Justification is the legal declaration by God where He declares the sinner righteous. This is based on the substitutionary atonement of Jesus, on the cross, in our place. 2 Cor. 5:21, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 1 Pet. 2:24, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."

Because Jesus took our place and satisfied all the law, we are not obligated to keep the law in any way in order to be justified/saved. His righteousness, His fulfilling of the law is reckoned to us, is given to us by faith. That is why Jesus says He gives us rest (Matt. 11:28). It is rest from trying to earn our salvation in any way. As Christians, we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) because we can never please God by any work we do (Isa. 64:6; Gal. 2:21). Only through Jesus and His work on the cross are we saved. When the Galatian Christians sought to be circumcised, they were essentially trying to complete their salvation by a work of law. To this Paul said, "And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace," (Gal. 5:3-4). Why? Because Rom. 11:6 says, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." Unfortunately for the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower Organization is teaching that in order to be saved you must become 1) knowledgeable about the Father, 2) obey God's laws, 3) be associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and 4) be loyal in spreading the kingdom news of God. Please take note that the Watchtower does not teach about coming to Christ as Jesus stated in Matt. 11:28. It does not focus on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and what Jesus did. It does not mention what saves us in 1 Cor. 15:1-4; namely, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Instead, it focuses on the Father, itself as an organization, and works. It is the works issue that is the most problematic here. The Jehovah's Witness organization teaches works righteousness in combination with the sacrifice of Christ. This combination of our works and Jesus' sacrifice is a teaching that is not only a heresy, but also makes salvation void.

786

Works do not save us Rom. 3:28, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus..." See also, Rom. 4:5; 5:1; Gal. 3:11; Phil. 3:9.

Again as to quote the Watchtower above, "Many have found the second requirement more difficult. It is to obey Gods laws, yes, to conform ones life to the moral requirements set out in the Bible." And if this isn't enough, please consider the following quote: "Accepting the message of salvation and devoting ourselves to God through Christ and being baptized in water is only the beginning of our exercise of faith. It is only the beginning of our obedience to God. It sets us on the way to everlasting life, but it does not mean our final salvation," (This Means Everlasting Life, p. 181.") As you can see, the Watchtower Organization teaches that salvation is dependent upon the work of the Jehovah's Witnesses and this is a doctrine that leads to damnation. Are you doing enough works? If you are a Jehovah's Witnesses, then are you doing enough works to be saved? Are all your hours going door to door really going to please God enough for Him to let you into Paradise Earth? Are you actually obeying God's laws? If not, why not? Do you think that sincerity will make up the difference? If so, you're in for a rude awakening. "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? 23"And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness, (Matt. 7:21-23). Notice how those condemned on the day of judgment appealed to their works that they did in Jesus' name. In other words, they combined their faith and deeds in their appeal to Jesus for salvation. It was not by faith alone! Is that what you are doing? Are you relying on the complete grace of God in Christ alone or are you hoping to be able prove to God you are a worthy Jehovah's Witness by your deeds of obedience? You can never be made worthy by anything you do. All our deeds are filthy rags before the Lord (Isa. 64:6). That is why true Christians are justified (saved) by faith (Rom. 5:1). True Christianity is the teaching that Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9) and because He is, His sacrifice is infinite in value. It is completely sufficient to save us from our sins, and does so. All we need to do is believe and by faith we are justified (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9). It is after we are saved that we then go out and do good works and keep His commandments. We do them because we are saved, not to get saved or to keep our salvation. Are you good enough? Is your heart good enough? Are you sincere enough? Have you put enough hours going door-to-door? .... do you need a rest? If so, come to Jesus. Ask Him to forgive you of your sins. Matt. 28:18, "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." John 14:14, "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." Matt. 11:28-30, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. 30"For My yoke is easy, and My load is light."

787

The New World Translation and "Proskuneo" (worship)

The chart below is a list of every occurrence of the Greek word "proskuneo" that I could find in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (1969). This work was produced by the New World Translation Bible committee in accordance with the Watchtower organization. An interlinear is a word-for-word translation of the Greek text. Included in the Watchtower interlinear is the text of the New World Translation Bible placed in a column on each page so the reader can see exactly how the New World Translation (NWT) renders each occurrence of the verb "proskuneo." The word "proskuneo" means "to kiss the hand, bow down before, show obeisance, to worship." Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God, they ma intain that He is not to be worshipped. So, how does the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society translate the word "proskuneo" in their Greek New Testament in reference to Jesus and other objects of adoration? The NWT never translates the word into "worship" when it references Jesus. It does, however, render the word as "worship" in regards to the devil, the dragon, the beast, the image, demons, idols, and an angel. Of course, they correctly translate it as "worship" when it deals with God. Is the New World Translation biased against worshipping Jesus? It would surely seem so, especially since the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, etc., all translate the word as "worship" in reference to Jesus. What is curious is to note that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society used to teach that worshipping Jesus was acceptable: "The fact that our Lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he really worshiped, or is the translation faulty? Yes we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so. While he was not the God, Jehovah, he was a God. The word God signifies a mighty one, and our Lord was indeed a mighty one. So it is stat ed in the first two verses of the gospel of John. It was proper for our Lord to receive worship in view of his having been the only begotten of the Father. . ." (The Watchtower, July 15, 1898, p. 216.) So, it seems that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is inconsistent in its teaching over the years. Its theology has changed as has its teaching. Therefore, since they needed a Bible consistent with those changes, they produced a Bible that reflects their theological bias: The New World Translation. Following is a chart listing every appearance of the word "proskuneo" in the New World Translation. Let's see if the bias of the Watchtower organization is obvious. Verse is referring to Matt. 2:2 Matt. 2:8 dragon, beast, image

Jesus obeisance obeisance

God

Demons

Devil

Generic

Idols

Peter

angel

Matt. 2:11 obeisance Matt. 4:9 Matt. 4:10 Matt. 8:2 obeisance worship worship

Matt. 9:18 obeisance Matt. 14:33 obeisance

788

Verse is referring to Matt. 15:25 Matt. 18:26 Matt. 20:20

Jesus obeisance

God

Demons

dragon, beast, image

Devil

Generic

Idols

Peter

angel

obeisance obeisance

Matt. 28:9 obeisance Matt. 28:17 Mark 5:6 Mark 15:19 Luke 4:7 Luke 4:8 Luke 24:52 John 4:20 John 4:21 John 4:22 John 4:23 John 4:23 John 4:24 John 9:38 John 12:20 Acts 7:43 Acts 8:27 Acts 10:25 Acts 24:11 1 Cor. 14:25 Heb. 1:6 Heb. 11:21 Rev. 3:9 Rev. 4:10 obeisance worship obeisance worship worship worship worship obeisance obeisance worship worship obeisance worship worship worship worship worship worship worship obeisance obeisance obeisance worship

789

Verse is referring to Rev. 5:14 Rev. 7:11 Rev. 9:20 Rev. 11:1 Rev. 11:16 Rev. 13:4 Rev. 13:8 Rev. 13:12 Rev. 13:15 Rev. 14:7 Rev. 14:9 Rev. 14:11 Rev. 15:4 Rev. 16:2 Rev. 19:4 Rev. 19:10 Rev. 19:20 Rev. 20:4 Rev. 22:8 Rev. 22:9

Jesus

God worship worship

Demons

dragon, beast, image

Devil

Generic

Idols

Peter

angel

worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship

As you can see, the NWT is very bias in how it translates the word "proskuneo." Whenever it is in reference to Jesus, they absolutely will not let it be translated as worship. Why? Because they erringly deny that Jesus is God in flesh and their Bible reflects their bias. This is not how proper theology is done. The Watchtower Organization has changed the Bible to suit its needs.

790

Bad Translations of the Jehovah's Witness Bible, the New World Translation (NWT).
1. Gen. 1:1-2 - "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." (New World Translation, Emphasis added) A. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society denies that the Holy Spirit is alive, third person of the Trinity. Therefore, they have changed the correct translation of "...the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters," to say "...and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." Zech. 12:10 - In this verse God is speaking and says "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son" (Zech. 12:10, NASB). A. The Jehovah's Witnesses change the word "me" to "the one" so that it says in their Bible, "...they will look upon the one whom they have pierced..." Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in flesh, then Zech. 12:10 would present obvious problems--so they changed it. John 1:1 - They mistranslate the verse as "a god." Again it is because they deny who Jesus is and must change the Bible to make it agree with their theology. The Jehovah's Witness version is this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Col. 1:15-17 - The word "other" is inserted 4 times. It is not in the original Greek, nor is it implied. This is a section where Jesus is described as being the creator of all things. Since the Jehovah's Witness organization believes that Jesus is created, they have inserted the word "other" to show that Jesus was before all "other" things, implying that He is created. A. There are two Greek words for "other": heteros, and allos. The first means another of a different kind, and the second means another of the same kind. Neither is used at all in this section of scripture. The Jehovah's Witness have changed the Bible to make it fit their aberrant theology. Heb. 1:6 - In this verse they translate the Greek word for worship, proskuneo, as "obeisance." Obeisance is a word that means to honor, show respect, even bow down before someone. Since Jesus, to them, is created, then he cannot be worshiped. They have also done this in other verses concerning Jesus, i.e., Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9. Heb. 1:8 - This is a verse where God the Father is calling Jesus God: "But about the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.'" Since the Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with that they have changed the Bible, yet again, to agree with their theology. They have translated the verse as "...God is your throne..." The problem with the Jehovah's Witness translation is that this verse is a quote from Psalm 45:6 which, from the Hebrew, can only be translated as "...Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom." To justify their New Testament translation they actually changed the OT verse to agree with their theology, too!

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

The NWT translation is not a good translation. It has changed the text to suit its own theological bias in many places.

791

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mental Health

Please understand that this article is not mean as a put-down of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am simply displaying research information which raises serious questions about the Watchtower Organization. It has always been a belief of mine that cult groups put an excessive burden of legalism upon their adherents -- this is because they do not have a proper understanding of grace due to their lack of understanding of who God is and what He has done for us. Often these aberrant groups require substantial commitments of time and energy from their membership in order to maintain a good standing in the group. Since cults are typically short on grace and long on law (mixed with group obligations, guilt-inducing teachings, and isolationism), I have always assumed that this unnecessary difficulty would lead to emotional and mental problems. A few years ago, I heard of an article in a mental health journal that documented the population percentages of Jehovah's Witnesses in mental wards. It took some effort, but I found it. Following are excerpts from that article. Judge for yourself if the Jehovah's Witness organization contributed to the demise of some of its members. (The following quotes are taken from the British Journal of Psychiatry: the Journal of Mental Science. Published by authority of The Royal College of Psychiatrists, Vol. 126, Ashford, Kent, Headley Brothers LTD, 1975. The author is John Spencer.) "During the period of 36 mo nths from January 1971 to December 1973 there were 7,546 inpatient admissions to the West Australian Mental Health Service Psychiatric Hospitals. Of these 50 were reported to be active members of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement" (p. 557). "Of the 50 admitted 22 were diagnosed as schizophrenic, 17 as paranoid schizophrenic, 10 as neurotic and one as alcoholic" (pp. 557, 558). Annual rate per 1,000 population 2.54 .61 .38 .39 Jehovah's Witnesses admissions 50 22 17 10 Annual rate per 1,000 population 4.17 1.83 1.4 .76

Total admissions All diagnoses Schizophrenia (295) Paranoid schizophrenia (195.3) Neurosis (300) 7,546 1,826 1,154 1,182

"From the figures gathered in the Table it is clear that members of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement are over-represented in admissions to the Mental Health Services of this State. Furthermore, it is clear from the Table that the incidence of schizophrenia amongst them is about three times as high as for the rest of the general population, while the figure for paranoid schizophrenia is nearly four times that of the general population" (p. 558). "The study does not shed light on the question of symptom or defense mechanism, but suggests that either the Jehovah's Witnesses sect tends to attract an excess of pre-psychotic individuals who may then break down, or else being a Jehovah's Witness is itself a stress which may precipitate a psychosis" (p. 558).

792

A Biblical Response to Jehovah's Witnesses

1. Their attacks on the Deity of Jesus. A. Why did Jesus pray to the Father? (John 17). i. Because as a man He needed to pray to the Father. ii. Because He was both God and man (Col. 2:9; John 8:58 with Ex. 3:14). a. The two natures of Christ are why we have two types of scripture concerning Jesus: those that seem to focus on His divine-side, and those that seem to focus on His human-side. The Jehovah's Witnesses are simply ignoring, or changing, the divineside scriptures and concentrating on those that describe His human-side. B. Why did He say the Father was greater than He (John 14:28)? i. This is because His position was different than that of God, not His nature. ii. Heb. 2:9 that Jesus is made for a little while lower than the angels; that is, when He became a man. The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). C. Why did He say, "Why call me good, only God is good?" (Luke 18:19)? i. Jesus was confirming His own deity because what He was doing was good. ii. Ask them, "Was Jesus good?" D. Why did Jesus say that He could only do those things that He saw the Father do? (John 5:19). i. This is an interesting verse and it is one that proves the divinity of Christ, not that He wasn't God. ii. Ask the Jehovah's Witness who can do the same things God the Father can do? Could an angel? Could a man? Of course not. Jesus, however, says He could do whatever He saw the Father do. "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." E.The answer to these and other verses like them is that Jesus has two natures. Jesus was fully man as well as fully God and as a man there will be verses that show His humanity. Witnessing Approaches using the Bible. A. John 1:1: They translate as "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was a god." i. Ask if Satan is a true god or a false God. The Jehovah's Witness will say a false god. Then have them read aloud John 1:1 again in their Bible and ask them if Jesus is a true god or a false one. If he says "true god," he's in trouble. If he says "false god," he's in trouble. ii. If Jesus is a god, then doesn't that mean there are two gods? They often answer, "Yes. But Jesus is not the Almighty God, He is only the mighty god. And besides, there are those in the Bible who are called gods but really aren't." iii. The problem with this is that every God besides Jehovah is a false God. God says to have no other God before Him (Exodus 20:3) because they are not by nature gods (Gal. 4:8). B. Col. 1:15: Is used by the Jehovah's Witnesses to say that Jesus is the first created thing. This verse says, "He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." i. The Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that "firstborn" means first created. This cannot be the case because... a. There is a Greek word for "first created" and it is not used here. b. "First born" is proto, "first," with tikto "to bring forth, bear, produce." c. There is no word used in the New Testament for "first created." However, if there were, the construction would be proto, "first," with ktizo "to create." And this is not the construction used in Col. 1:1 ii. Firstborn can certainly mean the first one born in a family. However, it can also mean preeminence. For example: a. In Jeremiah 31:9, the firstborn title is attributed to one of the tribes of northern Israel. "They will come with weeping; they will pray as I bring them back. I will lead

2.

793

3.

4.

5.

them beside streams of water on a level path where they will not stumble, because I am Israel's father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son." iii. Understanding biblical culture is important when interpreting Scripture. Firstborn was a title, not only of the first born male, but also of preeminence which is precisely what is occurring when it is said that Jesus is the firstborn. Col. 1:15-17 in the Jehovah's Witness Bible has an addition of four words. Their version reads, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist," (Their word "[other]" is in their Bible with the brackets. They maintain that they know it isn't in the original Greek Scriptures but the word is implied and should be there.) A. Instead of refuting the bad translation, simply ask them if this means that Jesus created everything. They will say yes. Review this and be very clear and get them to admit that it was Jesus who created everything. Then turn to... i. Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says -your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself." ii. If Jesus created everything, then why does it say that the Lord (Jehovah in the Hebrew) did it by Himself? iii. The only answer is that Jehovah is not simply the name of the Father, but that it is the name of God the Trinity. Therefore, since Jesus is God in flesh, it could be said that Jesus created all things and that Jehovah did it alone. B. You can also ask them to try to read the section of verses and omit the word "other". You will find it to be an interesting experience. John 8:58 in the Jehovah's Witness Bible says, "...Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." A. They have translated the present tense ego eimi, in the Greek, into the perfect tense, I have been. Though this can be done rarely in the New Testament, it is not correct here because Jesus was quoting the O.T. verse of Exodus 3:14 where God was telling Moses who He was: "God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: "I AM has sent me to you."'" Jesus was purposely using the divine title: I AM. B. The Jehovah's Witness won't agree. So ask him if Jesus was saying that He "had been" before Abraham, then why does it say in the next verse that the Jews pick up stones to kill him? C. Additionally, about 250 years the Jews translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. It is called the Septuagint, also known as LXX. In the Septuagint Exodus 3:14 is translated in the Greek in a present tense, i.e., I AM... The correct translation is, therefore, "Before Abraham was, I AM." D. If this verse should really be translated as "I have been" then why did the Jews want to kill Jesus? The answer is simple: They knew He was claiming to be God, see the next example. John 10:30-34 is a section of verses where the Pharisees say that Jesus is making Himself out to be God (v. 33). A. "I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." B. You can say, "See, even the Jews knew He was claiming to be God. The Jehovah's Witness (if he's quick enough) will say something like, "Jesus wasn't God, the Jew's only thought that Jesus was claiming to be God." Then you can say, "Oh, I see. Then let me get this right. You agree with the Pharisees, Jesus wasn't God? Is that correct? The Jehovah's Witness will not like it that he agrees with a Pharisee.

794

6.

7.

8.

Plurality in the Godhead A. The following group of scriptures strongly suggests a plurality within the Godhead. These verses are translated correctly in the Jehovah's Witness Bible so you can encourage them to use it. The NIV is not as literal in its translation in the Amos verses, so I recommend using either the King James or the New American Standard Bible when doing your own. i. Gen. 1:26, "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . .." a. They will say that angels are the ones who helped God make man. However, there is no scriptural evidence for that. God is the only creator. b. You can also take him to Col. 1:15-17 where it says that Jesus is the creator of all things--including man. ii. Gen. 19:24, "Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." a. Is this saying there are two Lords, two Jehovah's? iii. Amos 4:10-11, "I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt; I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, and I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils; yet you have not returned to Me,' declares the LORD. I overthrew you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah . . . '" a. Jehovah is the one talking and He says, "I overthrew you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah..." Very interesting. iv. Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides me . . . " See also, Isaiah 48:1 v. If you are reading these verses to a Jehovah's Witness he might say something like, "Are you trying to show the Trinity from these verses?" You can then say, "You got the Trinity out of these? That's very interesting." John 20:25 says, "The other disciples therefore were saying to him, We have seen the Lord!' But he said to them, Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe'" (NASB). A. The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus was crucified on a cross. They say it happened on a torture stake where His wrists were put together over His head and a single nail was put through both. If that is true, then why does Thomas say "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails..." In the Greek the word used here for "nails", helos, is in the plural. Therefore, there was more than one nail used in the hands of the crucifixion of Christ. First and Last A. How many firsts and lasts are there? In the Bible God is called the first and last and so is Jesus. Since God says there is no God apart from Him and Jesus and God are both addressed by the same title, then that poses a problem for the Jehovah's Witness. i. Isaiah 44:6, "This is what the LORD says -Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." ii. Revelation 1:8, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." iii. Revelation 1:17-18, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." a. Obviously, Rev. 1:17-18 can only refer to Jesus. iv. Revelation 22:12-13, "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." a. Here, both the "Alpha and the Omega" and the "First and the Last" are said to be one and the same. b. Also, at this point go to Titus 2:13 where it says that Jesus is the one who is coming soon, therefore, Jesus and Jehovah are the same.

795

9.

10.

11.

The Holy Spirit A. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the Holy Spirit is an active force like radar. They deny that He is alive, that He is a person. This is, of course, because they deny the Trinity. Yet, if the Holy Spirit is simply a force then... i. Why is He called God (Acts 5:3-5)? ii. How is it that He can teach (John 14:26)? iii. How can He be blasphemed (Matt. 12:31,32)? iv. How can be the one who comforts (Acts 9:31)? v. How is it possible for Him to speak (Acts 28:25)? vi. How then can He be resisted (Acts 7:51)? vii. How can He be grieved (Eph. 4:30)? viii. How can He help us in our weaknesses (Rom. 8:26)? B. If the Holy Spirit is a force, then how is it possible that the above mentioned phenomena are attributed to Him? A force doesn't speak, teach, comfort, etc. C. Nor can you blaspheme against a force. The Resurrection of Jesus A. The Jehovah's Witnesses deny the physical resurrection of Jesus. They say that if the sacrifice of Jesus were real then the body had to stay in the grave. They say that He rose in a spirit body. This body was a manifestation similar to the way angels manifested themselves in the Old Testament. i. The problem with their view is that the angels were not incarnated. Jesus became a man by birth, therefore, He had a real, physical body, a permanent body. In fact, right now, Jesus is in heaven in the form of a man. He still has two natures, God and man, and will eternally be that. B. For scriptural proof of Jesus being raised in the same body He died in, consider the following verses. i. In John 2:19-22 before the crucifixion Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up...He was speaking of the temple of His body." Since Jesus said He would raise the same body He died in, then it must be true. a. This last verse is worth focusing on. Remember, Jesus said He would be the one to raise His body. So, it must be true. ii. John 20:27 -(to Thomas) "reach your finger...and put it into My side..." a. If Jesus were not raised from the dead, then why did He have a physical body. b. They will reply that it was a temporary body materialized so the apostles would believe that He was raised. Yet, this is not what Jesus said in John 2:19-22. He said He would raise His very body. iii. Luke 24:39 - "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." a. Jesus said that He had "flesh and bones" not "flesh and blood." This is important because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). The blood of Jesus was the sacrifice for sin (Rom. 5:9). It is the blood that cleanses us of our sin (Heb. 9:22). b. The blood of Jesus was shed on the cross and so, most probably, Jesus doesn't have any functioning blood in His body. Similarities between the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Pharisees: A. Both deny the Trinity and the Deity of Christ B. Both deny the physical resurrection of Christ and salvation by grace alone.

796

Interesting Quotes from Watchtower Literature

It is important to understand the psychological hold the Watchtower organization has in the life of the average Jehovah's Witness. The Watchtower organization is the guide, the teacher, and the expounder of correct doctrine. The average Jehovah's Witness attends several meetings each week where he is repeatedly indoctrinated to believe Watchtower doctrines. Every Jehovah's Witness thinks very much alike and has the same standard answers because they read from the same sources and are conditioned into the same way of thinking: the Watchtower way. So, if you've witnessed to one Jehovah's Witness, you've heard the same arguments they all will use. In opposition to the Watchtower, according to the Bible, Jesus is the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). He alone is the one who reveals truth (John 1:17), not the Watchtower organization. As you will read in these quotes, the Watchtower organization subtly takes the place of Jesus. Though it claims to bear witness of Him and point to Him, in reality it takes His place. This is typical for a cult.

1.

2.

The Watchtower Organization is God's organization on earth. A. "It should be expected that the Lord would have a means of communication to his people on the earth, and he has clearly shown that the magazine called The Watchtower is used for that purpose." (1939 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 85.) B. "Make haste to identify the visible theocratic organization of God that represents his king, Jesus Christ. It is essential for life. Doing so, be complete in accepting its every aspect." The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 591. C. "We cannot claim to love God, yet deny his word and channel of communication." The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 591. D. No matter where we may live on earth, God's Word continues to serve as a light to our path and a lamp to our roadway as to our conduct and beliefs. (Ps. 119:105) But Jehovah God has also provided his visible organization, his "faithful and discreet slave," made up of spirit anointed ones, to help Christians in all nations to understand and apply properly the Bible in their lives. Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do. The Watchtower; 12/1/1981, p. 27. The Watchtower Organization is the only way to understand the Bible. A. Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book. The Watchtower; July 1, 1973, pp. 402. B. "We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the faithful and discreet slave' organization." (The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981.) C. "...people cannot see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself...if he then lays them [Scripture Studies] aside and ignores them and goes to the bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures." The Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1910, p. 298. D. "Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible." The Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967. p. 587. E. The world is full of Bibles, which Book contains the commandments of God. Why, then, do the people not know which way to go? Because they do not also have the teaching or law of the mother, which is light. Jehovah God has provided his holy written Word for all mankind and it contains all the information that is needed for men in taking a course leading to life. But God has not arranged for that Word to speak independently or to shine forth life-giving truths by itself. His Word says: "Light is sown for the righteous." (Ps. 97:11) It is through his organization that God provides this light that the proverb says is the teaching or law of

797

3.

4.

the mother. If we are to walk in the light of truth we must recognize not only Jehovah God as our Father but his organization as our mother." The Watchtower, May 1, 1957, p. 274. i. Channel to understanding the Bible... All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the "greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave. The Watchtower; 10/1/1994; p. 8. Individual thinking discouraged by Watchtower Organization A. "From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago..." The Watchtower, August 15, 1981. B. "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us, without shying away from parts of the food because it may not suit the fancy of our mental taste...We should meekly go along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms and opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's provision of spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's channel their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings." The Watchtower, February 1, 1952, pp. 79-80. C. "After being nourished to our present spiritual strength and maturity, do we suddenly become smarter than our former provider and forsake the enlightening guidance of the organization that mothers us? Forsake not the law of thy mother' (Prov. 6:20-23)." The Watchtower, February 1, 1952, p. 80. Regarding Salvation A. There are four requirements for the Jehovah's Witnesses to be able to live forever on Paradise earth according to the Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1983, p. 12. One of them deals with the Watchtower organization. i. "Jesus Christ identified a first requirement when he said in prayer to his Father: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3) Knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ includes knowledge of Gods purposes regarding the earth and of Christs role as earths new King. Will you take in such knowledge by studying the Bible? ii. "Many have found the second requirement more difficult. It is to obey Gods laws, yes, to conform ones life to the moral requirements set out in the Bible. This includes refraining from a debauched, immoral way of life. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; 1 Peter 4:3, 4. a. ["Accepting the message of salvation and devoting ourselves to God through Christ and being baptized in water is only the beginning of our exercise of faith. It is only the beginning of our obedience to God. It sets us on the way to everlasting life, but it does not mean our final salvation" This Means Everlasting Life, p. 181."] iii. "A third requirement is that we be associated with Gods channel, his organization. God has always used an organization. For example, only those in the ark in Noahs day survived the Flood, and only those associated with the Christian congregation in the first century had Gods favor. (Acts 4:12) Similarly, Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it. iv. "The fourth requirement is connected with loyalty. God requires that prospective subjects of his Kingdom support his government by loyally advocating his Kingdom rule to others. Jesus Christ explained: "This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth," (Matthew 24:14) Will you meet this requirement by telling others about Gods Kingdom?

798

Regarding the Trinity, Jesus, Adam, and immortality of the soul

1.

2.

3.

Regarding the Trinity A. "Never was there a more deceptive doctrine advanced than that of the trinity. It could have originated only in one mind, and that the mind of Satan the Devil." Reconciliation, 1928, p. 101. B. "The doctrine, in brief, is that there are three gods in one: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost,; all three equal in power, substance and eternity." Let God Be True, 1952, p. 100. (Here they misrepresent the doctrine of the Trinity.) C. "Ask the student, How many Jehovah's are there?' Let him answer. The answer is obvious that there is only one Jehovah...If he is one Jehovah, then could he be three gods, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, as the Trinitarians teach?" The Watchtower, April 1, 1970. p. 210. (Again, the Watchtower misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity.) Regarding Jesus A. "The fact that our Lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he really worshiped, or is the translation faulty? Yes we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so. While he was not the God, Jehovah, he was a God. The word God signifies a mighty one, and our Lord was indeed a mighty one. So it is stated in the first two verses of the gospel of John. It was proper for our Lord to receive worship in view of his having been the only begotten of the Father. . ." The Watchtower, July 15, 1898, p. 216. B. As Jesus cleansed the temple in Jerusalem three and a half years after he was anointed with God's spirit to be King, so three and a half years after he received kingly power in the autumn of 1914 he came to the spiritual temple as Jehovah's Messenger and began to cleanse it. So this occurred in the spring of 1918. That marked the beginning of the period of judgment and inspection of his spirit-begotten followers" Let God be True, p. 202. Miscellaneous A. "This seventh 'day' on which God desisted from his work toward our planet is not to be understood as a 24-hour day. This seventh day follows upon the preceding six days of creation. The Scriptural evidence is to the effect that all those six preceding days were much longer than 24 hours each. . . each of those days was 7,000 years long. Man being created toward the close of the sixth day, he was put on earth toward the end of 42,000 years of earth's preparation" Let God Be True, p. 168. B. "The man Adam is not included in those ransomed. Why not? Because he was a willful sinner, was justly sentenced to death, and died deservedly, and God would not reverse his just judgment and give Adam life. He had a perfect life, and this he deliberately forfeited" Let God be True, p. 119. C. "Accepting the message of salvation and devoting ourselves to God through Christ and being baptized in water is only the beginning of our exercise of faith. It is only the beginning of our obedience to God. It sets us on the way to everlasting life, but it does not mean our final salvation" This Means Everlasting Life, p. 181.

"Thus it is seen that the serpent (the Devil) is the one that originated the doctrine of the inherent immortality of human souls. This doctrine is the main one that the Devil has used down through the ages to deceive the people and hold them in bondage. In fact, it is the foundation doctrine of false religion" Let God be True, pp. 74-75

799

False Prophecies of the Jehovah's Witnesses

The Witnesses make many claims in their attempt to convert you to their faith. They profess to have the only true Christian church, to be the only true representatives of God, to have the only correct biblical teaching, and to be the only true announcers of Jehovah's coming kingdom. If they are the only true church and are the only true voice of God's word, then what they say should prove to be true, especially in prophecy. When it comes to predicting the future, the Watchtower organization fails miserably. Following are some of the false predictions made over the years by the Watchtower organization. If you present these to a JW, he will probably say something like, "Those are taken out of context," or "They didn't claim to be the prophet of God," or "The light is getting brighter and we are understanding Bible prophecy better now," etc. Make a copy of these false prophecies, found in the appendix, and give it to them to check. They are right out of the Witnesses' literature. Remember Deut. 18:22, "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." If someone makes a false prophecy, and they have claimed to be a prophet of God, then they are false prophets and are not to be listened to. Do the Witnesses claim to be the prophet of God? Yes, they do. In 1972 the Jehovah's Witness Watchtower claimed to be the prophet of God. IDENTIFYING THE "PROPHET" -- "So does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?...This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses...Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a prophet' of God. It is another thing to prove it." The Watchtower, 4/1/72, p. 197. (See Deut. 18:21)

1897 "Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874," Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 4, page 621. 1899 "...the battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced." The Time Is at Hand, page 101 (1908 edition). 1916 "The Bible chronology herein presented shows that the six great 1000 year days beginning with Adam are ended, and that the great 7th Day, the 1000 years of Christ's Reign, began in 1873." The Time Is at Hand, page ii, (forward). 1918 "Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection." Millions Now Living Will Never Die, page 89. 1922 "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914." The Watchtower 9/1/22, page 262. 1923 "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." The Watchtower, page 106 4/1/23. 1925 "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year." The Watchtower, 1/1/25, page. 3.

800

1925 "It is to be expected that Satan will try to inject into the minds of the consecrated, the thought that 1925 should see an end to the work." The Watchtower, Sept, 1925 page 262. 1926 "Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the Lord did not state so. The difficulty was that the friends inflated their imaginations beyond reason; and that when their imaginations burst asunder, they were inclined to throw away everything." The Watchtower, page 232. 1931 "There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1917, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time...and they also learned to quit fixing dates." Vindication, page 338. 1941 "Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon." The Watchtower, 9/15/41, page 288. 1968 "True, there have been those in times past who predicted an end to the world', even announcing a specific date. Yet nothing happened. The end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing?.. Missing from such people were God's truths and evidence that he was using and guiding them." Awake, 10/8/68. 1968 "Why are you looking forward to 1975?" The Watchtower, 8/15/68, page 494.

A JW might say that the organization is still learning. If that is so, then how can they trust what they are taught now by the Watchtower? Will what they are being taught now change also? A true prophet of God won't err in prophesying. Only a false prophet does. The Jehovah's Witness organization, that claims to be a prophet of God, is really a false prophet. Jesus warned us by saying, "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect -- if that were possible," (Matt. 24:24).

801

1914 A.D., 607 B.C., 586 B.C. and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

An absolutely critical date for the Jehovah's Witnesses is 1914 AD. It is the date when, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, the time of the Gentiles ended (Watchtower, 5/1/93, page 11) and "Jesusthe heavenly warrior Michael-became King of God's heavenly Kingdom," (Watchtower 11/1/93, page 23). To arrive at this date, the Witnesses take the account in Daniel 4 and apply a 360 day year for each of the seven "times" for a total of 2520 years. They add this date to 607 B.C., their date for the fall of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar, and arrive at 1914 A.D., the date when Jesus supposedly returned invisibly in the heavens (The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 300), the "appointed time of the nations" ended (The Time is at Hand, page 79), and the beginning of the end of the world commenced (Watchtower 11/15/50, page 438). Please consider the following quote. "This marked time began in the year 1914 (A.D.). In that important year the 'appointed times of the nations,' 2,520 years long, ran out. If we measure back that many years from 1914 we come to the ancient date of 607 B.C. That year was marked for the overthrow of the earthly "throne of Jehovah" and for the destruction of the throne city of Jerusalem and its sanctuary and for the total desolation of the land of the kingdom of Judah." (From the Book, "Your Will," 1958, pp. 309-310, Watchtower CD, emphasis added). Therefore, the date 607 BC becomes the critical date in question. Was 607 BC the date when Jerusalem fell? No, it wasn't. No Bible scholar and no archaeological scholar holds to that date. The correct date is 586 B.C., not 607 B.C. Therefore, the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong about 1914 and everything else they attach to that date based on their prophet misunderstanding. Let's verify further that 607 B.C. is the date used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society before we establish the counter evidence. "The true prophet Jeremiah, not the false prophets, was vindicated when Jerusalem was razed by Babylonian soldiers in 607 B.C.E., the temple destroyed, and the populace either killed or dragged away captive to distant Babylon. The pitiful few that were left in the land fled into Egypt.-Jeremiah 39:6-9; 43:4-7," (Watchtower 2/1/92, page 4). "In 607 B.C.E., Israel was taken into captivity for 70 years," (Watchtower 4/15/92, page 10). "Samaria fell to the Assyrians in 740 B.C.E., and Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E," (Watchtower, 11/1/92, page 13). "The Babylonians came in 607 B.C.E. and stripped Jerusalem bare. Her people and her wealth were carried off to Babylon. The city was destroyed, the temple was burned, and the land was left desolate.-2 Chronicles 36:17-21," (Watchtower 10/15/88, page 16).

Following are citations verifying that the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem was not 607 B.C, but 586 B.C. According to Encyclopedia.com the Babylonian captivity, is defined as "the period from the , fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.) to the reconstruction in Palestine of a new Jewish state (after 538 B.C.)." "You will recall that the Babylonians, under Nebuchadnezzar, after twice laying siege to Jerusalem, finally captured it in 586 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar's army then pillaged the city, destroying the Temple and sending the inhabitants off to exile in Babylonia.("Biblical Archaeological Review, Biblical Archaeological Review). "...Nebuchadnezzar promptly invaded his unhappy country and besieged Jerusalem for a year and a half. In 587 Jerusalem fell and numbers of its inhabitants were carried away captive to Babylonia..." (Unger, Merrill, F., Unger's Bible Dictionary, Moody Press, Chicago, 1966, page 782).

802

Notice that the year 587 is offered instead of 586. There is sometimes a difference of opinion as to which year is the exact one. Nevertheless, it is obvious that 607 B.C. is not even close. "586, Jerusalem destroyed and burned (Jer. 52:13f.); people taken captive (52:28-30). (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982, page 1016)

It is quite clear that the Jehovah's Witness organization is wrong about the 607 B.C. date upon which they place so much of their end times theology. If they are wrong about such a basic event and have not changed their error to match historical fact, how can they be trusted to represent biblical truth? They cannot. The fact is that they can not change their date of 1914 because they have so much invested in it. They are forced to retain their 607 BC date even though it is in obvious error. To admit they were wrong is to undermine the whole credibility and truth of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. This they cannot do because they are more dedicated to their organization than they are to the truth.

803

Jehovah's Witness doctrine is not from the Bible alone

Many Jehovah's Witnesses will tell you that they derive their doctrines from the Bible and only from the Bible. In reality, they derive their doctrines from what the Watchtower says about the Bible. Following are various quotes that demonstrate this fact. 1. If the Witness says he learns his theology by reading the Bible alone, then he contradicts the Watchtower which says that is not possible: A. "Let us face the fact that no matter how much Bible reading we have done, we would never have learned the truth on our own. We would not have discovered the truth regarding Jehovah, his purposes and attributes, the meaning and importance of his name, the Kingdom, Jesus' ransom, the difference between God's organization and Satan's, nor why God has permitted wickedness." (Watchtower 12/1/1990, pages 19) B. "Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible." (The Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967. p. 587.) Additionally, t he Watchtower says only its organization understands the Bible A. "Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book." (The Watchtower; July 1, 1973, pp. 402.) B. "All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the "greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave." (The Watchtower; 10/1/1994; p. 8.) Therefore, whatever argument the JW offers is not from their understanding of the Bible, but from the watchtower's interpretation of it. A. Can the Watchtower be trusted especially since it has made false prophecies? i. "...the battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced." (The Time Is at Hand, page 101 (1908 edition). ii. "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914." (The Watchtower 9/1/22, page 262.) iii. "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." (The Watchtower, page 106 4/1/23.) iv. "Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon." (The Watchtower, 9/15/41, page 288.) v. "There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1917, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time...and they also learned to quit fixing dates." (Vindication, page 338.) vi. "Why are you looking forward to 1975?" (The Watchtower, 8/15/68, page 494.) The Watchtower says if you read the Bible alone, you'll become a Trinitarian. A. "From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago..." The Watchtower, August 15, 1981. B. What are the apostate doctrines of 100 years ago? Why, the Trinity of course. Obviously, the Watchtower organization tells its members what to believe. From the last quote, we can clearly see that the Bible teaches Trinitarianism, since that is what we would conclude if we simply read the Bible without the Watchtower guiding our thoughts.

2.

3.

4.

5.

804

Contradictions in Watchtower Literature

1. What or who is the real generation of 1914? A. only those alive in 1914 "Where are We According to God's Timetable?" The Watchtower, May 1 (1967), p. 262. B. anyone alive who understand the significance of 1914 "A Time to Keep Awake," The Watchtower, November 1 (1995), p. 19. Who is the Alpha and Omega of Rev. 22:12-13, Jesus or Jehovah? A. Awake! August 22, 1978, p.28; B. The Watchtower, October 1, 1978, p.15. Resurrection of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah A. Zion's Watch Tower Reprints, July 1879, p.7. The Watchtower, June 1, 1952, p. 338; A. August 1,1965 p.479; B. June 1, 1988, pp.30-31. The Lord in Romans 10:12ff A. Zion's Watch Tower Reprints, December 1,1903, p.3282; The Watchtower, July 1, 1940, p.200; May 1,1978, p.12; February 1, 1980, p.16. 'Higher Powers' of Romans 13:1 A. WatchTower Reprints, September 1, 1916, p.5952, The Truth Shall Make You Free. [1943 ed.], p. 312; The Watchtower, June 15, 1964, p.20. The WT Society admitted this change in doctrine cost many JWs their lives (The Watchtower, November 15, 1950, p.441). The tract "Facts You Should Know About Jehovah's Witnesses" from which excerpts have been taken is very comprehensive and includes Bibliography of sources of information. It is available free from Cephas Ministry Inc. on request. Hath life A. How do you reconcile the JW quote in "Make sure of all things", p.332 stating: "Salvation to life involves time and is not completed when one becomes a Christian", when in I John 5:12-13, it says, "he that has the Son, hath life". In John 3:36; I John 3:2; I Corinthians 1:18; II Corinthians 2:15; Ephesians 2:5,8; I Thessalonians 1:10; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5; I John 2:12 and Romans 8:16, eleven times it states that eternal life is the believer's present possession, and that we are saved now, not will be later. Who goes to heaven? A. Where is the great crowd located in Revelation 19:1? Heaven. Therefore all believers go to heaven. (JW's say only 144,000 believers go to heaven, the rest stay on earth). B. Why does WT ignore the following verses in saying that we don't go to heaven? Colossians 1:5; Hebrews 10:34; I Peter 1:4; Revelation 19:1; Matthew 6:20; John 12:26; John 14:3; Hebrews 3:1; II Corinthians 5:1. Apostasy or not? A. The Watchtower, 1-1-89, page 12, paragraph 12 & 13 says that by the 2nd century, apostacy crept in, and that authentic Christian missionary work ceased, but not forever. Because, toward the end of the 19th century, Charles T. Russell, the 1st president of the WTS, saw the need for missionary work. Apparently, there was no one teaching correctly from the 2nd century to the 19th. Yet, in the Wattchtower, 8-1-95, page 16, paragraph 7 & 8 it describes how the disciples formed individual congregations. Then it ask the question; Has divine teaching in that way continued down till our day? (answer at the start of next paragraph) Indeed, it has!

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

____________ Note: The contradictions were acquired from a variety of sources from my own study, books, and the internet.

805

More Contradictions in Watchtower Literature.

The watchtower says it is God's only true organization: "Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book," (The Watchtower; July 1, 1973, page 402.). It claims to speak for God, yet it has produced numerous contradictory statements. Therefore, it is not God's organization. 1. Who is the Faithful and Discreet Slave, the Watchtower Organization or Charles Taze Russell? A. Watchtower Organization is Faithful and Discreet Slave: i. "Jesus foretold that among his people there would be a "faithful and discreet slave" class who would be providing the spiritual food to God's family of devoted servants on earth, acting as his channel of communication and overseeing the carrying out of the Kingdom interests world wide. (Matt. 24:45-47) These anointed overseers serve as though being guided in their activities by the right hand of Christ." (Watchtower 1/15/1969, pages 51). B. Russell is Faithful and Discreet Slave: i. "Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office of 'that faithful and wise servant,' and that his great work was giving to the household of faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation," Watchtower 12/1/1916, page. 357. C. Watchtower Denies Russell ever claimed to be Faithful and Discreet Slave: i. "From this it is clearly seen that the editor and publisher of Zion's Watch Tower disavowed any claim to being individually, in his person, that "faithful and wise servant." He never did claim to be such. (God's Kingdom of a thousand years has approached, 1973, p.346). Watchtower claims to be only organization to find scriptural guidance, yet condemns the Vatican for doing the same thing. A. Watchtower is only organization able to interpret the Bible: i. "We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the faithful and discreet slave' organization." (The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981.) B. Vatican is only organization able to interpret the Bible: i. "The Vatican belittles Bible study by claiming it is the only organization authorized and qualified to interpret the Bible." (The Watchtower, 7/1/1943, p. 201.) Is Jesus supposed to be worshipped or not? A. Yes, Jesus is supposed to be worshipped: i. "Question: The fact that our Lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he really worshiped, or is the translation faulty? Answer: Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so...It was proper for our Lord to receive worship in view of his having been the only begotten of the Father, and his agent in the creation of all things, including man." (The Watchtower, 7/15/1898, page 216.) ii. New Heavens and a New Earth, on pages 27-28, published in 1953, "For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'? And again: 'I shall be a Father to him, and he will be a Son to me'? But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him.'"

2.

3.

806

4.

5.

6.

No, Jesus is not supposed to be worshipped: i. "He taught men, not to worship him, but to worship Jehovah his Father ... "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." (Make Sure of All Things p. 283) ii. "What I learned was so different from what I had heard at the "Christian" school I had attended. Jehovah's Witnesses do not worship Jesus. Rather, they worship Almighty God, the One that Jesus himself worshipped." (Awake, 12/22/87, page 22.). The sower in the Matt. 13 parable is Satan or Jesus? A. The sower of the mustard seed is Satan i. "Today it is big enough to hold them all. In the parable, the "man" that sowed the mustard grain pictures the "wicked one," Satan the Devil. (Man's Salvation Out Of World Distress, 1975, p. 208). B. The sower of the mustard seed is Jesus i. "Hence that apostate generation suffered national calamity in 70 C.E. So, now, does anyone ask the question, How could Jesus as the Sower of the parable plant the symbolic mustard grain and yet have it become a tree of a foreign kind, the corrupt counterfeit called Christendom? The experience of Jehovah God with the ancient nation of Israel gives the divine answer to such a questioner!" (Watchtower, 10/1/1975, p. 600). Armageddon will be in 1914 or 1941 A. Armageddon will be in 1914 i. "...the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 18789, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced." (The Time is at Hand, 1889. Emphasis added). B. Armageddon will be in 941 i. "Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon." (The Watchtower, 9/15/41, page 288.) Armageddon will be in 1914 or 1915 A. Armageddon is in 1915 i. "...the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 18789, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced." (The Time is at Hand, 1881. Emphasis added - Date was changed to 1914 in a later edition). B. Armageddon is in 1914 i. "...the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 18789, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulers hip, is already commenced." (The Time is at Hand, 1889. Emphasis added).

B.

807

The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Resurrection of Jesus

The Watchtower organization says that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body he died in (You Can Live Forever on Paradise Earth, p. 143-44). Instead, it says that He rose as a spirit creature and that the material body of Jesus was taken away by God the Father. Therefore, they deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Is this important? Most definitely! 1 Cor. 15:14 says, "If Jesus is not raised, then our faith is in vain." In other words, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a waste of time and we are then still dead in our sins. It is obvious that the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus is a vital and essential element of Christianity. But what of the Jehovahs Witnesses? Are they accurate in their assessment of Jesus resurrection in denying the bodily resurrection but affirming a "spiritual" resurrection? The answer is a definite, "No." It is obvious from Jesus' own words in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead: "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body." John 2:19-21 is a clear prophecy of Christ. Note that He said He would raise up "this temple." John the apostle clarifies for us that "this temple" was actually Jesus physical body. Therefore, Jesus' physical body was raised from the dead. Very simple. However, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus' own words here. In order to help you see the error of the Watchtower position and aid you in refuting their arguments, I've compiled the following list of arguments used by the Jehovah's Witnesses to support their position. 1. They use 1 Pet. 3:18 where it says that Christ was "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" as an attempt to show that Jesus was not raised physically, but as a kind of spirit creature. Their use of the scripture to support their position is incorrect because this verse does not say that He was raised a spirit creature. It says that He was "made alive in the spirit." What does that mean? Quite simply, it means that Jesus was raised in an imperishable body. This is what 1 Cor. 15:35-45 says when it refers to the body as being sown perishable, but raised imperishable; sown in dishonor and raised in glory; sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, etc. Jesus was the "Last Adam" a life giving spirit. Paul is typifying the resurrection body. In this passage Paul is talking about the resurrection of all people. All Christians will be raised in physical bodies. It is said the same of Jesus. 2. The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:44-50). Therefore, Jesus physical body could not be raised lest it contradict this verse. What the Jehovah's Witnesses miss is that after His resurrection Jesus said, "Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39). You must note that Jesus did not say, "flesh and blood." He said, "flesh and bones." This is because Jesus blood was shed on the cross. The life is in the blood and it is the blood that cleanses from sin: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11). See also, Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23; and John 6:53-54. Jesus was pointing out that He was different. He had a body, but not a body of flesh and blood. It was flesh and bones.

808

3. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus manifested different physical forms in order to convince the disciples that He had been raised. This is faulty for several reasons. First, it would mean that Jesus was tricking His disciples into believing that His body had been raised when it hadnt. Second, it disregards the clear teaching of Jesus Himself who said His very body would be raised. He said in John 2:29-21, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body." Jesus said that His body would be raised. The Jehovahs Witnesses clearly deny Jesus very words. Fourth, 1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." Jesus is said to be a man -- in present tense language. If He was not raised physically, then how could he be a man? He could not be. 4. Jesus manifested different bodies after the resurrection, the same way the angels took human form in the Old Testament in order to show the disciples that He had been raised. Again, this contradicts what Jesus said in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead physically. Also, Jesus is not an angel contrary to what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Jesus was God in flesh (John 8:58; John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8). The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body He died in. This is a dangerous doctrine that contradicts the Bible and condemns those who believe it to eternal destruction because it is denying His physical resurrection which is the proof that He conquered death. The Jehovah's Witnesses need to keep Jesus own words in mind when He said, "Destroy this temple and in three days, I will raise it up" (John 2:19). Since He was speaking of His body says John in verse 21, then it must be true; Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in. Also, at His ascension people watched Him rise to be with the Father. They saw His body ascend. That is why it can be said that Jesus, the man, is the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). It isnt an angel or a spirit creature that is the mediator. It is Jesus the man.

809

Did Jesus die on a stake or a cross?

One of the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses that is wrong, though not an attack on an essential doctrine of scripture, is their teaching that Jesus died on a stake instead of a cross (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 89-90). It really doesn't matter which Jesus died on. The issue is whether or not He shed His blood for our sins. In support of their position, they accurately state that the Greek word used in many Bibles which is translated into "cross" is the Greek word "stauros" which means, "an upright stake, esp. a pointed one, a cross."1 3 4 If a stake were used, instead of a cross, then Jesus' hands would have been placed above His head with a nail driven through His wrists. Since the wrists would most likely overlap, only one nail is needed through both wrists. However, some Jehovah's Witnesses have maintained that Jesus' hands may have been placed one higher than another on the stake. The reason they say this is because of John 20:25, "The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." Notice the use of the word nails (plural) in reference to hands (plural). It makes far more sense to say that Jesus was crucified on a cross with outstretched hands and one nail in each hand placed above each other on a stake. That is why it says "...in his hands the print of the nails..." Again, this is not an issue of essential doctrine, but I do believe the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the Watchtower organization is incorrect in yet another matter.

134

Enhanced Strongs Lexicon,

810

1 Chron. 29:20, is Jesus worshipped the same way David was?

The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus is a created thing and is not worthy of worship. Christians counter that Jesus is worshipped in the New Testament and cite verses such as Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38;and Heb. 1:6. The Witnesses acknowledge that at times people bowed down before Jesus the same way they would to God the Father, but they deny that Jesus was worshiped. In fact, in the New World Translation produce by the Jehovah's Witness, the Greek word for worship "proskuneo" is always translated as "obeisance" whenever it refers to Christ, but is translated as worship whenever it refers to the Father. The witnesses select which way to translate the word "proskuneo" depending on two things: Who is being addressed and what their theology tells them. So, the debate continues. The Witnesses deny Jesus' deity and the Christians rightfully proclaim it. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. In an attempt to prove their position, Jehovah's Witnesses sometimes quote 1 Chron. 29:20 which says in the King James, "And David said to all the congregation, now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king," (KJV). By quoting the King James, the Jehovah's Witnesses is trying to establish that since king David was worshipped along with God, it means that David was worshipped to a lesser degree than God. Therefore, they say it follows that Jesus can also be worshiped to a lesser degree than God in the same way that King David was and it would not require that Jesus be divine. First of all, 1 Chron. 29:20 obviously cannot mean that David was worshiped equally with God. This would be blasphemy. Therefore, it is best to translate the word Hebrew word "shachah" as "pay homage," or "bow down" as is attested to by other translations. "Then David said to all the assembly, "Now bless the Lord your God." And all the assembly blessed the Lord, the God of their fathers, and bowed low and did homage to the Lord and to the king," (NASB). "Then David said to the whole assembly, "Praise the LORD your God." So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate before the LORD and the king," (NIV). "Then David said to all the assembly, "Now bless the Lord your God." So all the assembly blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and prostrated themselves before the Lord and the king," (NKJV). "Then David said to all the assembly, "Bless the Lord your God." And all the assembly blessed the Lord, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and paid homage to the Lord and to the king," (ESV).

Is it legitimate to translate the verse this way? Yes it is because it is consistent with Hebrew dictionaries which tell us that the word "shachah" can mean worship, bow down, obeisance, reverence, fall down, crouch, prostrate oneself, (Enhanced Strong's Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995.) See the same thing stated in The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Richard Whitaker, Editor, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997). This would easily demonstrate that David was not being worshiped. Instead, homage was being paid to him as was also being paid to God -- though, of course, there is no confusion about who is God and who is not. But, if that weren't enough, the Jehovah's Witnesses' own New World translation translates the Hebrew word "shachah" in 1 Chron. 29:20 as "prostrate." "And David went on to say to all the congregation: "Bless, now, Jehovah YOUR God." And all the congregation proceeded to bless Jehovah the God of their forefathers and bow low and prostrate themselves to Jehovah and to the king," (NWT). Therefore, the Jehovah's Witness own bible recognizes that King David, though greatly revered by the people, was not worshipped. Instead, both God and David were revered by the people by prostration, not worship.

811

But, let's assume the Jehovah's Witness argument for a moment. Even if we were to say that Jesus could be with honored the same way that David was honored, in a lesser sense than God, this does not mean that Jesus is not God. Remember, Jesus is both God and man. As a man people would bow down to Him. As God, He was worshipped. In addition, it is said of Jesus that He knew all things (John 21:17), that He would be with the disciples wherever they went (Matt. 28:20), etc. He is called God by Thomas in John 20:28 and by the Father in Heb. 1:8. The divinity of Christ is well attested to in the New Testament and only the Jehovah's Witnesses with their preconceived idea that Jesus is not divine, will twist the scriptures to suit their own needs. The Bible says, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God...and the word became flesh and dwelt among us," (John 1:1,14). Clearly, Jesus is the word made flesh and as it says in Col. 2:9, all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus. Jesus is not a created thing, but the creator of all things (Col. 1:16-17), just as God alone is the creator of all (Isaiah 44:24). He is both God and man. This is called the Hypostatic Union. The Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong and their continued attempt to dethrone Christ will continue to fail as the truth of God's word is revealed.

812

Matt. 3:3, Prepare the way of the LORD

John the Baptist was the greatest of Prophets (Matt. 11:9-11) and the privileged messenger who was sent to prepare the way of the Messiah according to the Word of God. There are four main texts used to verify this: 1. 2. "For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight! (Matt. 3:3). "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way; 3The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight," (Mark 1:1-3). This is the one about whom it is written, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way before You, (Matt. 11:10). "He [John the Baptist] said, 'I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said,'" (John 1:23).

3. 4.

Clearly, John the Baptist was sent by God to prepare the way for Jesus as all four quotes above demonstrate. But, we must note that in the four citations, the Old Testament is quoted from two sources: Isaiah and Malachi. Isaiah 40:3, "A voice is calling, Clear the way for the Lord [YHWH135] in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God." Mal. 3:1, "Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord [adonai], whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the Lord [YHWH] of hosts."

Notice that according to the quotes above, John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for Jehovah. Isaiah 40:3 says that John is to clear the way for YHWH (Jehovah). In Mal. 3:1, it is God who says that "he will clear the way before Me." Yet we see that the fulfillment of these verses is found in the arrival of Jesus. Clearly, the Bible prophecies that John the Baptist will prepare the way of YHWH (Jehovah), yet it is Jesus who arrives on the scene. How can this be? The simple answer is that Jesus is divine; that is, He is the fullness of deity in bodily form (Col. 2:9). Also, John 1:1,14 tell us "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." The fulfillment of John the Baptist as the messenger and Jesus as YHWH make these scriptures clear for us to understand. Do not be deceived by the Jehovah's Witness organization that would have you deny the true nature of Christ. Only God can save us and only God can fulfill the prophecy given in Isaiah 40:3 and Mal. 3:1.

135

YHWH is the tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters used to designate the name of God. It has been transliterated into Jehovah and Jahweh. I use "Jehovah" in this article.

813

John 1:1 and the Jehovahs Witnesses

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." The New World Translation This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man. Therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the Bible in John 1:1 so that Jesus is not divine in nature. The New World Translation has added the word "a" to the verse so it says, "...and the Word was a god." The correct translation for this verse is "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." This is how it is rendered in the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, etc. The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will respond that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but a "lesser" kind of God. He is the "mighty God" as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Therefore, they say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God. The immediate problem with this explanation is that YHWH is also called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 21:18 and Isaiah 10:20. In all three verses, including Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew word for "mighty" (gibbor) is used. Isaiah 10:20-21, "Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. 21A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God." Jer. 21:18, "who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. the LORD of hosts is His name."

We can see that the Jehovah's Witness explanation is not valid. Both the Son and God are called the Mighty God. Furthermore, how many actual gods are there in scripture? The obvious answer is that there is only one God in existence. Though there are others who have been falsely called gods (1 Cor. 8:56) or even said to be "as God" like Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1), there is only one real God (Gal. 4:8-9; Isaiah 44:6,8). If Jesus is "a god" that was "with God" in the beginning, then is Jesus a true god or a false god? But, the Jehovah's Witnesses often claim that Jesus is a god in the sense that Moses was called a god. But, Moses was not called a god. Rather, he would be "as God." "Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and it shall come about that he shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be as God to him, (Exodus 4:16). "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet,'" (Exodus 7:1).

Why was Moses going to "as God" to Pharaoh? Because Moses was given the authority and power to display powerful miracles that decimated much of Egypt. Was Moses really a god? Being "as God" in regards to power given to perform miracles over Egypt is not the same thing as being called "a god" that was in the beginning with God, (John 1:1).

814

John was a strict Jew, a monotheist. Does the Jehovah's Witness really think that John would be saying that there was another God besides Jehovah, even if it were Jesus? Being raised a good Jew, the apostle John would never believe that there was more than one God in existence. Yet, he compared the word with God, said the word was God, and that the word became flesh (John 1:1,14). John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word for word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements. 1. 2. "In beginning was the word..." (en arche en ho logos) A. A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning. "and the word was with the God..." (kai ho logos en pros ton theon) A. This same Word was with God. "and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God." (kai theos en ho logos) A. This same Word was God.

3.

Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word."1 3 6 But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god" as was addressed above. Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3. How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called "a god," besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4? John 20:28 - "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'" In the Greek in John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus, "ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou," "The Lord of me, and the God of me." If Jesus was not God, but "a" god, then shouldn't Jesus have corrected Thomas? Shouldn't Jesus have said, "No Thomas, I am not the God. I am a god."? But Jesus did not. To do so would have been ludicrous. Nevertheless, the Jehovah's Witness will say that Thomas was so stunned by Jesus' appearance that he swore. This is ridiculous because it means that Thomas, a devout man of God, swore in front of Jesus and used the Lord's name in vain in violation of Exodus 20:7. This is hardly the case since we find no New Testament equivalent of a disciple of Christ using God's name in vain. In conclusion, John 1:1 is best translated without the "a" inserted into the text. "The Word was God" is the best translation. This way, we do not run into the danger of polytheism, with Jesus being "a god." We do not have Thomas the disciples swearing and using God's name in vain. And, we do not have the problem of Jesus being a "mighty god" and yet not the God -- even though God Himself is called the Mighty God (Jeremiah 21:18; Isaiah 10:20).

Chapman, B. (1994). Greek New Testament Insert. (2nd ed., revised.). Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing. Also, Louw, J. P. (1989; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic edition of the 2nd ed.) (Page 592). New York: United Bible societies.
136

815

John 5:30-32, By Myself I can do nothing

"I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 31"If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. 32"There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the testimony which He bears of Me is true," (John 5:30-32, NASB). Jehovah's Witnesses use these verses in their attempt to say that Jesus is not God. They reason that if Jesus were really God in flesh, then He could do anything He wanted to do. But here we see that Jesus says that He can do nothing on His own initiative. If this is true, then how can Jesus be God in flesh? The answer is that Jesus is both God and man in one person. This doctrine is called the hypostatic union. As a man, Jesus was under the law and was obligated to keep the law (Gal. 4:4). In His humbled state of being lower than the Angels (Heb. 2:9), Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man (Phil. 2:5-8). Therefore, He was incomplete subjection to the Father so that He might fulfill the law and be the high priest sacrifice for our sins (Heb. 5:10). Furthermore, Jesus did not begin His miracles until His baptism. It was at that point that the Holy Spirit came upon Him. Therefore, Jesus was performing His miracles not by His own power, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. This explains why in Matt. 12:22-32 when the Pharisees said that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the devil, Jesus said that blasphemy on the Holy Spirit of not be forgiven. In other words, Jesus was doing His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit and not under His own divine power which He had laid aside the rightful use of while he walked this earth doing the Father's will. Therefore, these verses do not mean that Jesus is not divine. But it does mean that Jesus, as a man, was completely and totally in submission to the will of the Father and that Jesus would only do the will of the Father as the text c learly says.

816

John 8:58 and the Jehovah's Witnesses

"Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been," (John 8:58, New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses). The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God. So, when it comes to translating and interpreting Bible verses that show the deity of Jesus, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society will go to great lengths to support their false presupposition. Sometimes they will even translate verses in a way that is consistent with their belief system. In the Jehovah's Witness Bible, known as the New World Translation (NWT), John 8:58 is a verse that they have translated in a manner deliberately consistent with their theology. Following is the verse in context from the NASB. "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' 57The Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' 58Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple," (John 8:56-59). The issue at hand is the phrase "I am" in verse 58. The Jehovah's Witnesses have "translated" the Greek present tense ("I am") into the English perfect tense ("I have been") which is more consistent with their theological position that Jesus is not God in flesh. In the Greek, the words are "ego eimi." Literally, this is "I am." "Ego eimi" is the present active indicative first person singular (I am), not the perfect active indicative first person singular (I have been). It would seem that the natural and correct translation into the English is "I am." But the NWT does not translate this into the present tense. Why? I am firmly convinced it is because translating John 8:58 as "I am" would be too close to God identifying Himself as the "I am" in Exodus 3:14. Therefore, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has opted for a different rendering. "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you," (Exodus 3:14). But the issue is not settled so easily. Does the Bible ever legitimately translate the present tense 'ego eimi' into the English perfect tense "I have been"? Yes it does. In John 14:8-9 it says, "Philip said to Him, 'Lord show us the Father, and it is enough for us.' 9Jesus said to him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father?'" Where Jesus says, "I have been" is in the Greek present tense, 'ego eimi'. Literally, again, this is "I am." Here we have an example of the Greek present tense being translated into the English perfect tense. This is the very same thing the Watchtower organization claims is legitimate in John 8:58. Why is this translated into "I have been?" Quite simply because if we did not do this, then the English would say, "I am with you so long...." That is awkward in the English, so translators translate it as "Have I been so long with you...." It is legitimate to do this in some instances where it is warranted in order to make the English more readable and clear. But is it necessary to do this in John 8:58? I don't believe so -- unless your underlying presupposition is that Jesus is not God in flesh. Additionally, to make the issue even more complicated, there are some English Bible translations that render John 8:58 other than "I AM." For example, the Living Bible (1973, a paraphrase) says, "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The New Living Translations says, "I existed." The Bible in Worldwide English translates it as "I already was." The 1960, 1973 NASB had a marginal rendering of "I have been." Because of this, the Jehovah's Witness will claim the NWT is, therefore, legitimate since other Bibles have translations other than "I AM" in John 8:58. But from what I have seen of these other translations, they are intended to be looser renderings of the Greek and therefore take more liberties in translation. The NASB, for example, is intended to be as literal as possible as does the KJV which both translate the verse as "I AM." The 1973 NASB marginal quote above is just that, marginal and is not what they rendered into the English text. The preferred translation is "I am." Take Young's Literal Translation as another example. In John 8:58 it states, ". . . Before Abraham's coming -- I am." In fact, other translations render it as:

817

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am," (ASV). "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," (KJV). Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," (NASB). I tell you the truth, Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am!" (NIV). Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM," (NKJV). Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am," (RSV). "Truly, truly, before Abraham was, I am," (NLT). "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am," (RSV) "Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am!" (KJ21) 1 3 7 . "Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am,' (YLT)1 3 8 . "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," (Darby). "Antes que Abraham fuese, yo soy," (Spanish) - uses "yo soy" which is "I am." "En vrit, en vrit, je vous le dis, avant qu'Abraham ft, je suis," (French) "je suis" which is "I am."

Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will cite translations that have renderings other than the plain "I am" for John 8:58 and in so doing claim legitimacy. Unfortunately, since different translations do have different renderings, the debate will continue between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian apologists until the Lord Jesus returns. In the mean time, let's turn to page 467 of the 1969 Greek Interlinear used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:.

The Watchtower's own interlinear translates John 8:58 as "I am" even though in the NWT it renders it as "I have been." In this, they admit that the Greek is indeed, "I am," the present tense. They will not deny this. What they assert is that it should be translated into the English, "I have been." Should it or could it? If it should, then Greek scholars would echo the NWT rendition in the great majority of instances. But they do not. Essentially, the Watchtower organization is saying that all the translations that have "I am" as the rendering are wrong, that the "proper" translation is "I have been." In a footnote at the bottom of page 467 regarding John 8:58 in the NWT is this comment: "I have been = ego eimi after the a'orist infinitive clause prin' Abraam genesthai and hence properly rendered in the perfect tense. It is not the same as ho ohn', meaning "The Being" or "The I Am") at Exodus 3:14, LXX" The "LXX" is the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The question is whether or not Jesus was quoting from the LXX or if He was simply translating the Hebrew. Again, Exodus 3:14 says, "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." The phrase "I AM WHO I AM" is rendered in the Greek LXX as "Ego eimi ho on." Literally, this is "I am the being one." Most Bibles translate the Hebrew from Exodus 3:14 as "I am" -- the present tense as did the Hebrew translators of the LXX. The LXX also has it in the present tense which is what the Greek syntax states. Jesus uses the present tense in John 8:58. In spite of some of the translations regarding John 8:58, I do not believe the NWT's version of John 8:58 is warranted for three reasons: First, it purports to "transmit his [God] thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible."1 3 9 I do not believe this is the case at all. Rather, I see the Watchtower's bias against Jesus' divinity overtaking this verse and altering it as it has done in other verses such as Heb. 1:8 and Col. 1:15-17. Second, the most literal translations such as the NASB, the
137 138 139

KJ21 = 21st Century King James Version YLT = Young's Literal Translation New World Translation, 1961, page 5.

818

NIV, and the KJV do not render this verse as "I have been" but as "I AM." And, third, the context of the verse does not support the JW position. It isn't the English, but the Greek that upset the Pharisees "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' 57The Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' 58Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple," (John 8:56-58). The Pharisees didn't speak English. They spoke Hebrew and Greek. In the Greek text, Jesus uses the present tense. It was this Greek present tense (I am) that upset the Pharisees so much, not the perfect tense (I have been). If Jesus were really saying to the Jews, "I have been," then why would the Pharisees want to kill him (v. 59)? Since blasphemy, or calling yourself God, was punishable by death, isn't this a confirmation that Jesus was saying "I am" and that the Jew's understood what he was saying? Absolutely! That is why the best translation is simply, "I am."1 4 0 I also need to mention that in Mark 14:62, where Jesus answered the High Priest who said, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 64Ye have heard the blasphemy. . ." Jesus responded with "I am" which provoked the authorities and prompted them to seek death. This is particularly revealing when we compare John 10:34 where the Pharisees want to kill Jesus because they said He was making Himself equal to God. The phrase, "I AM" in these contexts would surely imply that. Undoubtedly, Jesus knew the difference in the Greek between "I am" and "I have been." Jesus did not use the form "I have been" in the Greek, but used the form "I am." It is the Greek, not the English that the Pharisees were upset about. But the Pharisees were so upset At this point, many of the Jehovah's Witnesses assert that by the time Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I have been" (NWT), they had already been thoroughly agitated by Jesus and, basically, snapped and tried to kill Him at this final comment. Furthermore, the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus was claiming the divine title of Exodus 3:14 where God said to Moses, "I am that I am." But which do you think would have upset the Pharisees more, saying "Before Abraham was, I am" or Before Abraham was, I have been"? Obviously, the former would be more upsetting and that is exactly the phrase that Jesus used. If Jesus wanted to avoid any confusion with the Pharisees, why didn't He use one of the past tenses? Certainly he must have known that saying "Before Abraham was, I am" to the Pharisees would cause some problems. And it did. The aorist (I was), the perfect (I have been), and the pluperfect (I had been) all deal with the past, yet Jesus chose to deliberately use the present tense "I am." He used a past tense verb when describing Abraham ("before Abraham was..."), but a present tense verb when describing Himself ("I am"). He deliberately brought attention to the words, "I am." The Pharisees understood this and was indeed the last straw for them. Conclusion The Jehovah's Witnesses have spent a great deal of time developing and crafting linguistic arguments to favor their translation of John 8:58. Wading through their arguments dealing with Greek tenses, verb forms, and grammar rules is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is sufficient to mention that the Jehovah's Witnesses have a theological bias against the deity of Christ. Their
140

I should note that, most probably Jesus spoke to the Pharisees in Aramaic, a Hebrew Dialect. It is possible He spoke to them in Greek. But, since all we have is the NT Greek and no Aramaic writings of the NT, we must work from what the Greek says.

819

translation of John 8:58 and their attempts to justify this translation are directly related to their presuppositions against Christ and his deity. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society teaches its members to deny the deity of Christ. From this base, any and all affirmations to Jesus' deity will be undermined in whatever way possible. John 8:58 is just another example of this bias.

820

John 8:58, & 10:30-33, I AM, and the Jehovahs Witnesses

Jesus said in John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I am." This is a very important verse to Trinitariansbecause it is one of the places we use to show that Jesus is God. We maintain that Jesus attributed the divine name of God ("I AM" from Exodus 3:14), to Himself. But this verse alone may not be sufficient to prove His deity. There are a combination of other verses that contribute to the doctrine. Nevertheless, there are many non-Christian groups that deny that Jesus is God. Therefore, when they come to this verse, it must be dealt with. The reason is simple. If Jesus did say, "I am", it would give strong evidence that Jesus was claiming to be God. This paper will not attempt to analyze the Greek translation principles that have lead various Bibles to render John 8:58 as, "I have been," or "I was in existence," etc. Suffice it to say that the best recognized translations which have sought literal renderings of the text, have translated the verse as "I am": NASB, NIV, KJV, RSV, etc. The Jehovah's Witness Watchtower organization claims that the best translation of John 8:58 is "Before Abraham was, I have been." Notice that they do not have it say, "I am." Is it legitimate for the Watchtower organization to insist that John 8:58 is best translated as "I have been"? Let's take a look. Ego Eimi means "I am" In Greek, the words recorded in John 8:58 are "'prin abraam genesthai ego eimi. " Literally, this is "Before Abraham was existing, I am." "Ego eimi" is literally, "I am." This is the present tense. To say "I have been" is to use the perfect tense. In Greek, his would have been "aemane." But Jesus didn't use it here. He used the present tense, "ego eimi" which is "I am." There are places, however, in the New Testament where the Greek present tense of 'ego eimi', "I am", can be translated into the English perfect tense, "I have been." An example of this is John 14:9 where Jesus says, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me..." In this verse, "Have I been" is originally the Greek present tense, 'ego eimi'. But here, Jesus was answering the statement in verse 8, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Since in English it is awkward to say, "I am with you so long and you still don't know me....?", it is then rendered as, "Have I been with you so long and you have not come to know me....?" The translation of the Greek present into the English perfect tense is perfectly justifiable here because it doesn't make sense in English. But is it the case with John 8:58? Must it be translated as "I have been"? No. There is no linguistic requirement to translate it as "I have been" particularly when you notice that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus after he said, "ego eimi." Two Views Some say that the reason the Jews wanted to kill Jesus after He said, "Before Abraham was, I am" is because it was the last straw in a series of difficult and insulting things Jesus had been saying to the Jews in John chapter 8. Others say that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for saying "Before Abraham was, I am," because "I am" is close to God saying "I am that I am" in Exodus 3:14. In other words, we can make the case that for Jesus to say, "Before Abraham was, I am" was equivalent to claiming God's name for Himself. This is something the Jews would absolutely protest. Let's look at the arguments. The first argument states that Jesus had upset the Jews so much by what He had been saying that when he finally made his statement in verse 58, it was the last straw, the Jews snapped, and then they tried to kill him. But, they maintain, it wasn't because Jesus was claiming the divine title. They had just had enough. What had Jesus been saying? Following is a list of some key statements by Jesus in chapter 8. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. "I am the light of the world" (8:12) "I am He who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of me" (8:18). "You don't know me or my Father" (8:19). "You are from below, I am from above" (8:23). "Unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins" (8:24).

821

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

"The things which I heard from Him [God the Father], these I speak to the world" (8:26). "I speak these things as the Father taught me" (8:28). "I always do the things that are pleasing to Him " (8:29). "I speak the things which I have seen with My Father. . ." (8:38). ". . . you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God, this Abraham did not do" (8:40). ". . . I proceeded forth and have come from God. . ." (8:42). "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death" (8:51). "It is my Father who glorifies Me..." (8:54). "Before Abraham was, I am" (8:58).

The preceding list has many profound statements. It is perfectly understandable that the Jews would be upset. But, it was Jesus' statement in 8:58 that triggered their murderous attempt. Was it because Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I have been" or "Before Abraham was, I am." Which would be the phrase most likely to be the last straw for the Jews? It is quite possible that either statement would be sufficient. But, of course, any claim by Jesus to the divine name would be a stronger motivation for the Jews to kill Him. Also, notice statements 1, 5, 11, and 14. These are clear declarations by Jesus where He exalts Himself to heavenly level. The Jews could easily see this and would protest, particularly when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am. Since He did say, in Greek, "I am", it is more likely that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for blasphemy. Consider Leviticus 24:16 which says, Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him " (NASB). The Connection with John 10:30-33 Capital punishment was only for serious sins: blasphemy, adultery, etc.. From what I can see in the Bible, saying you had a preexistence isn't blasphemy. However, claiming to be one with God is quite different. In John 10:30-33 Jesus said, "I and the Father are one. The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning me?" 33"The Jews answered Him, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (NASB). Between John 8:59 where the Jews picked up stones to kill Jesus and John 10:30-33 where they again picked up stones to kill him, there is no mention of stoning whatsoever. John 10:31 is referencing back to John 8:59 when it says "The Jews took up stones again to stone Him." Note that they again wanted to kill Him and this time they give the reason why. They said that Jesus was claiming to be God. Now, where would they get that idea? Could it have been where he said, "Before Abraham was, I am"? Could it be from where Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (10:30). Since they wanted to kill Him both times, it would seem that Jesus had been making some very serious claims. Or was it simply that the Pharisees misunderstood Jesus and that Jesus never did claim to be God? But, if Jesus was not claiming to be God in John 8:58 and 10:30, then what was it that He said that warranted such a violent response from the Jews in both cases? What phrase from Jesus did the Jews react to and what 'misunderstanding' did they have about what it was Jesus said that led them to claim that he was making Himself out to be God? In my opinion, the best explanation for the Jews wanting to kill Jesus is because Jesus was claiming equality with God. They considered this blasphemy. The cults, like the bad religious leaders who opposed Jesus, deny who Jesus really is as well.

822

John 17:3 and the Only True God

"And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent," (John 17:3, NASB). The Jehovah's Witnesses, among others, cite John 17:3 as a proof text to deny the Trinity and claim that Jesus Christ is not God. They reason is that if Jesus were God, then He would not have called the Father, "the only true God." If the Father is the only true God, then it must require that Jesus cannot be God. First of all, it is not proper to make a theological doctrine out of one verse. Of this the Jehovah's Witnesses are sometimes guilty. Nevertheless, they do tend to take one or two verses on a subject and use them to interpret all the others. Instead of getting a balanced position, they arrive at an interpretation that is in agreement with their theological position. This is called "proof-texting" and is some thing the Jehovah's Witnesses do frequently. Second, the context of Jesus' comment was that He was speaking as a man to His God. Remember, Jesus is both God and man, second person of the Trinity, the word made flesh (John 1:1,14). Since He was both divine and man, as a man He would naturally, and properly say that His Father was the only True God. He was not denying His own divinity, but affirming the Trueness of God as was done in the OT: And now, O Lord our God, deliver us from his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that Thou alone, Lord, art God, (Isaiah 37:20). The truth is that Jesus was a man made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and as a man He would be subject to God. Only in this case, Jesus was subject to the Father. That is why Jesus called the Father the only true God. But it is not a phrase that excludes Christ for Christ Himself said "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58) and did not deny being called God by Thomas in John 20:28. Third, John 17:3 must be examined in the light of the totality of scripture. We see that Jesus is called God in John 1:1,14; 8:58; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:8. Therefore, John 17:3 cannot be interpreted in a way that disagrees with other scriptures. Of course, some people simply state that John 17:3 cannot allow for Jesus being God. But the simple fact is that Jesus is called God by God and others. Therefore, the whole of scripture must be harmonized. Fourth, this verse reflects the sonship of Jesus. The Father and the Son have a unique relationship. Jesus is the eternal Son. The terms Father and Son denote a relationship which is why God is called the God of the Son in 2 Cor. 11:31. Fifth, if we are to be consistent using the Jehovah's Witness logic that the Father is the only true God, then the following verses present a problem -- if we use their logic. 1. "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," (Jude 4, NASB). A. Does this mean that the Father is not our Master and Lord? Of course not. Yet, Jesus is called our only Master and Lord. "There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him," (John 1:9-10). A. Here we see Jesus being called the true light. Does this mean that the Father is not the true light? If not, then we have both the Son and the Father being the true light. "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone," (Mark 10:18, NASB). A. Does this verse mean that Jesus is not good? Jesus said only God was good. Then, if we use the Jehovah's Witness logic, Jesus is not good. Of course, that doesn't make any sense. I, even I, am the Lord [YHWH}; And there is no savior besides Me," (Isaiah 43:11). A. We know that Jesus is the Savior. Again, according to Witness logic, Jesus could not be the Savior since the Bible tells us that YHWH is the only Savior. "Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who alone works wonders," (Psalm 72:18, NASB). A. Jesus performed many miracles. But if it is the Lord [YHWH] is the one who alone performs wonders, how then can it be that Jesus also?

2.

3.

4. 5.

823

6.

"Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord [YHWH], am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone,'" (Isaiah 44:24, NASB). A. According to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16-17 Jesus made all things. With JW logic would have a problem. B. Col. 1:16-17 says, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesall things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together," (NASB). Since God is alone created all things, how could Jesus have done it? For more on this subject see the paper on Col. 1:16-17

As we can see, we cannot simply make a doctrine out of one verse. To do so is to invite error and it only serves to use the Bible to validate preconceived ideas about doctrine.

824

1 Cor. 1:2, Call upon the name of the Lord Jesus

The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in flesh. Therefore, they have produced a Bible, the New World Translation, that reflects their theological bias against Christ's deity. But, their Bible cannot completely remove all the references that show who Jesus really is. Such is the case with the phrase, "to call upon the name of the Lord." We can see in the Bible where the Old Testament believers "call upon the name of the Lord," as a reference to God. Literally, in Hebrew this is "call upon the name of Jehovah." This phrase with its variations "calling upon..." and "called upon..." etc., occurs eleven times in the Old Testament in the King James Version, which the Jehovah's Witnesses used as their Bible for many years. "Jehovah" is an English(ized) form of the Hebrew four letters YHWH from which we get God's name "Jehovah" or "Yahweh." Most modern English Bibles translate the four letters "YHWH" into the word "Lord." This is done because no one knows the true pronunciation of God's name and also because the Jews wanted to avoid violating the sacredness of God's name if they pronounced it incorrectly. Nevertheless, in every instance of this usage "Lord" in the Hebrew phrase, "call upon the name of the Lord," it is the Hebrew "YHWH" and is always in reference to God. Around 250 B.C., the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek by Jewish schola rs. This translation is called the Septuagint and is known by the designation LXX. The Hebrew phrase to "call upon the name of the Lord [YHWH]," of course, was also translated into Greek. For example, in Joel 2:32 it says, "...whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD [YHWH] shall be delivered..." This Greek translation in the LXX is "hos an epikalesatai to onoma kuriou," literally, "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord." When we look at this phrase in the Old Testament, we see that "to call upon the name of the Lord" was used to designate prayer to God in 1 Kings 18:24,37 and Psalm 116:4. Please consider the following verses from the KJV. 1 Kings 18:24, "And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD [YHWH]: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God." 1 Kings 18:37, "Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD [YHWH] God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. 38Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench." Psalm 116:4, "Then called I upon the name of the LORD [YHWH] ; O LORD [YHWH], I beseech thee, deliver my soul."

Clearly, the phrase is used of God in reference to prayer to Him. The phrase is never used in reference to anyone else other than God. Remember that "call upon the name of the Lord [YHWH]" in Hebrew was translated into Greek by the Jews in the LXX and they rendered "YHWH" into the Greek "kurios," which means "lord." This phrase was then used of Jesus in "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours," (1 Cor. 1:2). "...call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ..." NASB, ASV, ASV1901, "...call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ..." KJV, NJKV, NIV, RSV, "...calling upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours," NWT. o NOTE: In the Greek, it is literally, "Call upon the name of the Lord OF US, Jesus Christ. This is why the English says, "Call upon the name of OUR Lord." Therefore, the phrase is the same.

This is clear evidence that Jesus is called YHWH since the same phrase used to address God is also used to address Jesus. Below is a chart that transliterates the Greek into English phonetic sounds so you can check the Greek for yourself in the Old Testament Greek Septuagint and the New Testament Greek.

825

"Call upon the name of the Lord" Old Testament (LXX) (Literal translation) Joel 2:32 - call on the name of the LORD epikalesatai to onoma kuriou call upon the name of Lord 1 Kings 18:24 - call on the name of the LORD epikalesomai en onomati kuriou tou theou call upon in name of lord of the of god Psalm 116:4 - called I upon the name of the LORD kai to onoma kuriou epekalesaman and the name of lord call upon New Testament (Literal translation)

with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours," -----------1 Cor. 1:2 epikaloumenois to onoma tou kuriou calling upon the name of the of lord hamon iasous kristou of us Jesus Christ

As you can see in 1 Kings 18:24,37 and Psalm 116:4 above, the phrase is used to designate prayer to God. This same phrase is used in reference to Jesus in 1 Cor. 1:2. It is obvious that the Christian church is to call upon the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ. This is an obvious declaration of prayer to Christ designating His divine nature. To call upon the name of the Lord Following is a list of every occurrence of the phrase "to call upon the name of the Lord," and its various forms (call on, call upon, called on, etc.), in the KJV Bible along with the New World Translation's rendering of the phrase in each verse cited. It is here so you can see for yourself how it is used in both the Old and New Testaments. 1. "Call upon the name of the Lord" occurs five times in the KJV: A. Gen. 4:26, "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." i. "...calling on the name of Jehovah," (NWT). B. Psalm 116:13, "I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD." i. "...and on the name of Jehovah I shall call," (NWT). C. Psalm 116:17, "I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD." i. "...and on the name of Jehovah I shall call," (NWT). D. Zeph. 3:9, "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent." i. "...to call upon the name of Jehovah," (NWT). E. Romans 10:13, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." i. "For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved," (NWT). "Call on the name of the Lord" occurs four times in the KJV A. 1 Kings 18:24, "And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God." i. "...call upon the name of Jehovah," (NWT). B. 2 Kings 5:11, "But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper." i. "...call upon the name of Jehovah," (NWT). C. Joel 2:32, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call." i. "...calls upon the name of Jehovah," (NWT).

2.

826

3.

4.

5.

Acts 2:21, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." i. "...calls upon the name of Jehovah," (NWT). "Called on the name of the Lord" occurs one time in the KJV: A. Gen. 13:4, "Unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first: and there Abram called on the name of the LORD." i. "...call there on the name of Jehovah," (NWT). "Called upon the name of the Lord" occurs three times in the KJV: A. Gen. 12:8, "And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the name of the LORD." i. "...call on the name of Jehovah," (NWT). B. Gen. 26:25, "And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the LORD, and pitched his tent there: and there Isaacs servants digged a well." i. "...called on the name of Jehovah," (NWT). C. Psalm 116:4, "Then called I upon the name of the LORD; O LORD, I beseech thee, deliver my soul." i. "But upon the name of Jehovah I proceeded to call," (NWT). "Calling on the name of the Lord" occurs one time in the KJV: A. Acts 22:16, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." i. "...calling upon his name," (NWT).

D.

Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians said that Christians everywhere "call upon the name of the Lord Jesus." The Jehovah's Witnesses need to do this. They need to pray to Jesus, ask Him to forgive them of their sins, and they need to come to Him (Matt. 11:28). Jesus said, "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it," (John 14:14, NASB). Objection Answered "The translations of the books of the OT differ in style, accuracy, and substance, indicating that there was no single original translation into Greek....Manuscripts found at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls and other early manuscripts and quotations from the Septuagint in ancient writings all indicate that revisions were constantly being made to the Septuagint." (Paul J. Achtemeier, Harper's Bible Dictionary, Includes index., 1st ed., Page 925 (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985). Some critics of the position of this paper regarding "calling upon the name of the Lord" say that the Greek word "kurios", "Lord" was substituted for the tetragrammaton (YHWH ) in the 2nd century manuscripts of the Septuagint, well after the writing of 1 Corinthians. In other words, they say that the orignal Septuagint, though written in Greek, had the Hebrew consonants (YHWH ) inserted for the divine name and that later, this was changed from YHWH to LORD (or the Greek "kurios"). This would mean that Paul could not have been referencing the Septuagint in 1 Cor. 1:2 and the argument in this paper is invalid. If it is true, and I am not saying that it is, that the Septuagint did not contain the word "Lord" in reference to "YHWH", it does not invalidate the argument because the practice of substituting "YHWH" for another word "adonai" (Hebrew for Lord), was commonly done among the Jews and was well known by Paul. He could easily have provided this word substitution as a natural thing to do when writing 1 Corinthians. We see that in the existing Septuagint versions that this is exactly the case. Second, since Paul was writing to the Corinthians who spoke Greek, to write in Greek and then insert the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH ) into the text would have been confusing to them since they did not read Hebrew. Remember, Corinth is about 750 miles from Israel where they spoke Hebrew. Therefore, it would have been very natural for Paul to insert the Greek "kurios" (Lord) for the Hebrew name of God (YHWH ) when quoting Old Testament References. In fact, Paul did this very thing in several places:

827

Rom. 4:8, "Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account." Psalm 32:2, "How blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, Rom. 9:29, "And just as Isaiah foretold, 'Except the Lord [kurios] of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity. We would have become as Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah." Isaiah 1:9, "Unless the Lord [YHWH] of hosts Had left us a few survivors, We would be like Sodom, We would be like Gomorrah." Rom. 10:13, "for 'Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord [kurios] will be saved.'" Joel 2:32, "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord [YHWH] will be delivered," Rom. 11:34, "For who has known the mind of the Lord [kurios], or who became His counselor?" Isaiah 40:13, "Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord [YHWH], Or as His counselor has informed Him?" Rom. 15:11, "And again, Praise the Lord [kurios] all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise Him. Psalm 117:1, "Praise the Lord [YHWH], all nations; Laud Him, all peoples!" 1 Cor. 2:16, "For who has known the mind of the Lord [kurios], that he should instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ." Isaiah 40:13, "Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord [YHWH], Or as His counselor has informed Him?" 1 Cor. 3:20, "The Lord [kurios] knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless. Psalm 94:11, "The Lord [YHWH] knows the thoughts of man, That they are a mere breath." 1 Cor. 10:26, "for the earth is the Lords [kurios], and all it contains." Psalm 24:1, "The earth is the LORDs [YHWH], and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." 2 Cor. 10:17, "But he who boasts, let him boast in the Lord [kurios]." Jer. 9:24, "but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord [YHWH] who exercises lovingkindness, justice, and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things," declares the Lord [YHWH]."

At the very least, this substantiates that Paul's practice was to substitute "kurios" for the tetragrammaton (YHWH ) when he quoted the Old Testament. Since we see that the phrase "call upon the name of the Lord" is used only of God in the Old Testament, it is fair to say that the phrase applies to Jesus in 1 Cor. 1:2. Finally, there are only two places in the entire Old Testament where the phrase "call upon the name of" ("Lord" is omitted) is used in reference to someone other than God. 1 Kings 18:24-26, "Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord, and the God who answers by fire, He is God." And all the people answered and said, "That is a good idea. 25So Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one ox for yourselves and prepare it first for you are many, and call on the name of your god, but put no fire under it." 26Then they took the ox which was given them and they prepared it and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon saying, "O Baal, answer us." But there was no voice and no one answered. And they leaped about the altar which they made." Isaiah 44:5, "This one will say, I am the Lord's'; and that one will call on the name of Jacob."

In these two cases we see that they do not affect the issue of "call upon the name of the Lord" in any way since one is clearly about Baal and the other is about Jacob and the word "Lord" would not suit in the translation of either. If we combine this with the knowledge that Paul translated the Hebrew YHWH ( ) into the Greek "kurios" (Lord), we can easily see that 1 Cor. 1:2 is most probably a reference to the Old Testament phrase, "call upon the name of YHWH."

828

Objection Answered An objection has been raised by Jehovah's Witnesses who state that the word "Lord" functions as a noun in a different way than YHWH does. They say that "Call upon the name of YHWH" is a different sense than "Call upon the name of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ" because the word "Lord" takes a possessive pronoun "of us". Therefore, they say, the word "Lord" does not function as a proper noun as does "YHWH" and the phrase used of Christ is not the same as that used in the LXX. But, this is just an attempt to strip the phrase of its biblical power so as to continue teaching taht Jesus is not divien. Nevertheless, the word "Lord" in the LXX phrase "Call upon the name of the Lord" is capable of taking a possessive pronoun. This is the nature of the phrase as it appears throughout the LXX. In other words, the fact that the LXX phrase "Call upon the name of the Lord (gk. kurios)" has the capability of receiving a possessive pronoun, it does not change the meaning of the phrase -- whether or not a possessive pronoun "of us" is added to it or not. We do not see "the YHWH of us." But, we do see "the Lord of us" (our Lord). For example, in Psalm 147:5 it says, "Great is our Lord." In the LXX it is "kurios hamon" (the Lord of us). In Neh. 10:29 of the LXX it says, "..of our Lord." The Greek is "kuriou hamon." The word "kurios" can take a possessive pronoun. The fact that "of us" is added to the Greek word "kurios" does not mean that the word is no longer used in place of God's name nor does it invalidate the power of the phrase, "Call upon the name of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 1:2). As I have demonstrated earlier, the LXX substitutes YHWH for kurios in the phrase "Call upon the name of YHWH. Therefore, by the nature of the word "lord," it is possible to add a possessive pronoun (of us). Does this then mean that the phrase looses its power? Undoubtedly Paul knew of the phrase in the LXX. He knew that it carried the weight of proclaiming and appealing to God -- since that is how it is used in the LXX. Should we accept the Jehovah's Witness' notion that by adding "of us" onto the end of the phrase that the phrase then somehow looses its majesty and Old Testament context? Hardly. If we look at Romans 10:13 we see the very same phrase, "Call upon the name of the Lord." The only difference is that "of us" is not there. Are we to believe that Paul who wrote Romans and 1 Corinthians used the same phrase twice but in 1 Cor. 1:2 did not mean to carry with it the Old Testament usage by simply adding "of us" to it? Well, that is waht some Jehovha's Witnesses want us to believe. Unfortunately for them, the truth is that the same phrase that is used only of God in the Old Testament is also used of Jesus in the New Testament.

_________ Note: I am indebted to a poster on my website . Mr. Frazier pointed out the following quotes from three different Christian commentators. "Hereby Christians are distinguished from the profane and atheistical, that they dare not live without prayer; and hereby they are distinguished from Jews and Pagans, that they call on the name of Christ. He is their common head and Lord. Observe, In every place in the Christian world there are some that call on the name of Christ. God hath a remnant in all places; and we should have a common concern for and hold communion with all that call on Christs name." o Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary : On the Whole Bible. electronic ed. of the complete and unabridged edition., 1 Co 1:1. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1991. "with all that in every place call upon . . . Christ--The Epistle is intended for these also, as well as for the Corinthians. The true CATHOLIC CHURCH (a term first used by IGNATIUS [Epistle to the Smyraeans, 8]): not consisting of those who call themselves from Paul, Cephas, or any other eminent leader ( 1Cr 1:12 ), but of all, wherever they be, who call on Jesus as their Saviour in sincerity (compare 2Ti 2:22 ). Still a general unity of discipline and doctrine in the several churches is implied in 1Cr 4:17 7:17 11:16 14:33, 36. The worship due to God is here attributed to Jesus (compare Joe 2:32 Mat 4:10 Act 9:14 )." (emphasis added)

829

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/10509648151211.html With all that call upon Associative instrumental case with sun rather than kai (and), making a close connection with "saints" just before and so giving the Corinthian Christians a picture of their close unity with the brotherhood everywhere through the common bond of faith. This phrase occurs in the LXX (Genesis 12:8; Zechariah 13:9) and is applied to Christ as to Jehovah (2 Thessalonians 1:7,9,12; Philippians 2:9,10)." o Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/ rwp.cgi?book=1co&chapter=001&verse=002&next=003&prev=001 Also, from another commentary "The worship due to God is here attributed to Jesus (compare Joe 2:32 ; Mt 4:10; Ac 9:14 )." o Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David and Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. electronic ed., 1 Co 1:2. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997. o

830

Col. 1:15 and the Jehovah's Witnesses

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exists." (Col. 1:15-17, for context. The New World Translation Note the NWTs addition of other into the text four times. This is discussed in the next paper.) The Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the word "firstborn" here to mean "first created" because it is consistent with their theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing. Of course, Jesus, the word become flesh (John 1:1,14) is not a created thing. But that hasn't stopped the Watchtower organization from claiming He is. Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first created" and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn" and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo and it is not used here. Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born" (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence. Third, firstborn is also a title that is transferable: Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my fathers house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB) Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn (NASB)."

Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a meaning of first created as the Jehovah's Witnesses say it means here. "Firstborn" can mean the first born person in a family and it can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is obvious since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and is also the first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all things. The Jehovah's Witnesses should consider this when they examine Col. 1:15. They should also abandon the Watchtower which guides them in their thinking and believing.

831

Col. 1:16-17 and the Jehovah's Witnesses

"because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no m atter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exists." (The New World Translation - Emphasis added) The Jehovah's Witness organization has altered the biblical text to suit to its theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing. This is why the new world translation adds the word "other" four times in Col. 1:16-17, even though it is not in the Greek text. There exists two Greek words for "other": allos which means another of the same kind; and heteros which means another of a different kind. Paul could have used either word here if he wanted to show that Jesus was "another" created thing. But he did not. There is no linguistic reason at all to insert this word here four times -unless you are trying support the presupposition that Jesus is not God. Below is a copy out of the Jehovah's Witness Kingdom interlinear. This book has the Greek words and their exact English translation underneath each word. The right hand column is how the New World translation renders the Greek into the English. I have added red squares is in order to demonstrate the additions into the English text that are not supported in the Greek.

In the New World Translation you will notice that the word "other" is in brackets. This is an admission that the words are not in the original text. Of course, the Watchtower Organization claims that the insertion of the word "other" four times is necessary to clarify the text. It isn't. If anything, it misleads the reader. Nevertheless, if you have the opportunity, ask a Jehovah's Witness to read the text without saying the word "other." Usually, he will have difficulty. Also, ask him what he thinks the text is saying without the word "other" added in. It will be an interesting discussion. Basically, Jehovah's Witness theology maintains that God created Jesus and then Jesus created all other things. 1 4 1 If follows that if Jesus "was used by Jehovah in creating all other things"1 then Jesus was with God and used by God as the instrument of creation. Unfortunately for Jehovah's Witnesses God says that He created the heavens and earth "all alone."

"Jehovah's first creation was his 'only-begotten Son'. . . was used by Jehovah in creating all other things", Aid to Bible Understanding, pp. 390-391.
141

832

"Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone'" (Isaiah 44:24, NASB). If the Jehovah's Witness is correct, then how is it possible for the LORD (YHWH, or Jehovah) to stretch out the heavens by Himself, all alone (not angels with Him), and yet Jesus "the first created thing," be the one who did it? They can't both be true to the Jehovah's Witness. The truth is that Jehovah is the name of God. God is a trinity, and therefore Jesus can be the creator of all things and YHWH can do it by himself since God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is a very simple and direct demonstration in Scripture that Jesus is the Lord God in flesh. If He is not, then the Jehovah's Witnesses have a biblical contradiction on their hands.

833

Heb. 1:6 and the Jehovah's Witnesses

"But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels do obeisance to him," (The New World Translation, 1981.) The problem with this verse in the JW Bible is with the word "obeisance." In the Greek, the word is "proskuneo." It means, worship; fall down and worship, kneel, bow low, obeisance. Obeisance means, "bending the head or body or knee as a sign of reverence or submission or shame." While it is certainly true that people would bow down before Jesus in the Bible, the English word "obeisance" does not carry sufficiently the act of worship due Him because of His divine nature. Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in flesh, they cannot have their Bible teach that Jesus was worshipped. Therefore, every single time that the word "proskuneo" is used in reference to Christ, it is translated as "obeisance" and never as worship. For proof of this, please see the article The New World Translation and "Proskuneo" (worship) which has a chart of every occurrence of the Greek word and how the New World Translation renders it. Jesus said in Matthew 4:10 that you should worship (proskuneo) God only, yet He willing receives worship in Matt. 2:2; 2:11; 14:33; 28:9; and John 9:35-38. Just check any Bible other than the New World Translation and you can plainly see this. In Acts 10:25-26 it says, "And when it came about that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter raised him up, saying, 'Stand up; I too am just a man'" (NASB). Here, Cornelius bows down before Peter. The Greek word here is "proskuneo." Peter knew that this homage is to be given to God alone. Jesus, undoubtedly, knew the same thing. Yet, when they bow down before Jesus, He does not rebuke them. Why? Because Jesus is worthy of worship. He is God in flesh (John 1:1,14). In Hebrews 1:6, God commands that all the angels worship Jesus, not just give Him obeisance. The ASV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, and RSV all translate the verse to say "worship." Is the NWT correct and all the others wrong? Not at all. The New World Translation is simply a slanted Bible that is used to support Jehovah's Witness theology. The Watchtower taught that Jesus was to be worshipped Oddly enough, denying worship of Jesus is not what the Watchtower Organization has always taught. On page 216 of the July 15, 1898 edition of the Watchtower magazine it says: "Question: The fact that our Lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he really worshiped, or is the translation faulty? Answer: Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so...It was proper for our Lord to receive worship in view of his having been the only begotten of the Father, and his agent in the creation of all things, including man." In the book, New Heavens and a New Earth, on pages 27-28, published in 1953, it says: "For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'? And again: 'I shall be a Father to him, and he will be a Son to me'? But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him.'" Also, it is worth noting that the Watchtower organization changes the New World Translation as time goes by. In the 1970 edition, Heb. 1:6 is translated as the word "worship." In the 1980 version it is translated as 'obeisance.' Why the change? Simple, the Watchtower Organization is methodically altering the Bible to make it agree with their theology.

834

The Jehovah's Witness will probably answer this issue the same way he would with the false prophecies made by the Watchtower Magazine. He would say that "the light is getting brighter." This means that the early Watchtowers did not have the same information and light that the present Watchtower writers do. They made errors in the past, but now they know more and corrections need to be made. But if this were so, then how can the Jehovah's Witnesses trust what is being said now? If the doctrines have changed before, what's to prevent them from changing again? How can a Jehovah's Witness be sure that what he is believing now won't be changed later? He can't. God doesn't change and neither does His word. But, if you are a man- made religion that is still writing its doctrines, then you need a Bible that keeps up with those changes. The New World Translation is made to order.

835

Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6 and the Jehovah's Witnesses

"But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness,'" (The New World Translation.) In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in two legitimate ways: "God is your throne forever and ever.... and "Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever..." But because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God, they choose the first version, otherwise, the Father would be calling Jesus God and that goes against Jehovah's Witness theology. Yet, most Bibles do not translate it the way the New World Translation does. They choose the other way. Why? Two reasons. First, Heb. 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which says, "Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom" (All Bible quotes are from the NASB). In fact, the ASV, KJV, NIV, and NKJV all translated it as "Your throne, O God..." The RSV translates it as "Your divine throne endures for ever and ever," "but this is a highly unlikely translation because it requires understanding the Hebrew noun for "thrown" in construct state, something extremely unusual whenn a noun has a pronomial suffix, as this one does...The KJV, NIV, and NASB all take the verse in its plain, straightforward sense, as do the ancient translations..."1 4 2 When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical requirement for this translation, though it is considered to be the best translation by most translators. In and of itself, this is not conclusive because the context of this verse in Psalm 45 is dealing with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God. But, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another. They knew something we didn't. In fact, in Ezekiel 28:12-17 is a section that deals with the fall of the devil. Verse 13 says describes how he was in the garden of Eden. Verse 14 says he was the anointed cherub, (v. 15), etc. But the context of this section begins with an address to the king of Tyre (v. 12). Yet, right after Ezekiel is told to write to the King of Tyre he then goes on to describe what the great majority of theologians agree with is a description of the devil's fall. So, we need to look at the context that the writer of Hebrews put Psalm 45:6 into. He addressed it to Jesus. Therefore, Psalm 45 is a Messianic Psalm and must in interpreted in light of the NT, not the other way around. Nevertheless, the context of this verse follows: "For to which of the angels did He ever say, "Thou are My son, Today I have begotten Thee"? And again, "I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me"? 6And when he again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." 7And of the angels He says "Who makes His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of fire." 8But of the Son He says, "Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom, 9Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy companions. 10And, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands; 11 They will perish, but though remainest...." (Heb. 1:5-11).

Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology, Intervarsity Press, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, page 227.
142

836

To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, "But to which of the angels did he say, God is your throne." What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else. Also worth noting here is verse 10: "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands..." This is a quote from Psalm 102:24-25 which says, "I say, 'O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Thy years are throughout all generations. 25Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands.'" Clearly, God is the one being addressed in Psalm 102. It is God who laid the foundations of the earth. Yet, in Heb. 1:10, Jesus is called 'Lord' and is said to be the one who laid the foundation of the earth. This becomes even more interesting when we note that in Isaiah 44:24 it says, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone." If God was laying the foundations of the earth alone, that would mean that either Jesus has to be God, second person of the trinity, who laid the foundation the same as YHWH did, or we have a contradiction in the Bible. Clearly this section of Hebrews is proclaiming that Jesus is God. Therefore, contextually, it is best to translate Heb. 1:8 as, "Thy Throne, O God. . ." and the Father call Jesus God. The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, it cannot permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is God. That is why they choose a translation that does not best fit the context or overall theology of the Bible.

837

838

Mormonism
Introduction

Those from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say they are Christian yet they teach that God used to be a man on another planet and he has a goddess wife. They go door-to-door, look clean cut, and try and present a family oriented image. But, dont let their outward appearance fool you.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

What are some of the stranger doctrines of Mormonism? pp. 842-843 Is Mormonism Christian? Why or why not? p. 846-847 What are some of the essential Mormon Doctrines not found in the Book of Mormon? p. 849 Does Mormonism Attack Other Religions? p. 858 Do you know the Mormon meanings to standard Christian words? pp. 860-118 What is wrong with praying about the Book of Mormon? p. 876 What are some of the major differences between Christianity and Mormonism? pp. 879-880 Does Mormonism teach a different Jesus than Christianity? p. 889 What are some particularly interesting quotes from Joseph Smith? p. 893 What are some particularly interesting quotes from Brigham Young? p. 894-895 What is the consensus of the witnesses concerning Joseph Smith's character? pp. 901-916

839

Are you studying with the Mormons or thinking of joining the Mormon Church?
Are you interested in joining the Mormon Church? Are you curious about it? Maybe you are taking or have taken the missionary lessons. Perhaps you even think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a good Christian church that is family oriented and filled with godly people. If so, there are some things you need to know before you sign on the dotted line. Mormonism is considered a non-Christian cult by all of Christianity. All you need to do is go to any Christian bookstore and look in the cult section. You will see books on Mormonism there. Now, are we "anti-Mormons" simply people who have a grudge against the LDS church? I can't speak for all who oppose Mormonism, but I have no grudge against it at all. I was never a Mormon and no Mormon injured me in the past. They are nic e people. The problem isn't with them. It is with what they teach. It simply isn't Christian. Mormon missionaries will tell you that there was an apostasy and that Joseph Smith was the one who restored the true gospel to this earth. This is a typic al claim by every cult. Every one of them says that the present Christian church is false and that their initial leader restored the "truth." They have to invalidate present Christianity in order to get you to accept their brand of it. Christianity teaches that there is only one God. Mormonism teaches that there are many gods. Christianity teaches you cannot become a god. Mormonism says you can. In fact, Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another planet who became a god and brought one of his wives with him to this world. In case you doubt this, check out the documentation below which is taken from Mormon writers. Like all non-Christian cults, Mormonism uses the Bible to support its doctrines and does so improperly. For example, when the Bible says that there are no other gods besides God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8), Mormons quickly add "of this world." That means that there really are other gods out there and that the Bible is talking only about this world and not about others. They often quote 1 Cor. 8:5-6 which mentions the existence of other gods. But when doing this, they fail to read exactly what it says, that there are "so-called gods." In other words, they are called gods, but really are not gods. Paul was speaking about false gods, not the true and living God. Mormons frequently misrepresent scripture and take verses out of context to make it say what they want. Those who do not know what the Bible really teaches will easily be fooled by this cult. Why is this important? This is important because eternal salvation is at stake. God warned us to not serve false gods (Exodus 20), which are really not gods by nature (Gal. 4:8). He warned us to believe in the true Christ, not the false ones of the cults (Matt. 24:24). The god of Mormonism is false and cannot save you or anyone. If you believe in a false god, you will be damned to eternal hell. Why, because ultimately, false gods do not exist except in the mind of the believer. In spite of being good, in spite of attending the Mormon church with its polished appearance, in spite of believing in Mormon doctrine about a man from another planet, you will go to hell if you believe in Mormon doctrine. It cannot save you from the righteous requirements that God requires. Only the true Jesus can save you from your sins. Not a god from another planet. Only the true God who alone is God in all the universe can save you. Do you want to trust Mormon doctrine? Following is a list of a few doctrines of Mormonism. Do you want to put your eternal trust in a church that teaches the following doctrines? 1. The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, p. 635. They teach there was an apostasy and the true church ceased to exist on earth.

840

2. There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. 3. There is a mother god, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443. 4. God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333. 5. After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354. If you want further information, information that the Mormons won't tell you until you are very well entrenched in their cult, then read more of this site. It is full of information about why Mormonism is nothing more than a clever, false look-alike that cannot help you before God.

841

What does Mormonism teach?

The doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are very interesting. Most of the 'odd' ones are not initially taught to potential converts. But they should be. Instead, "they are are revealed later as one matures and gains the ability to accept them." The LDS Church tries to make its official doctrines appear Christian but what underlies those Christian sounding terms is far from Christian in meaning. Following are the teachings of its officials throughout the years. Please note that these teachings are documented from Mormon writers, not anti-Mormon writers. Finally, ma ny Mormons respond that most of the the citations below are not from official Mormon writings, as if that disproves the doctrines they teach. If they are not official, fine. But, if not, then why have the Mormon apostles and high officials taught them, written them, and why are their books sold in Mormon bookstores? The following is what Mormons are taught.

1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

19.

The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, p. 635. They teach there was an apostasy and the true church ceased to exist on earth. We need prophets today, the same as in the Old Testament, Mormon Doctrine, p. 606. The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, History of the Church, 4:461. If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation [the context is the full gospel including exaltation to Godhood] outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon Doctrine, p. 670. There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. There is a mother god, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443. God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333. After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354. God the Father had a Father, Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105. God resides near a star called Kolob, Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428. God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22. God is in the form of a man, Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3. God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, Mormon Doctrine p. 516. We were first begotten as spirit children in heaven and then born naturally on earth, Journal of Discourse, Vol. 4, p. 218. The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, Mormon Doctrine, page 129. The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," Mormon Doctrine, page 192. Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8. God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218, 1857; vol. 8, p. 115. - This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always 'officially' taught and believed. Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon Church taught it.

842

20. Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247, 1856. 21. Good works are necessary for salvation, Articles of Faith, p. 92. 22. There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188. 23. Baptism for the dead, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141. This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven. 24. There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial, Mormon Doctrine, p. 348. 25. The Holy Ghost is a male personage, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, by Le Grand Richards, Salt Lake City, 1956, page 118; Journal of Discources, Vol. 5, page 179 Some Mormons may disagree with a few of the points listed on this page, but all of what is stated here is from Mormon authors in good standing of the Mormon church.

843

Mormonism in a Nutshell
Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another world and that he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of his god on his home world. In his present god-state, he rules our world. He has a body of flesh and bones and, according to Mormonism, he has a wife, a goddess wife. Since they are both exalted persons, they each possess physical bodies. In their exalted states as deities, they produce spirit children that grow and mature in the spiritual realm. The first spirit born was Jesus. Afterwards were born the devil and all other spirit creatures. After the spirit children are born to god and his goddess wife in heaven, they come down and entered into the bodies of human babies that are being born on earth. During this compression' into the infant state, the memories of their pre-existence is 'veiled.' All people were, according to Mormonism, born in heaven first and then on earth where they are to grow, learn, and return to god. God the father, who is called Elohim, was concerned for the future salvation of the people on earth. In the heavenly realm, the Father had a plan for the salvation of the world. Jesus endorsed the Father's plan. Lucifer did not. Lucifer became jealous and rebelled. In his rebellion he convinced a large portion of the spirits existing in heaven to side with him and oppose god. God being more powerful then they, c ursed these rebellious spirits to become demons. The remaining spirits sided with God. Since they chose the better way, when it comes time for them to live on earth, they have the privilege of being born in races and locations that are relative to their condition and choice made in the spirit realm. 1 4 3 In the Mormon plan of salvation there needed to be a savior: Jesus. But Jesus was a spirit in heaven. For him to be born on earth, Brigham Young the second prophet of the Mormon church said that instead of letting any other man do it, God the Father did it with Mary. He said that the birth of our savior was as natural as the birth of our parents. Essentially, what this means is that god the father came down and had sexual relations with Mary, his spirit daughter, to produce the body of Jesus. Jesus, then, was born, got married, and had children. 1 4 4 He died on the cross and paid for sins not on the cross only, but in the garden of Gethsemane before he went to the cross. Mormon men and women have the potential of becoming gods. President Lorenzo Snow said, "As god once was, man is. As God is, man may become." In order to reach this exalted state a person must first become a good Mormon, pay a full ten percent tithe to the Mormon church, follow various laws and ordinances of the church, and be found worthy. Afterwards, he or she can enter a Mormon temple and go through secret rituals: baptism for the dead, celestial marriage, and various oaths of secrecy and commitment. Additionally, four secret handshakes are taught so the believing Mormon, upon entering the third level of Mormon heaven, can shake hands with god in a certain pattern. This celestial ritual is for the purpose of permitting entrance into that level of heaven.1 4 5 For those who achieve this highest of heavens, exaltation to godhood awaits them. Then, he or she, will be permitted to have his or her own planet and be the god of his own world and the Mormon system will be expanded to other planets.

143 144

Page 616 of Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie Jedediah M. Grant, second Counselor to Brigham Young said so in Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 345-346. 145 What's Going on in There ? An Exposing of the Secret Mormon Temple Rituals, by Bob Witte & Gordon H. Fraser. Gordon Fraser, Publisher.

844

Mormonism's History
Mormonism began with Joseph Smith Jr. who was born on Dec. 23, 1805, in Vermont. He was the fourth child of Lucy and Joseph Smith. Joseph senior was known as a money digger and sought after buried treasure, particularly that of Captain Kidd. His mother was highly superstitious. Joseph Smith Jr. stated that he was disturbed by all the different denominations of Christianity and wondered which was true. In 1820, when he was 14, he went into the woods to pray concerning this and allegedly God the Father and Jesus appeared to him and told him not to join any of the denominational churches. Three years later, on Sept. 21, 1823, when he was 17 years old, an angel called Moroni, who was supposed to be the son of Mormon, the leader of the people called the Nephites who had lived in the Americas, appeared to him and told him that he had been chosen to translate the book of Mormon which was compiled by Moroni's father around the 4th century. The book was written on golden plates hidden near where Joseph was then living in Palmyra, New York. Joseph Smith said that on Sept. 22, 1827 he received the plates and the angel Moroni instructed him to begin the translation process. The translation was finally published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon. Joseph claimed that during this translation process, John the Baptist appeared to him and ordained him to accomplish the divine work of restoring the true church by preaching the true gospel which, allegedly, had been lost from the earth. The Book of Mormon is supposed to be the account of people who came from the Middle-East to the Americas. It covers the period of about 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. It tells of the Jaredites, people from the Tower of Babel who came to central America but perished because of their own immorality. It also describes some Jews who fled persecution in Jerusalem and came to America led by a man called Nephi. The Jews divided into two groups known as the Nephites and Lamanites who fought each other. The Nephites were defeated in 428 A.D. The Lamanites continued and are known as the American Indians. The Book of Mormon is the account of the Nephite leader, Mormon, concerning their culture, civilization, and appearance of Jesus to the Americas. After the publication of the Book of Mormon, Mormonism began to grow. Because their religion was so deviant from Christianity, i.e., plurality of gods, polygamy (Joseph is said to have had 27 wives), etc., persecution soon forced them to move from New York to Ohio, then to Missouri, and finally to Nauvoo, Illinois. After being accused of breaking some laws in Nauvoo (for destroying a printing press that was publishing harmful information on Mormonism), Joseph and his brother Hyrum ended up in jail. A mob later broke into the jail and killed Joseph and his brother. After the shooting, the church divided into two groups: One led by his widow which went back to Independence Missouri. They are known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They claim to be the true Church and lay claim to the legal succession of the church presidency which was bestowed upon Joseph's son by Joseph Smith himself. The other group was led by Brigham Young and they went to Utah where, in 1847, they ended up in Salt Lake and founded Salt Lake City. Brigham had 25 wives and accumulated much wealth

845

Is Mormonism Christian?
"Is Mormonism Christian?" is a very important question. The answer is equally important and simple. No. Mormonism is not Christian. If you are a Mormon, please realize that I am not trying to attack you, your character, or the sincerity of your belief. If you are a non-Mormon looking into Mormonism or if you are a Christian who is simply researching Mormonism, then this paper should be of help to you. The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it, like any other cult, denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (Jesus is God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, and Jesus rose from the dead physically), Mormonism distorts two of them: the person of Jesus, and His work of salvation. Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation. It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of Gods spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8). This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1;16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is god in flesh, it teaches that he is "a " god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5). Because Mormonism errors in who Jesus is, salvation (the forgiveness of sins) does not occur and the Mormon is still in his sins. Christians are saved from their sins and judgment by putting their trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. But, faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. The Mormon Jesus is not the one of the Bible, even though they call him Jesus, say he died for sins, and was born in Bethlehem. The Mormon Jesus does not exist. It is the nature of Jesus that is the issue. Jesus must be God in flesh, (second person of the Trinity) not "a" god in flesh who is the brother of the devil. He must be uncreated, not created. He must be the creator (Col. 1:16-17). This is who the true Jesus really is: God, creator, uncreated, not the brother of the devil. Mormon theology teaches that god used to be a man on another planet, that he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of that god on that world, and that he brought one of his wives to this world with whom he produces spirit children who then inhabit human bodies at birth. The first spirit child to be born was Jesus. Second was Satan, and then we all followed. The Jesus of Mormonism is definitely not the same Jesus of the Bible. Therefore, faith in the Mormon Jesus, is faith misplaced because the Mormon Jesus doesn't exist. Mormonism teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross itself (and receiving it by faith) is not sufficient to bring forgiveness of sins. It teaches that the forgiveness of sins is obtained though a cooperative effort with God; that is, we must be good and follow the laws and ordinances of the Mormon Church in order to obtain forgiveness. Consider James Talmage, a very important Mormon figure who said, "The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil" (Articles, p. 432), and "Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience" (Articles, p. 81). This contradicts the biblical doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9) and the doctrine that works are not part of our salvation but a result of them (Rom. 4:5, James 2:14-18). To further confuse the matter, Mormonism further states that salvation is twofold. It maintains that salvation is both forgiveness of sins and universal resurrection. So when a Mormon speaks of salvation by grace, he is usually referring to universal resurrection. But the Bible speaks of salvation as the forgiveness of sins, not simple universal resurrection. Where Mormonism states that forgiveness of sins is not by faith alone, the Bible does teach it. Which is correct? Obviously, it is the Bible. Mormonism, to justify its aberrant theology, has undermined the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible. The 8th article of faith from the Mormon Church states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." The interesting thing is that Joseph Smith allegedly corrected the Bible in what is called The Inspired Version, though it is not used by the LDS church. Though they claim they trust the Bible, in reality they do not. They use Mormon presuppositions to interpret it. For example, where the Bible says there are no other gods in the universe (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8), they interpret it to mean "no other gods of this world." They do not trust what it says and they often state that the Bible is not translated correctly. This is what I have encountered numerous times when speaking to Mormons.

846

Why is Mormonism a non Christian cult? Because it adds works to salvation. It denies that Jesus is the uncreated creator. It alters the biblical teaching of the atonement. It contradicts the Christian teaching of monotheism. It undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible. I do not deny that Mormons are good people, that they worship "a" god, that they share common words with Christians, that they help their people, and that they do many good things. However, Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23, " Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (NKJV). Becoming a Christian does not mean belonging to a church, doing good things, or simply believing in God. Being a Christian means that you have trusted in the true God for salvation, in the True Jesus -- not the brother of the devil.

847

A Quick Look at the Book of Mormon

According to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461) and contains the truths of Mormonism. However, if that is true, then why does the Book of Mormon contradict Mormon theology? This is because the theology of Joseph Smith didn't really start to go off the deep end until after the Book of Mormon was printed. To harmonize their changing theology with their written scripture, the Mormons gradually redefined common Christian words. That is why the definitions of Mormon words are different than those of Christianity. Praying About the Book of Mormon One of the things Mormons ask potential converts to do is to read the Book of Mormon and then pray to God and ask Him if the Book of Mormon is true. It is said that you will then receive a testimony from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's restored church on earth today. It is difficult to counter this testimony because it is an emotional and, I believe, spiritual phenomena. I say spiritual but I am not saying it is of God; it is of the devil. Mormons teach that if you are sincere and that if you ask God for wisdom as it says in James 1:5, that God will answer you and lead you into the truth. What could be more common sense than that? There are several reasons why this approach to determining truth is dangerous. The the most important is as follows: The Bible says that to determine truth you must examine the scriptures. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (NIV). Acts 17:11 says, "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (NIV). If the Bereans compared what Paul the apostle said to scripture, should we do any less with Mormonism? Of course not. You don't pray about truth you look into the Bible for it. To begin with, the Mormons are going against scripture and trusting something unverifiable (except by their own subjective feelings, of which the Bible says not to trust, Jer. 17:9). The Book of Mormon Verses Mormon Doctrine The Book of Mormon does not contain Mormonism. It is more Christian than it is Mormon. Mormon theology is about many gods, god being a man, men and women potentially becoming gods, but the Book of Mormon is basically Christian in its teachings. The following information is in the Book of Mormon. Compare it to Mormon doctrine and see the differences. It is obvious that Mormonism grew and was pasted together as it developed. It is not internally consistent and it is self-contradictory.

848

The Book of Mormon Verses Mormon Doctrine The Book of Mormon There is only one God Mosiah 15:1,5; Alma 11:28; 2 Nephi 31:21 Mormon Doctrine Mormonism teaches there are many gods. Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5 The Trinity is three separate gods. James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 35. 1985. God is increasing in knowledge. Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 120. God has the form of a man. Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3. Hell is not eternal. James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 55. Polygamy was taught and practiced. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266

The Trinity is one God Alma 11:44; Mosiah 15:5; 2 Nephi 31:21 God is unchanging Mormon 9:9,19; Moroni 8:18; Alma 41:8; 3 Nephi 24:6 God is spirit Alma 18:24,28; 22:9,11 Eternal hell Jacob 3:11; 6:10; 2 Nephi 19:16; 28:21-23. Polygamy condemned Jacob 1:15; 2:23,24,27,31;3:5; Mosiah 11:2,4; Ether 10:5,7

12 Essential Mormon Doctrines not Found in the Book of Mormon If the Book of Mormon is the "most correct book of any on earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4:461), then why does it not contain essential Mormon doctrines such as...

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Church organization Plurality of Gods Plurality of wives doctrine Word of Wisdom God is an exalted man Celestial marriage

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Men may become Gods Three degrees of glory Baptism for the dead Eternal progression The Aaronic Priesthood Melchizedek Priesthoo

The founder of Mormonism said the Book of Mormon was the most correct book of any book, including the Bible (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461), and that a man could get closer to God by following it than any other book. Yet, essential Mormon doctrines aren't even found in it. This is because the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a fictional account made up by Joseph Smith. It wasn't until after the book had been printed that the additional heretical doctrines of Mormonism started to develop. That is why the Book of Mormon sounds so Christian -- at first.

849

Some of the Many Changes in the Book of Mormon

Joseph Smith said "that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461). Allegedly it was translated by the power of God. Nevertheless, it has some 4,000 changes in it. Some are mere spelling corrections, but others are significant changes. Why is this so if the Book of Mormon was translated accurately by the hand of God? Why would the Mormon Church continue to change the work even after Joseph Smith's death? Following is a very small sample of the changes in the Book of Mormon. Check them out for yourself. 1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon 1 Nephi 11:18 1 Nephi 11:21 "And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of [. . . . ] God, after the manner of the flesh "And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the [. . . . ] Eternal Father!..." "...And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, [. . . . ] the Everlasting God, was judged of the world..." "...and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is [. . . . ] the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world..." "...for had not the Lord been merciful, to shew unto me concerning them, even as he had prophets of old; [. . . . ] for he surely..." "Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah,[. . . . ] which swear..." 1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon "And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." "And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!..." "...And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world..." "...and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the World..." "...for had not the Lord been merciful, to show unto me concerning them, even as he had prophets of old, I should have perished also." "Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear..."

1 Nephi 11:32

1 Nephi 13:40

1 Nephi 19:20 1 Nephi 20:1 changed in 1964 ed. Mosiah 21:28 changed in 1964 ed.

"...king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;..."

"...king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;..."

850

Alma 29:4

"...yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills..." "...because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared, to remove the cause of diseases which was subsequent to man by the nature of the climate." "And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla, and the land which was between the land of Zarahemla and the land Bountiful." "O ye people of these great cities which have fallen which are a descendant of Jacob; yea which are of the house of Israel; O ye people of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you..." "and thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you at that day, When the Gentiles shall sin against my Gospel, and shall subject the fulness of my Gospel, and shall be lifted up..." "...for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, [. . . . ] and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more." "...nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons and to his daughters, which were not, or which did not seek his destruction."

"...yea, I know that he allotteth unto men [ . . . .] according to their wills..." "...because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to removed the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate." "And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla [ . . . .] and the land Bountiful..." "O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, [. . . . ] how oft have I gathered you..." "And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel,[. . . . ] and shall be lifted up..." "...for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more." "Nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons, and to his daughters [. . . . ] who did not seek his destruction."

Alma 46:40

3 Nephi 3:23

3 Nephi 10:4

3 Nephi 16:10

3 Nephi 22:4

Ether 9:2

As you can see, the Book of Mormon is a changing document. Where will the Mormon Church change it next? The primary research for this information was taken from the book 3913 Changes in the Book of Mormon by Jerald and Sandra Tanner. To obtain copies of their work please write to Utah Lighthouse Ministry P.O. Box 1884 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110.

851

The Book of Abraham Papyri and Joseph Smith

There are many proofs that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, but Mormons typically, will not accept them. From the biblical evidence that contradicts Mormon theology, to the contradictions within its own history and doctrine, proofs abound. But Mormons, completely dedicated to their religion and their testimony, cannot and will not see the evidence. They rely not on biblical evidence, not on historical evidence, but rather trust a 'testimony' that Mormonism is the restored church and Joseph Smith its true prophet. One of the tests of whether or not a belief is grounded in reality is whether or not it can be proven to be true or false. If someone says, "I don't care what evidence you show me, I will always believe," then that person's faith is not rooted in reality. And since Christianity is a religion of history, crucifixion, resurrection, an empty tomb, etc., it is a religion rooted in reality. If it could be proven beyond doubt that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a false religion. Likewise, if it could be proven that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, then Mormonism is a false religion. It just so happens that there is such a proof. The Book of Abraham Joseph Smith claimed that an angel appeared to him and revealed the location of some golden plates on which was written the account of the ancient people of the Americas. Joseph Smith later translated those plates into what is now known as the Book of Mormon. This translation was done by the power of God through special means. Joseph Smith, being the Lord's chosen instrument, became the prophet of the Mormon Church, held the office of Seer. A Seer, according to the Book of Mormon in Mosiah 8:13, can translate records that are untranslatable. Hence, Joseph Smith was able to translate the golden plates into the Book of Mormon. But his Seer abilities did not stop there. In July of 1835, an Irishman named Michael Chandler brought an exhibit of four Egyptian mummies and papyri to Kirtland Ohio, then the home of the Mormons. The papyri contained Egyptian hieroglyphics. In 1835 hieroglyphics were unreadable. As Prophet and Seer of the Church, Joseph Smith was given permission to look at the papyri scrolls in the exhibit and to everyone's shock, revealed that "one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt" (History of the Church, Vol. 2: 236. July 1835). The Church bought the exhibit for $2400. Joseph finished the translation of the Book of Abraham some time later, but the book of Joseph was never translated. The papyri were lost soon afterwards and thought to have been destroyed in a fire in Chicago in 1871. There was, therefore, no way to validate Joseph's translation. If the papyri were re-discovered and translated it would either prove or disprove the abilities of Joseph as a prophet of God. After all, he was supposed to be a prophet and have the abilities of a Seer as the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham supposedly proved. In October of 1880 The Pearl of Great Price, a collection of writings, which contained the book of Abraham, was recognized as scripture by the Mormon Church. The Papyri are found To every ones surprise, in 1966 the papyri were rediscovered in one of the vault rooms of the New Yorks metropolitan Museum of Art. The Deseret News of Salt Lake City on Nov. 27, 1967 acknowledged the rediscovery of the papyri. On the back of the papyri were "drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area."1 4 6 There could be no doubt that this was the original document from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham. With the papyri rediscovered and Egyptian hieroglyphics decipherable since the late 1800's, it would then be an easy task of translating the papyri and proving once and for all that Joseph Smith was a prophet with the gift of "Seer" as he and the Mormon church have claimed. This would then prove the truth of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham and would vindicate Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God.

Improvement Era, January 1968, p. 25; as cited in "..by His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" by Charles M. Larson, Institute for Religious Research, Grand Rapids, MI 49505-4604, 1992
146

852

What do the Experts say? Joseph Smith copied three drawings from the Egyptian scrolls, labeled them Facsimile No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, and incorporated them into the Book of Abraham with explanations of what they were. Egyptologists have viewed the drawings and found Joseph Smith's interpretation of them to be wrong. But, the Mormons, in defense of the sacred book, maintained that the Facsimiles alone were not sufficient to prove that Joseph Smith was erring in his translating abilities. With the rediscovery of the papyri, not only were there the same drawings in the scrolls, but so was the text from which Joseph Smith made his translation. It was now possible to absolutely determine the accuracy of Smith's translating abilities. Facsimile No. 1

Joseph Smith said that Facsimile No. 1 was of a bird as the "Angel of the Lord" with "Abraham fastened upon an altar," "being offered up as a sacrifice by a false priest. The pots under the altar were various gods "Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, Pharaoh," etc. In reality, this is "an embalming scene showing the deceased lying on a lion-couch."1 4 7 In the original papyri, this drawing is attached to hieroglyphics (See figure A) from which Joseph derived the beginning of the book of Abraham which begins with the words, "In the Land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my father, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence"(1:1). In reality, the hieroglyphics translate as, "Osiris shall be conveyed into the Great Pool of Khons -- and likewise Osiris Hor, justified, born to Tikhebyt, justified -- after his arms have been placed on his heart and the Breathing permit (which [Isis] made and has writing on its inside and outside) has been wrapped in royal linen and placed under his left arm near his heart; the rest of the mummy-bandages should be wrapped over it. The man for whom this book was copied will breath forever and ever as the bas of the gods do."1 4 8 "It is the opening portion of an Egyptian Shait en Sensen, or Book of Breathings . . . a late funerary text that grew out of the earlier and more complex Book of the Dead." "This particular scroll was prepared (as determined by handwriting, spelling, content, etc.) sometime during the late Ptolemaic or early Roman period (circa 50 B.C. to A.D. 50)."1 4 9

147

Joseph Smith Among the Egyptians, by Wesley P. Walters. 1973, Reprinted by Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Box 1884, Salt Lake City, Utah 84110.
148

Dr. Klaus Baer, The Breathing Permit of Hor. A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham, p. 119-120 as cited in Joseph Smith Among the Egyptians, by Wesley Walters.
149

Larson, Charles M., by his own hand upon papyrus, Institute for Religious Research, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1992, p. 62.

853

Figure A

Figure A is a professional reconstruction of the original (Figure B). Note the hieroglyphics on the right side from which Joseph Smith began his translation of the Book of Abraham. In actuality, it "depicts the mythical embalming and resurrection of Osiris, Egyptian god of the underworld. Osiris was slain by his jealous brother Set, who cut up his body into 16 pieces and scattered them....The jackal-headed god Anubis is shown embalming the body of Osiris on the traditional lion-headed couch so that he might come back to life..."1 5 0 Figure B

Figure B (to the right) shows a reprint of the actual papyrus used by Joseph Smith Note the areas where the Papyrus has been lost. It is these that Joseph Smith "finished" the drawing resulting Facsimile No. 1. His restoration, according to Egyptologists, reveals a complete lack of understanding Egyptian practice and theology. Facsimile No. 2

in in of

As is explained by Joseph Smith and included in the Pearl of Great Price, the second drawing contains different scenes which Joseph Smith interpreted. They vary: "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God." "Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides." "God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority." "...this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key..." But again scholarship disagrees with Josephs rendition. "It is actually a rather common funerary amulet termed a hypocephalus, socalled because it was placed under (hypo) a mummys head (cephalus). Its purpose was to magically keep the deceased warm and to protect the body from desecration by grave robbers."1 5 1

150

Larson, p. 102. Larson, p. 104

151

854

According to Smith, this drawing shows "Abraham sitting upon Pharaohs throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood...King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head...Signifies Abraham in Egypt...Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince..." But this is not what the Egyptologists say is the meaning of the Facsimile No. 3 is. Instead, it shows, "the deceased being led before Osiris, god of the dead, and behind the enthroned Osiris stands his wife Isis."1 5 2 Conclusion Facsimile No. 3

It should be quite obvious that present scholarship has revealed that Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Abraham by the power of God as he had claimed. It follows that if he did not translate the Book of Abraham by the power of God, then it would be very easy to conclude that he did not translate the Book of Mormon by the power of God either. When Joseph first gave his translation, hieroglyphics were undecipherable. Today they are. He was safe in saying anything he wanted to and there would be no way of proving him wrong. But with the resurfacing of the same papyri he used to do his Book of Abraham translation, and the fact that he did not in any way do it correctly, should be proof enough that Joseph Smith lied about his abilities from God. He has been shown to be a false prophet. _________ For some very good and extensive information on the Book of Abraham, please go to http://www.irr.org/mit/boapage.html

152 7

Walters, p. 29.

855

The Mormon Church Statistics

As of 1997, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more commonly known as the Mormons, claims membership of a little more than 10 million worldwide. United States . . . . . . . . . . .5 Million Latin America . . . . . . . . . . .3 Million Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Million South Pacific & Africa . . . . 1/2 Million The Mormon Church was founded on April 6, 1830. It was originally called the Church of Jesus Christ. The official name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was adopted in 1837. Temples are sacred structures where special Mormon rites are practiced. The church built its first temple in 1836 in Kirtland, Ohio. There are more than 50 temples world wide with another 50 either in construction or in the early planning stages. The church distributes over 5 million copies of the Book of Mormon per year. There are approximately 800 converts to the Mormon church per day, 300,000 per year. There are approximately 60,000 full time missionaries world wide. Most of them are young males in their late teens to early twenties and spend 2 years in the field. There are 16 missionary training centers world-wide. There are thousands of Mormons who are in field service in different countries doing many charitable works ranging from doctors, to mechanics, to teachers, and more. Financial income is in excess of 2 million dollars per day. Its net worth holdings are in the billions of dollars.

856

Mormon Church Structure

857

Does Mormonism Attack Other Religions?

Mormons do not like it when their Church is labeled a cult by Christians. This bothers them and they want desperately to be accepted as Christian by the Christian community. The Mormon church spends a great deal of time and money on public relations with the aim of portraying a loving, family oriented, non-condemning Christian denomination. But Christians react to this and cite the great differences in doctrine between Mormons and Christians and continue to pronounce the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a non-Christian cult. The battle continues and Mormons try to claim that they do not go around condemning other religions like "anti-Mormons" do. They say they are forgiving, tolerant, good Christian people who don't have anything against anyone. They claim they are being more Christ-like. Their desire for a good image is understandable. But the question remains. Does the Mormon church condemn other religious systems? The answer is definitely, "Yes." Let's look at Mormon writers and see what they have said. Joseph Smith said . . . (Regarding Joseph Smith's alleged first vision where celestial personages appeared to him.) . . .) "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . ." (Joseph Smith, "History of the Church, Vol. 1, page 5-6.) "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world." ("Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, page 270.) (In questions directed to Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. . .) First -- "Do you believe the Bible?" If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do." Third "Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?" Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (Teachings, page 119.) Brigham Young said. . . "But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong." (Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses," Vol. 2, page 171. - 1855) John Taylor said . . . "We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense....Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century."( Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 167 - 1858) "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom." (J.D.", Vol. 10, page 127. - 1863)

858

James Talmage said . . . "A self-suggesting interpretation of history indicates that there has been a great departure from the way of salvation as laid down by the Savior, a universal apostasy from the Church of Christ". ("The Articles of Faith," Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah. P. 182.) Bruce McConkie said . . . "With the loss of the gospel, the nations of the earth went into a moral eclipse called the Dark Ages." ("Mormon Doctrine," Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, Utah, page. 44.) Joseph Fielding Smith said . . . "Again, following the death of his apostles, apostasy once more set in, and again the saving principles and ordinances of the gospel were changed to suit the conveniences and notions of the people. Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." ("Doctrines of Salvation," page 266.) The Book of Mormon says. . . "And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth" (1 Nephi 14:10). "And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose foundation is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence. . ." (1 Nephi. 14:17). The Doctrine and Covenants says . . . "Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face" (Doctrine and Covenants, 112:23).

When the Mormon missionaries come to the door and do their "gospel" presentation, they mention an apostasy and the need for a prophet, their prophet, to restore the true Teachings of Jesus. Of course, these restored' teachings are completely false. Nevertheless, the Mormon church clearly condemns other religious systems. Those Mormons who complain about poor treatment should familiarize themselves with their teachers' words.

859

Mormon words don't mean the same thing

Anyone who tries to witness to a Mormon will soon find that the words they use do not always mean the same thing to Christians. Below is a list of terms that are important for Christians to know when discussing the truth with Mormons. It is important that you know what the Mormons mean by the same words use by Christians. ADAM LDS - Father of physical mankind. Adam is Bible - the first created man by whom all also known as Michael the archangel, the of humanity descends. He was not ancient of days, (D&C 116). Michael the archangel. LDS - The sacrifice of Christ that made resurrection possible along with the possibility of our earning forgiveness of sins. Bible - The substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf. He died for our sins (1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 2:2). Bible - A priesthood that is no longer necessary now that we have the full revelation of Christ. Bible - An ordinance of the Christian church that is not necessary for salvation (Rom. 5:1).

ATONEMENT

AARONIC LDS - A lesser priesthood in the LDS PRIESTHOOD church. It is still used in LDS church practices and is held by the very young, (D&C 107:1, 6, 10). BAPTISM LDS - A necessary ordinance for salvation in the Mormon church. By it sins are washed away.

BIBLE

LDS - The Bible is correct only as far as it Bible - the Bible is the inspired inerrant is correctly translated. It is basically word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). trustworthy. It is the only one of the four standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) that is not considered infallible. The KJV is the official Bible of the LDS church. LDS - an office in the Aaronic Priesthood of Bible - An office held by a male member the LDS church. D&C 20:67), of the Church. LDS - The highest of the three levels of Bible - There is no such thing as a heaven where faithful Mormons are exalted celestial heaven. to Godhood. LDS - The LDS church with its organizational structure, laws, and proper name. LDS - Basically, anything lesser than exaltation which is becoming a God. LDS - See Satan. LDS - The name of God the Father. Bible - The body of believers in the true and living God through Jesus. It is comprised of those who are redeemed and is not limited to an earthly structure. Bible - The state condemnation, judged by God in eternal hell (Matt. 25:46). Bible - See Satan. Bible - The Hebrew word for "God." The name of God is "YHWH," which means "I AM," (Exodus 3:14). Bible - Forgiveness of sins and life eternal with God (John 17:3; Rom. 6:23). Bible - No such thing as becoming a God in the Bible. Bible - The open rebellion of Adam and Eve against God resulting in their condemnation and the fall of mankind.

BISHOP CELESTIAL HEAVEN CHURCH

DAMNATION DEVIL ELOHIM

ETERNAL LIFE EXALTATION FALL OF MANKIND

LDS - Exaltation (exaltation to a Mormon means obtaining Godhood) in the Celestial Kingdom. LDS - The state of becoming a god in the celestial heaven. LDS - A blessing (Mosiah 3: 11-16). A necessary step in the progression of humanity to the level of Godhood.

860

GOD

LDS - One of countless gods in existence. Bible - The one and only God in all the An exalted man from another world who universe, (Isaiah 44:6,8). created the earth who's name is "Elohim." He became a god by following the laws and ordinances of his god on the other world. He has a body of flesh and bones. D&C 130: 22-23. LDS - An office held by three separate Gods: the Father who is a god; Jesus who is a god; and the Holy Ghost who is a god. LDS - The laws and ordinances of the Mormon church. Bible - God Himself, not an office. Three persons in one God. A Trinity: The Father; the Son; and the Holy Spirit. Bible - The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of the sins of all who would trust in Him (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Bible - The dwelling place of God (1 Kings 8:30). Christians go to heaven.

GODHEAD

GOSPEL

HEAVEN

LDS - Divided into three Kingdoms: Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial. The Celestial is for perfect Mormons, the Terrestrial is for moral people and lukewarm LDS, and the Telestial Kingdom is for everyone else.

HELL

LDS - The temporary abode in the spirit Bible - the eternal dwelling place of world between death and resurrection for those who rejected the atoning work of those awaiting telestial glory, (D&C 76: 84- Christ. 85, 106). Hell will come to an end. LDS - "A spirit man. He can only be at one Bible - Third person of the Trinity. Same place at one time... " (Mormon Doctrine by as Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). Bruce McConkie, p. 359.) The Holy Ghost is contrasted with the Spirit of God which is the influence of the Godhead that fills the immensity of space which enables God to know what is going on. It is likened to electricity." D&C 130: 22-23. LDS - The presence of God as distinguished Bible - An equivalent term to Holy Ghost, from the Holy Ghost who is a god in the third person in the Trinity. mormon trinity. LDS - The name of Jesus in the Old Testament. LDS - Literal offspring of God the father. Spirit brother of Satan. A god in the Godhead. He is Jehovah of the O.T. compared to Elohim being the Father. He was the first spirit child to be born to the Father and Mother gods. Ordained as the Christ in the pre-existent Grand Council before coming to earth. Bible - The name of God is "YHWH," which means "I AM," (Exodus 3:14). Bible - Jesus is God, second person of the Trinity (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9).

HOLY GHOST

HOLY SPIRIT JEHOVAH JESUS

861

KINGDOM OF GOD MARRIAGE

LDS - Celestial heaven. The kingdom of God on earth is the LDS church.

Bible - All the believers of Christ (Matt. 13:41-43).

LDS - An eternal bonding of husband and Bible - the holy covenant between a man wife that continues into the afterlife. These and a woman that is broken at death. couples will continue to have children. (D&C 132:15-20). Bible - A priesthood held by Jesus alone. Bible - We did not exist before we came to earth (1 Cor. 15:46).

MELCHIZEDEK LDS - A greater priesthood in the LDS PRIESTHOOD church held by elders, (D&C 107), PREEXISTENCE SALVATION LDS - We existed in heaven with God our (literal) Father and mother before we became human.

LDS - Two fold meaning: Simple bodily Bible - Forgiveness of sins with the resurrection of all people. Also, forgiveness result of a present new life and in the of sins. future eternal life with God (1 Cor. 15:14; Rom. 6:23; 10:9-10). LDS - The opposer of God, literal son of God, brother of Jesus and all people begotten in the pre-existent spirit world. Bible - A fallen angel who rebelled against God.

SATAN

SCRIPTURE TEMPLE

LDS - Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Bible only Covenants, Pearl of Great Price. LDS - A present day temple used to practice the ordinances and ceremonies of the gospel of the LDS church on behalf of the living as well as the dead. Bible - The Old Testament building where God dwelt, sacrifices were offered, and holy priestly rites were administered. There is no longer a need for temples.

TRINITY

LDS- Three gods: a god called the Father; Bible - The one and only God in all a god called the son; a god called the Holy existence who is comprised of three Ghost. persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. See Trinity.

Go to http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/contents for a list of Mormon words and definitions produced by the LDS church.

862

A Response From (and to) S.H.I.E.L.D.S.

Following is a copy of the SHIELDS ARTICLE responding to my posting of Difficult Questions for Mormons To Answers, by Ira T. Ransom. Their original was located at http://www.shieldsresearch.org but has since been moved or removed. I have reproduced it here. The original web page information is in signified as ORIGINAL. Their responses preceded by SHIELDS (later it will be FARMS), then my responses to their responses are with MY RESPONSE preceding it.

First of all, I apologize to Mr. Barker for taking far longer than necessary to answer his rebuttal. With my busy schedule and a series of personal responsibilities that arose, I put it aside and, in time, forgot about it. Nevertheless, here it is. Also, I have changed some of the information on my website as a result of Mr. Barker's efforts. For clarification, Mr. Barkers web site is quoted here in its entirety. My comments are inserted in blue. SHIELDS Introduction by Stanley D. Barker Matthew J. Slick has created a web site to promote himself, having been rejected for ordination to the Presbyterian ministry because of his ideas. He says: ORIGINAL I am Reformed in theology and believe in the continuation of the spiritual gifts which is why my denomination at the time, the Presbyterian Church in America, has refused my ordination; they are cessationist. MY RESPONSE Notice that the first thing mentioned on their site is an attack on my character. I have stated on my web site that the Presbyterian Church in America does not believe in the continuation of the spiritual gifts. I do. Therefore, they would not ordain me to the ministry. They did recommend that I continue ministry and find a denomination that believed more along those lines. I still enjoy fellowship with them, my Christian brothers. This is nothing unusual within Christianity. But, Mr. Barker, in an attempt to discredit me and, therefore, my position against them, has begun with an attack on my character by trying to incite within the reader a suspicion concerning my trustworthiness and Christian character. Instead of beginning with the issues, he began with my person.

SHIELDS Mr. Slick has placed his views of Mormonism on the Internet. He has challenged: ORIGINAL Now, before you go slamming me with some irate e-mail telling me I dont know what I am talking about, first read my material on my site, and if I am wrong, correct me by showing precisely where I am wrong. Document the sources you want to quote to prove me wrong. If you do, Ill change my page. SHIELDS He also tells us "The web site is very well documented...." Yet all we find there are rehashes of old anti-Mormon material. Mr. Slick has fallen into the same unethical sloppiness that can be found amongst most critics of the LDS Church, i.e., he quotes word for word from some other anti-Mormon, but he fails to give credit to the original source.

863

MY RESPONSE My site is well documented. So what does a "rehash of old anti-Mormon material" have to do with it being well documented? Whether or not my material is a rehash (and what is wrong with that considering Mormon doctrine is still wrong?), its truth, or lack thereof, should be the issue, not whether or not it is a rehash. Mr. Barker has now accused me of plagiarism and "unethical sloppiness." Both these accusations fall into the "attack-his-character" category. It is a shame to see that this is the method Mr. Barker chooses to begin his apologetic. I learn from many sources. I cannot remember the origin of everything I learn (as, I am sure, is the case with Mr. Barker) in refuting Mormonism, nor should I be expected to. What becomes part of my apologetic approach via learning from others does not mean that I plagiarized. Some of what I say is original to myself. Other parts have been gained from other Christians far more knowledgeable than myself. SHIELDS: (We'll give him the possibility that he simply doesn't know the origin of some of these statements and merely chooses to repeat them.) An excellent example of this can be found in the last question responded to by John A. Tvedtnes. This question came, word for word, from Bob Witte and can be found on our 42 Questions section, Question 36. MY RESPONSE On my website (http://www.carm.org/lds/diff_questions.htm I clearly state that the questions at ), issue here are the product of another author, Ira T. Ransom in the booklet "Ask Your Bishop." I gave full credit. SHIELDS Whether or not Mr. Slick will "change [his] page" as he claims, remains to be seen. We suspect that, as with most critics who have often made this claim, nothing will happen. We hope we are proven wrong. It would be a nice change. MY RESPONSE Perhaps Mr. Barker has failed to consider that the condition for changing my page is not that it be answered, but that I am proven wrong. Note again, an issue of my character is again raised with the hint that my integrity and honesty are at stake. As with many cults, emotional manipulation of the reader/hearer is often used in an attempt to influence the potential convert to adopt the new position. It seems that Mr. Barker is attempting to recruit an emotional response from the reader of his material; namely, that if I were honest (a man of integrity), then I will change my position once I read his material. SHIELDS We have not provided a link to Mr. Slick's web site since we don't want to promote sites of our critics. Rather, we think the focus should be on the responses themselves. Some of the issues raised by Mr. Slick will be addressed further at a later date.

In contrast, I am not afraid of Mormonism nor its attempts at defending itself. At the beginning of this page I have provided a link to their site. I do so again here: S.H.I.E.L.D.S (On CARM, this link is active).

Mr. Barker has copied the information from a Mormon apologetics site called FARMS. The following information is from them. Therefore, I will now change the notation from SHIELDS to FARMS.

864

Response by John A. Tvetnes (FARMS) FARMS The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (C.A.R.M.), located on the Internet, has posted a list of "Difficult Questions for Mormons to Answer," taken from a booklet entitled, Ask Your Bishop by Ira T. Ransom. Here are the questions and some brief responses. (Actually, none of these are "difficult questions.") ORIGINAL If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision). FARMS "White" need not refer to skin color, as is clear from the following passages from the biblical book of Daniel: "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed (Daniel 11:35). "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand (Daniel 12:10). In both of these passages, the meaning of the word "white" is most obviously pure; to "make white" is to purify. When Joseph Smith first translated the Book of Mormon, he gave the literal rendering of "white" for the passage in 2 Nephi 30:6. For the 1840 edition, it was changed to "pure," which better reflected the meaning of the word used by Nephi. Subsequent editions, however, relied on the 1837 Book of Mormon, which still read "white." This oversight was not rectified until the 1981 edition. MY RESPONSE I think you have completely missed this one, Mr. Tvedtnes. writers:

Let's look at your own Mormon

The book of Mormon says in 2 Nephi 5:21, "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." 3 Nephi 2:15 says, "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." This is obviously a reference to skin color. Brigham Young, the second prophet of the Mormon church said, in 1859, "You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portio ns of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Journal of Discourses 7:336). Brigham Young also said that those who fall away from Mormonism would, "become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Journal of Discourse 5:332). I do not know if Mr. Tvedtnes is aware of the references in the Book of Mormon and perhaps he is also unaware of the quotes from Brigham Young, the second Prophet of his church. I do not mean this in a derogatory manner, but if he is not knowledgeable about this basic Mormon position, how can I trust him on other equally serious issues?

ORIGINAL If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi

865

11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald [sic] and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.) FARMS The reasons for changes in the Book of Mormon are similar to the reasons why the English Bible has experienced changes over time. Changes can be classified as (1) changes in punctuation, which was added by the typesetter, not Joseph Smith or his scribe, (2) correction of typesetting errors, (3) spelling errors made by either the scribe (Oliver Cowdery) or the typesetter, (4) changes to upgrade the language to make it sound more English than Hebrew, (5) restoration of phrases or sentences left out by the typesetter but later discovered to be in the manuscript. The addition to 1 Nephi 20:1 is an exegetical explanation and should have been placed enclosed by parentheses. All the changes listed in the question were made by Joseph Smith and not by "the Mormon church." As the translator of the record, who would have been better qualified to determine how the Lord intended those passages to be read? MY RESPONSE I will grant that minor variants could have crept into the B.O.M. text through typesetting errors and that stylistic upgrades are occasionally necessary. However, the kinds of errors I am talking about are the ones where the entire meaning of the text has been changed. I have difficulty simply accepting the statement that they were left out of the original and latter corrected? If so, by whom and on what basis? Wasn't the book of Mormon translated by the gift and power of God? Didn't Smith okay the final product at its printing? Why, then, did not God tell him there were problems? Following is just a few of the differences that are noteworthy and don't fall under Mr. Tvetdnes attempt to answer. 1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon 1 Nephi 11:18 1 Nephi 19:20 1 Nephi 20:1 changed in 1964 ed. "And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of [. . . . ] God, after the manner of the flesh 1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon "And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh."

"...for had not the Lord been merciful, to "..."for had not the Lord been merciful, to shew unto me concerning them, even as he show unto me concerning them, even as he had prophets of old; [. . . . ] for he surely..." had prophets of old, I should have perished also. And he surely did..." "Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, "Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah,[. . are come forth out of the waters of Judah, . . ] which swear..." or out of the waters of baptism, who swear..." "...king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;..."

Mosiah "...king Benjamin had a gift from God, 21:28 whereby he could interpret such changed engravings;..." in 1964 ed. "...yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, Alma 29:4 yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterale, according to their wills..."

"...yea, I know that he allotteth unto men [ . . . .] according to their wills..."

3 Nephi 3:23

"And the land which was appointed was the "And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla, and the land which was land of Zarahemla [ . . . .] and the land between the land of Zarahemla and the Bountiful..." land Bountiful."

866

3 Nephi 10:4

"O ye people of these great cities which have fallen which are a descendant of Jacob; yea which are of the house of Israel; O ye people of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you..." "and thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you at that day, When the Gentiles shall sin against my Gospel, and shall subject the fulness of my Gospel, and shall be lifted up..." "...for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, [. . . . ] and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more."

"O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, [. . . . ] how oft have I gathered you..." "And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel,[. . . . ] and shall be lifted up..." "...for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more." "Nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons, and to his daughters [. . . . ] who did not seek his destruction."

3 Nephi 16:10

3 Nephi 22:4

"...nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons and to his Ether 9:2 daughters, which were not, or which did not seek his destruction."

The changes are rather blatant and have even changed the meaning of the text. The problem is definitely still there.

ORIGINAL How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.) FARMS The record was not solid gold bullion, but a set of thin metallic sheets held together by metallic rings. So we're not dealing with a 7x8x6-inch block of gold. Besides, there's no evidence that the plates were really made of gold. The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses declares that they had "the appearance of gold." Joseph Smith spoke of them as "gold plates" (Joseph Smith History 1:34), but this need not mean that they were pure gold; they may have been a gold alloy. Indeed, the only plates said to have been "of pure gold" were the 24 plates of Ether's record, which were not part of the collection Joseph received (Mosiah 8:9; cf. Mosiah 28:11). MY RESPONSE Smith said the plates were gold. Now, it is possible that they were an alloy. But how much? 51% gold? If they were to say, 30% gold and 70% copper, would it be correct to say that the plates were made of gold when 70% was copper? I think it is fair to say that they were at least 51% gold. Nevertheless, they would have a substantial weight. F.A.R.M.S. has stated that the plates probably weighed about 50 pounds. The account of Smith running with the plates includes him being attacked and knocked down by a robber, who hit Smith over the head with a gun, a "heavy blow". Smith then knocked him down and ran at the top of his speed for half a mile, was attacked and knocked down again, but managed to fight off that assailant. He then ran again and was attacked for a third time in the same manner. He did all this carrying at the very least 50 pounds of metal under his arm traveling through a wooded area. Sorry, but even given the minimal weight of 50 pounds, the account is far fetched.

867

ORIGINAL If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37) FARMS Joseph Smith only once called Moroni an "angel," in the true sense of that word, i.e., a messenger. And this declaration is not found in a revelation, but in a letter Joseph wrote, which means that it need not reflect information he got from the Lord (D&C 128:20). It does not preclude Moroni from exaltation. Moreover, we really do not know whether Moroni appeared to Joseph as a resurrected being or a translated being, though most assume it was the former. If he has not yet been resurrected (or changed), then he will not yet have entered into his final estate. MY RESPONSE I know of no Mormon who does NOT believe Moroni was an angel in the true sense. If he was not, why dont Mormons call him the "Messenger Moroni" and clear up the confusion?

ORIGINAL Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13). FARMS This is like asking why some Mormons smoke. As imperfect human beings, none of us does everything precisely the way the Lord asks, though we should be striving to do so. There are, in fact, Latter-day Saints who do observe the injunction about meat. We could turn this question around and ask why so many Christians emphasize part of the plan of redemption (grace) and ignore other parts (keeping God's commandments). MY RESPONSE Sorry, but Christian dont ignore the importance of keeping Gods commandments. It is just that perfect obedience is not a prerequisite for salvation. If smoking is against the Word of Wisdom and is therefore sinful, why not the others? It is the Mormons who have made a big issue out of this, not us.

ORIGINAL When Christ died, did darkness cover the land for three days or for three hours? (Luke 23:44 and 3 Nephi 8:19, 23). FARMS This is like asking why the snowstorm on Christmas day lasted two hours in Boston and two days in Denver. We are, after all, dealing with different geographical regions here. The answer is that the darkness lasted three hours in the Holy Land but three days in the lands inhabited by the Nephites, where there appears to have been a majo r volcanic explosion (see John A. Tvedtnes, "Historical Parallels to the Destruction at the Time of the Crucifixion," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3/1, Spring 1994). MY RESPONSE I'll give this one to you, though I think Smith simply made a mistake when he was copying from the Bible. It is not, technically, a contradiction to state the time of darkness difference is due to geographical location.

868

ORIGINAL Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old. Since he was wrong about the moon, is it safe to trust him regarding the way to Heaven? (The Young Woman's Journal, Vol. 3, pages 263-264. See reprint in Mormonism -- Shadow or Reality? by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, page 4.) FARMS Just once it would be nice to see this statement in a document contemporary with Joseph Smith (who died in 1844), rather than in something written in a journal in 1881 and published in 1892, which is the source the Tanners cite. But even if Joseph Smith did believe this (which cannot be demonstrated), could one blame him? After all, the press in his day had reported that British Astronomer Royal Sir John Herschel had discovered people living on the moon. It was a newspaper hoax that was widely believed in the 1830s. Joseph Smith could believe such a thing and still be a prophet, for prophets, too, have a right to opinions. It was Joseph who declared "I . . . visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet;' but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such" (History of the Church 5:265). MY RESPONSE I'll give you this one, too. However, Brigham Young taught there was life on the Moon as well and also on the sun (JOD 13:271). Are you saying we cant believe anything Smith said which was reported after he died. Also, you quoted the History of the Church to support your position. I guess that means I can do the same thing. Perhaps the Journal of Discourses are also fair to quote. One more thing, how do we know that Smith's quote in History of the Church 5:265 isn't simply his opinion, just like the men in the moon part? Who decides? Or, is it only an opinion when it is shown to be false?

ORIGINAL Joseph Smith prepared fourteen Articles of Faith. Why has the original No. 11 been omitted? FARMS (Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 2, three pages after page 160, among the photos.) The Articles of Faith were not received by revelation, but were merely a summation of the beliefs of the Church. There are only 13 of them in the letter Joseph Smith wrote to John Wentworth in 1842. The fourteen published by Wood derive from a later source, a pamphlet published in England in April, 1849, by James H. Flanigan. It is therefore incorrect to associate Joseph Smith's name with that list. MY RESPONSE Okay, I'll give you that one, too.

ORIGINAL Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60). FARMS The original Nauvoo House is still standing and can be seen by visitors to that city. It is the Mansion House, Joseph Smith's residence, that had to be reconstructed. MY RESPONSE The problem is it was prophesied to be "for the boarding of strangers" "from generation to generation" not to be gawked at by tourists. The fact is Joseph Fielding Smith admitted this building was never finished. See Doctrines of Salvation 3:218.

869

ORIGINAL How can a man who is not a descendant of Aaron hold the Aaronic Priesthood? (Numbers 16:40; Heb. 7:13,14). FARMS Through the prophet Isaiah, the Lord promised that, in the last days, he would gather Israel and would "take of them for priests and for Levites" (Isaiah 66:21). If he intended to authorize only descendants of Aaron to hold that priesthood, why would he have to designate priests and Levites? MY RESPONSE Sorry, I am not sure I understand your point. But I'll take a shot at it. The Isaiah citation is eschatological; that is, it is dealing with the future of Jerusalem, probably in reference to the millennial reign. We could argue a long time on typologies and meanings and it would accomplish little. But, for the sake of keeping it simple, I've removed the original question from the list.

ORIGINAL Since Mormonism teaches that only God the Father had a physical body at the time Adam was created, why did God say, "Let us make man in OUR image"? Why didn't He say, "Let us make man in MY image?" (Gen. 1:26). FARMS According to Ether 3:15-16, Christ, as a spirit, appeared as he would in mortality, and it was after his spirit that man was patterned (see also Mosiah 7:27). Consequently, the shape of our bodies is the same as both the Father as a physical being and the Son while yet in his spiritual state. So there is no contradiction here. MY RESPONSE Instead of arguing technicalities, I'll give you this one, too. However, I had always thought that the Mormon's position was that it was the flesh and bones that made us in the image of God.

ORIGINAL If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin? (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50). FARMS Mary was a virgin because she had known no man (Luke 1:34), not because she bore the Son of God. MY RESPONSE But that isn't answering the question. You simply say she was a virgin. Brigham Young said they had relations, that God didn't let any other man 'do it' with Mary, that Jesus' birth, etc, was the result of natural action. Now, since the god of Mormonism is an immortal MAN, and, I assume, with genitalia, and Young said it was a natural conception, then how did she remain a virgin? THAT is the question.

870

ORIGINAL How did Nephi with a few men on a new continent build a temple like Solomon's while Solomon needed 163,300 workmen and seven years to build his temple? (1 Kings 5:13-18 and 2 Nephi 5:15-17). FARMS Nephi probably did it the same way the small Israelite garrison at Arad constructed a temple patterned after Solomon's in the ninth century B.C. Like the Arad temple, Nephi's structure could have been rather small. Half a dozen people could have completed the Arad temple working part-time for less than a year. [See also 42 Questions, Question # 2] MY RESPONSE Then I guess it wasn't like Solomon's temple, was it?

ORIGINAL Why was Joseph Smith still preaching against polygamy in October 1843 after he got his revelation in July 1843 commanding the practice of polygamy? (Doc. & Cov. 132; and History of the Church Vol. 6, page 46, or Teachings of the Prophet, page 324). FARMS Actually, Joseph Smith had received the revelation more than a decade before it was written in 1843. He always maintained that, unless commanded to do so by the Lord, a man should have only one wife. Similarly, the Lord commanded Lehi's family to have but one wife, but reserved the right to command otherwise should he wish to do so (Jacob 2:24-30). Joseph Smith's declarations against plural marriage were aimed at those who claimed to have the authority to perform them within the Church. He recorded, "Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives: for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise" (History of the Church 6:46). MY RESPONSE But I am still confused. If Smith received the revelation, then why did he go against it? I am sorry, but your explanation seems to reveal that a double standard is okay.

ORIGINAL God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made (Gen. 3:21). Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons in the secret temple ceremonies? FARMS The aprons are mentio ned only in Genesis 3:7. Nowhere does the text tell us that God "rejected" them, only that, in place of the temporary fig leaf aprons (fig leaves dry up and blow away), God provided more permanent skin clothing (Genesis 3:21). The Latter-day Saints recognize the symbolic nature of the fall, represented by the fig-leaf apron and of God giving mankind a probationary time in which to repent, as represented by the "coats of skins." [For additional discussion see the response to Question 36 (42 Questions).]

871

MY RESPONSE I am sorry, but you fail to understand the significance of the biblical account. Adam and Eve covered themselves with their own works and God rejected it by replacing their works with His: animal skins. This is significant because it involved the shedding of blood (in order to get the skins, typifying the atoning work of Christ.). Theologically, the fig leaf aprons symbolize their own efforts to be covered before God. This is not sufficient and is rejected by God. Additionally, from what I understand of the temple ceremony, the aprons are the same as the one worn by Lucifer. After Lucifer is asked by Adam, "What is that apron you are wearing?" Lucifer replies that it is the symbol of his power and priesthoods. Immediately afterwards, the people going through the temple ceremony are asked to put their aprons on. Please let me know if I am incorrect about this.

872

Jehovah is Elohim
In Mormon theology God is not a Trinity but a triad. The doctrine of Trinity is the teaching that there is a single God who exists in three persons: Father, son, and Holy Spirit. There are not three gods, only one. The Trinity doctrine states there is only one God in all the universe, in all dimensions, in all time, and without end. God is eternal and there was never a time when he was not God. He has always been completely and fully God. A Triad is the teaching that there are three separate gods in one "office" or "position." Mormons often refer to God this way. When they say God, it can mean the Father, whom they call Heavenly Father, or the Godhead rich, to them, is three separate gods in one office. In other words, the Mormon defines the Trinity as a god called the Father (also known as Elohim and Heavenly Father), along with the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost. Mormonism teaches a Triad and not a Trinity. The following quote substantiates the Mormon position: "This reference, then, to the three as one God, must be interpreted to mean that they constitute one Godhead or Supreme Council, composed of three separate personages, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost... it is very strange that Christian people can be confused and believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one substance or entity."1 5 3 In addition to teaching that God, the Godhead, is really three personages or gods, Mormonism also teaches that there are many many gods in existence. Mormon theology has erringly named God the Father as "Elohim." " . . . God the Eternal Father, whom we designate the by the exalted name -title "Elohim," is the literal Parent of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race.1 5 4 Mormon theology also declares that in the old Testament, Jesus is known as "Jehovah." "With this meaning, as the context shows in every case, Jehovah who is Jesus Christ the son of Elohim, is called "the Father," and even "the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth..."1 5 5 The belief that God the Father is called Elohim and Jesus is called Jehovah does not agree with what the Bible says. In actuality, in Hebrew the word for "God" is the word "elohim." Likewise, the word for the name of God (elohim) is "Jehovah." In the Bible, when the word "Jehovah" appears in the Hebrew text, it is rendered as LORD (all caps) in the English text. Also, the Hebrew word "elohim" is translated as "God." Please consider the following verses: "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" (Isaiah 43:10-11).

153

Selections from Answer to Gospel Questions, published by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1972, p. 10.
154

Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, Desert Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah. 1985, p. 421. Ibid. p. 421

155

873

This verse is important because if you read what it is saying, it states that Jehovah (LORD also known to the Mormons as Jesus), is stating that there will be no God (elohim) formed after him. But this is a problem for the Mormons since it could not be saying that Jehovah is the only elohim. In other words, this verse is stating that the LORD (Jehovah), is elohim. Let's look at two more verses. "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God," (Isaiah 44:6). In this verse, LORD is Jehovah in the Hebrew. Jehovah is saying there is no God (elohim) besides him. "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any," (Isaiah 44:8). The context of this verse is that Jehovah (LORD) is a speaking. He states here that there is no God (elohim) besides him. He is stating that he does not even know of any other elohim (God) besides himself. My point is that the name of God (elohim) is Jehovah (LORD) and that the LORD is stating that he alone is God. In other words, Jehovah is stating that he alone is elohim. Therefore, the Mormon idea that God the Father is called "elohim" and that the son is called "Jehovah" is erroneous. In actuality, the name of God is Jehovah and the Mormons are incorrect. Remember, in Hebrew text LORD equals Jehovah. God equals elohim. "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him," (Deut. 4:35). "That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else," (1 Kings 8:60). "Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves;" (Psalm 100:2). "And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God," (Zech. 13:9).

874

A Biblical Response to Mormons

Witnessing to a Mormon is like trying to climb Jell-O: it's hard to get a foothold. But, if you know what Mormonism teaches then you are already well on your way. Following are basic approaches that should aid you in witnessing to a Mormon. Though none of these approaches are fool proof they will provide you with the basic framework you need to be able to witness to a Mormon. It will be up to you to use what you have learned, develop more skill in witnessing, and perfect your method as you go. Remember, the best way to learn to witness is to witness. There are two important things to know before you begin evangelizing Mormons. First, you need to understand their definitions to the same biblical words that you use: Trinity, Jesus, Salvation, Heaven, etc. Second, you must be able to show them that they believe in a wrong Jesus. This is important because only the true Jesus gives eternal life (John 10:28), reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27), and sends the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). To witness means you must teach. To teach means you must understand. To understand means you must know not only what you believe, but also what they believe. 1. Terminology A. When a Mormon says he believes in the Trinity he does not mean the historical orthodox Trinity of one God who exists in three persons. To a Mormon, the Trinity is an office held by three separate gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. i. Remember, the correct doctrine of the Trinity is that there is only one God who has existed for eternity. This one God exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are not three separate gods, but only one God. B. When a Mormon says he believes in God he does not mean in the one true God, the creator of all things, the One who has always existed from all time. He means he believes in a god who used to be a man on another planet, who followed the laws and ordinances of that god on that planet and became exalted to godhood. And, to top it all off, he has a wife who is a goddess. C. If you are in a witnessing situation with a Mormon you might be using the same words, but you won't be speaking the same language. They Have a Testimony A. Mormons will bear their testimony to you and tell you that they know the Mormon church is true and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. B. There are two basic approaches you can take. i. Ask them where their testimony is. a. "In my heart." They'll say. b. You say, "Did you know that the Bible says not to trust your heart because it is deceitful?" c. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9). ii. Second, you can ask them how they get their testimony. They will say by the Holy Spirit. a. Ask, "Who bears witness of the truth?" b. They will say that the Holy Spirit does. i. Correct him gently by showing him that the Holy Spirit Bears witness of Jesus (John 15:26) and that Jesus sends the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). ii. Once you've shown them that the Holy Spirit is sent from Jesus ask them if a false Jesus will send the true Spirit of God. The answer, of course, is no. iii. The point is that only the Jesus of the Bible will send the Holy Spirit. If they don't have the right Jesus they can't have the true Holy Spirit, and their testimony is invalid.

2.

875

3.

4.

Praying about the Book of Mormon A. Mormons believe that if you read the Book of Mormon and then pray and ask God whether or not it is true, you will receive a testimony from the Holy Spirit verifying its truth. If it is true, then Joseph Smith is true and so is Mormonism. Many Mormons claim to have this testimony. i. First of all, God never says to pray about truth. He says to search the Scriptures to find truth (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:16). a. So, what the Mormon is doing is unbiblical. ii. Second, it doesn't matter what you feel. If what you feel contradicts the Bible, then what you feel is wrong. iii. Third, ask them if they ever had to pray about the Bible to see if it is true. Of course they haven't. So why are they supposed to pray about the B.O M.? a. Their answer will be that the B.O.M. says to pray about it. b. Still, the Bible says to study God's word for truth, not pray about it. B. A common verse that Mormons use to support their belief that you can pray about the B. O. M. is found in James 1:5: "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." They say that because since they believe they're sincere, God will answer them. i. First of all, the problem with sincerity is that it becomes works righteousness because the person is saying "Because of my sincerity, God will listen to me." In other words, because of what's in the person God will look favorably upon him. God does not look into a person and find something good because there is no good in anyone (Rom. 3:10-12; Eph. 2:3). ii. Second, this verse is about wisdom, not about praying to see if the Book of Mormon is true. iii. In James 1:1 it says, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings." So, the book of James was written to those who were believers and already had the truth. That is why James calls them "brothers" in verse 2. C. Third, wisdom is the proper use of knowledge, not the acquisition of knowledge. You acquire true spiritual knowledge from the Bible, not your heart. You don't pray about the B.O.M., you pray about the truth you've learned from the Bible and ask God to teach you more, and how to apply properly what He's already shown you. What is the Gospel? A. The following approach is direct and hard hitting. Sometimes it is necessary to be blunt in order to get their attention. Ask a Mormon "What is the gospel?". i. He will say something like, "The gospel is the laws and the ordinances of the Mormon church." ii. Ask again what it is and listen closely for any hint of the free forgiveness of sins through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. You usually hear an answer dealing with works, obedience, doing something, etc. iii. After the person has answered, explain that according to the Bible, the gospel is what saves us, what cleanses us of our sins, and enables us to stand in the presence of God the Father. Explain that Bible specifically defines the gospel and that the gospel is what makes you a Christian and then ask again, "What is the gospel?" iv. After you've heard a works-righteousness-type answer, turn in your Bible to 1 Cor 15:14 and read: "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." a. Explain that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus...for sins!

876

5.

6.

7.

Then turn to 2 Cor. 4:3-4 and read again. "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." a. Say something like, "You clearly did not understand the gospel message of Jesus the Savior and the Bible clearly shows you why. It is because your mind has been blinded." The Apostasy A. Mormonism maintains that the true gospel message was lost from the earth shortly after the apostles died. i. The Mormon Apostle Orson Prat said, "Jesus...established his kingdom on earth...the kingdoms of this world made war against the kingdom of God, established eighteen centuries ago, and they prevailed against it, and the kingdom ceased to exist." (Journal of Discourses. Vol. 13, page 125). ii. But Jesus said, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18, KJV). iii. As you can see, Mormonism contradicts what Jesus said. That is why they must say that the Bible is not trustworthy. That is, it isn't trustworthy wherever it disagrees with Mormonism. Authority and The Mormon Priesthoods A. Since Mormonism claims to be the restoration of the gospel, it also claims to have the authority to perform priestly duties and, therefore, properly represent God here on earth. B. All offices of the Mormon church grow out of the priesthoods. i. Melchizedek - This is the greater priesthood. It consists of several offices: a. Elder, seventy, high priest, patriarch or evangelist, and apostle. b. Aaronic - a part of the greater Melchizedek priesthood. ii. Aaronic priesthood - This is the lesser priesthood a. Is synonymous with the Levitical Priesthood (D.&C. 107:1,6,10) b. Performs the administration of the ordinances (D.&C. 107:13-14) c. Deacon, teacher, priest. C. Quite simply, the Bible contradicts what Mormons believe concerning the priesthood. i. Jesus is the only high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 3:1; 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:11,15,17,21,24,26; 8:1; 9:11). a. "Where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 6:20). b. "And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life" (Heb. 7:15-16). ii. The Melchizedek Priesthood is unchangeable and non-transferable a. "but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood" (Heb. 7:24). Many Gods A. One of the truly dividing lines between Christianity and Mormonism is their doctrine of the plurality of Gods. i. Mormonism teaches that there are many many gods. (Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie, page 163; Teachings pages 348-349). ii. In there desire for legitimacy they will even quote 1 Cor. 8:5 to say that the Bible also teaches many gods. 1 Cor. 8:5 says, "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods' and many lords')." a. They will say, "see even the Bible says there are many gods." b. You can say, "It says there are many that are called gods. It doesn't say they really are gods. It is saying that they only called gods. The Scriptures recognize that there are false gods (Gal. 4:8).

v.

877

8.

Besides, the Bible flatly denies the existence of any other gods. i. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "...Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10). ii. "This is what the LORD says -- ...I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God...Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one" (Isaiah 44:6,8). iii. "I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5). Errors in the Book of Mormon A. Saved by grace after all you can do? (2 Nephi 25:23) B. How could Moroni "read" Heb. 13:8 and James 1:17 when the N.T. never reached America? (Mormon 9:9). C. Helaman 12:25-26, written 6 B.C. says, "we read," quoting 2 Thess. 1:9 and John 5:29, 90 years too early since 2 Thessalonians and John hadnt been written yet. D. Jesus, a son of God (Alma 36:17). E. Mosiah 21:28 says King Mosiah had a gift from God, but original B. of M. manuscript reads "King Benjamin". F. Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:1-2; Matt. 2:1). In the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:9,10) it says it was Jerusalem.

c.

878

A Comparison between Christian Doctrine and Mormon Doctrine

"Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it and see if it will stand the test," (Brigham Young, May 18, 1873, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 46.) Following is a comparison between Christian doctrine and Mormon doctrine. It will become very obvious that Mormonism does not agree with the Bible. In fact, Mormonism has simply used the same words found in Christianity and redefined them. But with a proper understanding of what Mormonism really teaches, you will be able to see past those definitions into the real differences between Christianity and Mormonism. The difference is the difference between eternal life and damnation. Topic Christian There is only one God (Isaiah 43:11; 44:6,8; 45:5) Mormon "And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light (Book of Abraham 4:3) "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345 "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22. Compare with Alma 18:26-27; 22:9-10) "Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38). The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.) "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8: p. 115) "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine," by Bruce McConkie, p. 547)

God has always been God (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15) GOD

God is a spirit without flesh and bones (John 4:24; Luke 24:39)

TRINITY

The Trinity is the doctrine that there is only one God in all the universe and that He exists in three, eternal, simultaneous person: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23) JESUS Jesus is the eternal Son. He is second person of the Trinity. He has two natures. He is God in flesh and man (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2;9) and the creator of all things (Col. 1:15-17)

Jesus is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer, a creation. (Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15)

879

THE HOLY SPIRIT

The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. He is not a force. He is a person. (Acts 5:3-4; 13:2)

Mormonism distinguishes between the Holy Spirit (God's presence via an essence) and the Holy Ghost (the third god in the Mormon doctrine of the trinity). "He [the Holy Ghost] is a being endowed with the attributes and powers of Deity, and not a mere force, or essence (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 144) Salvation has a double meaning in Mormonism: universal resurrection and . . . "The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79. "As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements -- 'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.'" (Articles of Faith p. 79) "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church.

SALVATION

Salvation is the forgiveness of sin and deliverance of the sinner from damnation. It is a free gift received by God's grace (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 6:23) and cannot be earned (Rom. 11:6).

Salvation (forgiveness of sins) is not by works (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 4:5; Gal. 2:21)

BIBLE

The inspired inerrant word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). It is authoritative in all subjects it addresses.

This is only a sample of many of the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. As you can see, they are quite different doctrines. God cannot be uncreated and created at the same time. There cannot be only one God and many gods at the same time. The Trinity cannot be one God in three persons and three gods in an office known as the Trinity, etc. These teachings are mutually exclusive. This is important because faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. Is the Mormon god the real one? Or, is the God of historic and biblical Christianity the real one? Mormonism is obviously not the biblical version of Christianity. It is not Christian and Mormons serve a different god than do the Christians -- a god that does not exist. Paul talks about this in Gal. 4:8, "when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods." Only the God of the Bible exists. There are no others. Mormonism puts its faith in a non-existent god.

880

What is Baptism for the Dead mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:29?

"Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" (1 Cor. 15:29). Numerous explanations have been offered for this verse ranging from the inane to the sophisticated. Mormonism, in particular, has claimed that this verse supports their view of baptis m for the dead. In their practice, individuals go to their local Mormon temple, dress appropriately for a baptism, representatively adopt the name of a person who has died, and then the Mormon is baptized in water for that deceased person. This way, the dead person has fulfilled the requirements of salvation in the afterworld and can enjoy further spiritual benefits in the spiritual realm. But, the Mormons are incorrect. They have usurped this verse and taken it out of context. So, let's examine 1 Cor. 15 briefly so we can see what Paul is talking about when he mentions baptism for the dead. In Verses 1-19, the fact of Christ's resurrection is detailed by Paul. Beginning in verse 20 and going through verse 23, Paul speaks about the order of the resurrection. Christ is the first one raised -- in a glorified body -- and then who are His at His return. Next, verses 24 - 29 mention Christ's reign and the abolition of death. This is when this controversial verse occurs: "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79. 1 5 6 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced. Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we. This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were. Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead? However, some are not convinced by this argument and state that the word "they" is not in the Greek and, therefore, Paul is not speaking about the pagans.. Let's take a look. Literally, the verse is translated as "Since what will do the being immersed on behalf of the dead if wholly dead not are raised why also are they immersed on behalf of them." The issue here is the word, "baptizontai" -- "they are baptized." It is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is THEY ARE BEING BAPTIZED or, THEY ARE BAPTIZED. I - first person singular you (singular) -- second person singular he/she/it -- third person singular we -- first person plural you (plural) -- second person plural they -- third person plural

It is the latter form, the third person plural (they) which the verb "baptizo" is in. Therefore, the best translation is "THEY are baptized." The KJV renders it as, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" The NKJV, "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?" The NASB, "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"

156

Bible Knowledge Commentary on 1 Cor. 15:29. Dallas Seminary Faculty.

881

The True Jesus

There is a simple way to see if someone has the true Jesus or not. By true Jesus, I mean the one of the Bible, not the one of Mormonism who is the brother of the devil, nor the Jehovah's Witness Jesus who is Michael the Arc hangel, and certainly not the one of the New Age Movement who is simply a man in tune with the divine consciousness. The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:12). The Jesus of the Bible is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6) The Jesus of the Bible called God (John 10:28; Heb. 1:8).

In cult theologies, Jesus is a creation in one form or another (this is why the Jehovah's Witnesses add the word other' four times to Col. 1:16-17). Therefore, He is not to be prayed to, worshiped, or called God. If you are a Christian then you will be able to pray to Jesus, not just through. You will be able to worship Jesus equally with the Father. And you will be able to call Jesus your Lord and God. A cultist cannot do this. A cultist has a false Jesus, and, therefore, a false hope of salvation. The following is an expansion of the above points If you put your faith in a Jesus that is not true, then your faith is useless. The power of faith does not rest in the act of believing, but in its object; the greatest faith in someone false is the same as no faith at all. Sincerity and false messiahs do not bridge the chasm of sin between God and man, only the Jesus of the Bible does that. Who then, is the true Jesus? Jesus said that He was the only One who reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27 and Luke 10:22): "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (NIV). So, to know the true Father you must first know the true Jesus. The question is, how do you recognize the true Jesus? Simple, look in the Bible. If you were to say, "Father receive my spirit," who would you be praying to? The Father, right? If you were to say, "Jesus receive my spirit," who would you be praying to? Jesus. In Acts 7:59, Stephen, while full of the Holy Spirit (v. 55), prayed to Jesus: And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (See also Acts 9:14; Rom. 10:13.) Stephen prayed to Jesus, not just through Him. If it is acceptable for him then it should be alright for you. The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to. I pray to Jesus. Do you? If yes, good. If not, why? But you might say, "Jesus said to pray to the Father." I do. But I also pray to Jesus as Stephen did. If the church is only to pray to the Father then why did Stephen, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, address Jesus in His prayer? Was he wrong? See also 1 Cor. 1:1-2 with Psalm 116:4 where calling upon the name of the Lord is prayer and prayer is addressed to Jesus by the Corinthian church. Jesus was also worshipped. The verses are: And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's son! (Matt. 14:33). And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him (Matt. 28:9). See also Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6.

882

The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to and worshiped. Do you do what Jesus' disciples did? Do you pray to and worship the true Jesus? Since it is against Mormon and Jehovah's Witness theologies to pray to Jesus but only through if you do worship Jesus, how can you do that without praying to Him? And, do you honor Him equally with the Father as Jesus said to do in John 5:23? If you do not, then why not? There is just one more issue to address. Do you call Jesus your Lord and God? After Jesus' resurrection He showed Himself to many people. One of them was Thomas. John 20:28: Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], "My Lord and my God!" The literal Greek says, "The Lord of me and the God of me." "My God!" is a pagan expression used today.1 5 7 Two points can be made from this. First, do you agree that Thomas a devout Jew was swearing, like a pagan of today? Second, there is no biblical account of swear words. Peter did swear in Mark 14:71 by swearing he did not know Jesus. To say Thomas was swearing, or merely exclaiming profound surprise has no evidence. God calls Jesus God in Heb. 1:8: But of the Son He [the Father] says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever..." Unfortunately, in the Jehovah's Witness Bible in Heb. 1:8 you'll see that it says, "God is your throne, forever and ever." This, technically speaking, is a legitimate translation. The reason this is so lies in the nature of the Greek language and the fact that the form of the word "God" and "Throne" both end in a noun construction that is interchangeable, therefore making the NWT translation legitimate. It is unfortunate that the Watchtower has chosen to do this. Conclusion: The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2), worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6), and called Lord and God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8). If I have the wrong Jesus, and therefore I serve the wrong God, then why do I pray to Jesus, worship Him, and call Him my Lord and God as the Scriptures teach? But, if you have the true Jesus, why is it you don't do those things? Why does JW theology not agree with the scriptures? I think the answer is simple. The Jesus of the cults is not the true Jesus. Therefore, they are wrong.

157

It pains me to even quote the ungodlys misuse of the Lords name. But for the purpose of illustrating their sin and making the point of truth concerning Thomas statement, I have quoted it here.

883

Mormon Objections Answered

This web site has been active since October 1995 and many Mormons have e- mailed me with complaints and comments. Following are the actual quotes of some of them: "Mormons are too Christians!"; "You need to read the book of Mormon and pray sincerely"; "Stop wasting your time fighting the true church"; "You don't know what you are talking about"; "You misrepresent the Mormon Church"; "You do not document enough of your statements from Mormon canonical writings." You can either continue reading through the answers or click on the appropriate objection to get my response.

"The Mormons are too Christians" Mormons think they are Christians. They use Christian words. They say they believe in Jesus and the Bible. They say they pray to God through Jesus. And they try to live good lives. The truth is that Mormons are not Christians. They use Christian words but the words have non-Christian definitions. They believe in a Jesus, but the Jesus they believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible. Compare the following: The Jesus of Mormonism Jesus is created. Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie, pp. 192, 589 Jesus is the brother of the devil. Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie, pp. 192, 589. The Jesus of the Bible Jesus is uncreated (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17)

Jesus is not the brother of the devil The devil is a fallen created angel. Jesus created all things Col. 1:16-17. Therefore, Jesus is not the brother of the devil. Jesus is second person of the Trinity

Jesus is one of three gods. Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie, p. 319. Jesus is not prayed to

Jesus is prayed to (Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 1:1-2 with Zech. 13:9) Jesus did pay for all sins (1 John 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:24)

Jesus did not pay for all sins (Doctrines of Salvation by Joeseph F. Smith, Vol. 1, p. 135)

The Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the Bible. They cannot be both created and non created, prayed to and not prayed to, the brother of the devil and not the brother of the devil. They are different. Because the Jesus of Mormonism is false, the faith of Mormons is useless. Faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. The Jesus of Mormonism should be called something else, like Barana, Joe, Sasquatch, or something. Then there wouldn't be any problem at all identifying it as something other than biblical.

884

"You need to read the Book of Mormon and pray sincerely."

I get this objection quite often. Mormons believe that if you read the Book of Mormon and sincerely pray about it that God will hear your prayer, answer you, and give you a testimony that the Book of Mormon is true. They often quote James 1:5, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God..." to support their belief. There are several problems with their thinking. 1. James 1:5 was written to those who already were Christians, not to those seeking to become Christians or seeking to find truth in a book. As is often the case, Mormons take verses out of context. The context of James is clear when James 1:1 is read: "James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad, greetings." This is obviously written to those who are Jewish Christians scattered abroad. They already knew the truth of the Word of God. James instructs them to ask for wisdom from God. Wisdom is the proper use of knowledge and truth. We need wisdom to know what to do in certain situations. If you receive counsel that is contrary to the Word of God, then it is obviously false. All counsel must be in agreement with the Bible. Nowhere in God's Word does it instruct us to pray about a book to see if it true. This leads us to the next point. You don't pray about truth, you go to the Bible and you look there to find it. The Bible is God's Word. It is inerrant and infallible. It is the judge of all things that it addresses and is correct in all areas of which it speaks. The Mormon should put the Bible above his own feelings. Sincerity is no guarantee that God will answer your prayer. You could be sincerely wrong, sincerely praying but praying falsely, sincerely praying to a false god, etc. Just because someone is 'sincere' does not mean that God will answer them. If someone looks to their own sincerity as a means for deserving or expecting something from God, then they are basing their hope on what is inside of them (sincerity) instead of what Jesus did on the Cross. If Mormonism is wrong and you pray to the god of Mormonism then the testimony you receive will be false. Just because the Mormons use Christia n words does not mean they are Christian. The god of Mormonism is not the God of the Bible. Therefore, when a Mormon prays to the god of Mormonism he is ultimately praying to the devil and will receive a false testimony, no matter how good it "feels." Mormons are trusting their feelings. The Mormons trust what they feel in their hearts instead of what the Bible says. Many Mormons have told me that there is nothing that I could show them that would make them change their minds because they have a testimony to the truth. This is a serious problem because God wants us to examine the evidence. That is why there is an empty tomb; that is why Jesus said, "Touch me and see. A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see Me have" (Luke 24:39). That is why the apostles quoted the life of Jesus and what He did so much. To ignore evidence is to open yourself up for deception. By trusting their testimony, their feelings, the Mormons put what they feel above God's word. Mormon's have a testimony. They say that Mormonism is true, that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is another Testament to Jesus. But, Mormonism contradicts the Bible. Mormonism says there are many gods (even though they worship only one of them); the Bible says there is only one God (Isaiah 43:11; 44:6,8). This is only one of the areas where Mormonism contradicts the Bible, yet Mormons choose their testimony above God's word. Why do you never hear a Mormon say, "Pray about the Bible to see if it is true."? This has always puzzled me. God's Word does not need verification. It simply is true. But the Book of Mormon, on the other hand, must be prayed about (so they say).

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

885

"Stop wasting your time fighting the true church" I'm not wasting my time fighting the true church. I am fighting a cult. Mormonism teaches that God came from another world, that he used to be a man, that we are all born in heaven from god and his goddess wife, that there is a secret temple ceremony where you learn secret handshakes and hugs in order to get into the highest level of heaven, that Jesus blood is not sufficient to cleanse you of all your sins, etc. There is no way that that is the truth. It is completely false. Also, Mormonism says that all other churches are false, that there was a great apostasy, and that Mormonism is the restoration of the true gospel. So, in reality, I am simply defending my faith, which is what I am told to do in 1 Pet. 3:15. "You don't know what you are talking about." Mormons often say that I don't know what I am talking about. They've never disproved anything I've said, but they are quick to say I am wrong. I've studied Mormonism for 14 years and have a very good understanding of it. I've spoken to hundreds of Mormon missionaries who've confirmed Mormon theology to me. I've got the Mormon books that document their doctrines that I've cited my pages. The truth is that my quotes of Mormonism are accurate...which is why I fight against Mormonism.

"You misrepresent the Mormon Church." Again, if I am wrong, show me where and how. I document everything in Mormonism and show why it is wrong. I don't deny that the Mormons are good people and that they do good things and try to honor God. It isn't their moral behavior I have a problem with, it is their view of God and salvation that is wrong. Mormonism misrepresents Christianity, the Cross, Salvation by Grace, the Deity of Christ, the Atonement, and more. It is a vast misrepresentation of Christianity. Mormonism is a nonChristian religion. You do not document enough of your statements from Mormon canonical writings. This is a common complaint made by several LDS critics of CARM. It is an attempt to harm my credibility and the accuracy of the documentation. Many of them demand that I produced documentation from their four standard works. But, this is not always possible with many of their teachings. There are many Mormon doctrines taught that are not explicitly stated in the four standard works (The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price). My critics know this. Yet, they want me to comply with their standards of documentation and if I do not, they often complain that I have failed to provide citations from official LDS sources. For example, it does not state in official Mormon Scripture that there is a goddess wife of God the Father in heaven. Yet, this is taught in non "Official" writings: Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443, is a good example. My question to my critics in this regard is, "If it is not official Mormon doctrine, then why do so many Mormons believe it and why do your Mormon authorities teach it?"

886

Was the LDS Jesus born of the Virgin Mary?

The Bible teaches that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. This means that Mary had no sexual relations with any man prior to the birth of Jesus. Likewise, the Mormon Church also maintains that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. However, there is quite an interesting array of Mormon authorities who have said some very interesting things about the relationship between God and Mary in regards to Jesus birth. Lets take a look at some of them and see what we find. Brigham Young, second prophet and president of the LDS church said, "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and bloodwas begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115). Brigham Young also said, "Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 51). Brigham Young said, "When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, page 218, 1857.) Joseph Fielding Smith, stated: "The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit." (Religious Truths Defined, p. 44) as cited in the book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, by Gerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, P.O. Box 1854, Sal Lake City, Utah 84110, Bookstore at 1350 South West Temple. 1982, page 260). "They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible." (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 19) Bruce McConkie, who was a member of the First Council of the Seventy stated, "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 547.) "And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,...Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.) Heber C. Kimball who was a member of the first presidency said, "In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 211) "The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband" (Deseret News, October 10, 1866) as cited in

887

the book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, by Gerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, P.O. Box 1854, Sal Lake City, Utah 84110, Bookstore at 1350 South West Temple. 1982, page 261. What c onclusions can we draw from the words of the leaders of the Mormon Church regarding Jesus birth? 1. It was the result of natural action, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115). 2. Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 51); (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 19). 3. "The Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, page 218, 1857.) 4. The birth was the result of natural action, (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 115). 5. "The Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit." (Religious Truths Defined, p. 44) 6. "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 547.) 7. "There is nothing figurative about his [Jesus] paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events" (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.) Remember, according to Mormon teaching the Holy Ghost is a male personage, a man. (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, by Le Grand Richards, Salt Lake City, 1956, page 118; Heber C. Kimball, in Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, page 179.) The Father, who is God, is also in the form of a man (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3; and Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22. Mary, of course, was a woman. This is even more interesting when we realize that the Mormon church officially proclaims that Jesus was born of a virgin. For example, Bruce McConkie stated "Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 822.) That is fine. Let them proclaim it. But quite honestly, I fail to see how the Mormon people can assert that Mary remained a virgin in light of this evidence from their prophets and apostles. I see them saying two different things and backpedaling trying to sound Christian. Of course, this is my opinion and the Mormons who read this will accuse me of sensationalism. But, I am simply pointing out what many of their official church leaders have said. In the changing teachings of Mormonism, you never know what you'll find next. __________________ Bibliography: Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, by Joseph Fielding Smith, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1954. Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, 2nd Edition, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1979 A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, by LeGrand Richards, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1950 Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, by Gerald and Sandra Tanner,Utah Lighthouse Ministry, P.O. Box 1854, Sal Lake City, Utah 84110, Bookstore at 1350 South West Temple. 1982, Where Does it Say That? By Bob Witte, (No publisher or location).

888

Hinckley says Mormons Believe in a Different Jesus

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p.7 ) Christians have long maintained that Mormonism teaches a Jesus that is different from what the Bible reveals. Of course, the Mormons say that they believe in the same Jesus that originally walked on the earth and is revealed in the Bible. Though they may make this claim, it is up to them to prove it. Especially in light of what Mormonism says about God and Jesus. In Mormonism, Jesus is a creation, the product of relations between god and his goddess wife who used to be people from another world (Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie, pp. 192, 321, 516, 589). Jesus is the literal spirit brother of the devil and of you and I (McConkie, pp, 192, 589). Also, in Mormon theology, God has a body of flesh and bones (Doctrine & Covenants, 130:22.) as does his wife and together they produce spirit offspring in heaven who inhabit human bodies on earth. Very few, if any, of the 'different' Mormon doctrines are found in their Standard Works: the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Rather, they are taught by Mormons of high standing: prophets, apostles, members of the 70 Quorum. McConkie, for example, was a member of the 70's Quorum, a very high ranking Mormon and wrote the book, Mormon Doctrine where much of the documentation for this is taken from. President Hinkley, the prophet and revelator of the Mormon Church, has publicly declared that the Jesus of Mormonism and traditional Christianity are not the same. Let's take a look at the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the one of Traditional Christianity.

The Mormon Jesus 1. The literal son of god and his goddess wife begotten in the preexistence. 2. The brother of all spirits born in heaven in the premortal existence. 3. One of 3 gods in the godhead. 4. The Trinity is three separate gods. 5. First one to receive a spirit body. 6. Atoned for sin on the cross and in the garden of Gethsemane.

The Christian Jesus 1. Not the literal son of god and his goddess wife. 2. Not the brother of all spirits born in heaven in a premortal existence. 3. Not one of 3 gods in the godhead. 4. The Trinity is 3 persons in one God. 5. Was always spirit from eternity. 6. Atoned for sin on the cross alone.

This brief comparison should help you see the difference between the two. Jesus cannot be both literal son of god and his goddess wife and not the literal begotten son. He cannot be both one of 3 gods, and not one of 3 gods. They are different. In fact, it would be a lot easier if the Mormons called him by a different name. For example, Bolok would be good. Bolok is one of three gods, but Jesus is not. etc. That way, it would be a lot easier to tell them apart. Mormonism definitely does not teach the same Jesus as Christianity.

889

The Mormon Plan of Eternal Progression

890

Mormonism and the Negro

According to Mormon history and authoritative Mormon teachers, the Negro, as they were referred to, are a cursed race because they were not faithful to God in their first estate (the pre-existent life with God). Hence, when they are born they are born in black skinned families. The early Mormon church was highly prejudicial against black people. And though there has been a change in attitude to blacks as of June 9, 1978 when they were finally allowed into the Mormon priesthood, it cannot be denied that Mormonism was, up until very recently, a segregated church. Please consider the following small sample of official Mormon writings as proof of their prejudice, their inconsistency, their doctrinal waffling, their yielding to political pressure, and their failure to truly represent Christ on earth. 1. "At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were some spirits that did not know who had authority, whether God or the devil. They consequently did not take a very active part on either side, but rather thought the devil had been abused, and considered he had rather the best claim to the government. These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast down to hell, and never have bodies; neither were they considered worthy of an honorable body on this earth." A speech by Elder Orson Hyde, delivered before the High Priests' Quorum,, in Nauvoo, April 27th, 1845, printed in Liverpool, page 30. "The very fact that God would allow those spirits who were less worthy in the spirit world to partake of a mortal body at all is further evidence of his mercy." Mormonism and the Negro, part I, pages 48-50. "It is the Mormon belief that in our pre- mortal state there were a large number of individuals who, due to some act or behavior of their own in the pre-existence, forfeited the right to hold the Priesthood during their mortal lives...the Negro is thus denied the Priesthood because of his own behavior in the pre-existence." The Church and the Negro, pages 42-43. "As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed and told that "the earth" would not thereafter yield him its abundance as previously. In addition he became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition...The Lord placed on Cain a mark of a dark skin, and he became the ancestor of the black race. (Moses 5; Gen. 4; Teachings, p. 169)." Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie, page 109. "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110. The reader should be reminded that Brigham Young, the second prophet of the Mormon church said that whatever he preached was as good as scripture -- J. D. Vol. 13, page 95, 264. "...the church went to court on several occasions to block Negroes from moving into the San Francisco neighborhood in which the headquarters was located." The Christian Century, Sept. 29, 1965, page 1184. On Oct. 28, 1865, the Mormon Church paper Millennial Star printed an article which stated that "Mormonism is that kind of religion the entire divinity of which is invalidated, and its truth utterly rejected, the moment that any one of its leading principles I acknowledged to be false..." The Mormon write John J. Stewart stated: "If we as members of the Church are going to pick and choose among the Prophet's teachings, and say this one is of God, we can accept it, but this one is of man, we will reject that,' then we are undermining the whole structure of our faith..." Mormonism and the Negro, page 19. "The prophets have declared that there are at least two major stipulations that have to be met before the Negroes will be allowed to possess the Priesthood. The first requirement relates to time. The Negroes will not be allowed to hold the Priesthood during mortality, in fact, not until after the resurrection of all of Adam's children. The other stipulation requires that Abel's seed receive the first opportunity of having the priesthood....the last of Adam's children will not be resurrected until the end of the millennium. Therefore, the Negroes will not receive the Priesthood until after that time... this will not happen until after the thousand years of Christ's reign on earth." The Church and the Negro, 1967, pages 45-48.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

891

10.

11. 12.

13.

Albert B. Fritz, NAACP branch president, said at a civil rights meeting Friday night that his organization promised not to picket the 133rd Semi-Annual General Conference of the Church on Temple Square. He added, however, that the NAACP will picket Temple Square, next Saturday if the Church does not present an acceptable' statement on civil rights before that day." Deseret News, Oct. 5, 1963. "Some 3,000 students, led by the BSU, paraded peacefully on the school's campus in Seattle Monday over the issue of alleged racism at BYU." Deseret News, March 10, 1970. "The demonstration was the latest in a series of protests against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) because the church bars Negroes from its priesthood." Deseret News, Jan. 10, 1970. In June of 1978 the Mormon Church officiated a revelation' stating that blacks could then hold the priesthood.

The Bible says that God is not a respecter of persons, but the Mormon church is: First in its prejudice of the blacks for being black, and second in its succumbing to political and social pressure to change its doctrinal views. Is such a church really from God? I am greatly indebted to the book Mormonism Shadow or Reality by Jerald and Sandra Tanner for the sources cited above.

892

Interesting Quotes from Joseph Smith the Founder of Mormonism

1. Joseph Smith boasted that he did more than Jesus to keep a church together. "God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . " (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409). Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was more correct than the Bible. "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461) Joseph Smith made a false prophecy (one of several). ". . .I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left . . . " (History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 394 Joseph Smith said mothers have babies in eternity and some are on thrones. "A question may be asked, Will mothers have their children in eternity?' Yes! Yes! Mothers, you shall have your children." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 10). "Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 10). Joseph Smith said there are many Gods. "Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible . . . Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many . . . but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all" (History of the Church, Vol. 6, page 474). "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it." (JD, Vol. 6, p. 5). Joseph Smith said the Trinity is three gods. "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods." (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith p. 370). Joseph Smith said God was once a man. "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man....it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see....and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3). Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old. Since he was wrong about the moon, is it safe to trust him regarding the way to Heaven? (The Young Woman's Journal, Vol. 3, pages 263-264. See reprint in Mormonism -- Shadow or Reality? by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, page 4.) Joseph Smith said our greatest responsibility is to seek after our dead. "The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 7).

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

893

Interesting Quotes from Brigham Young the Second Prophet of the Mormon Church
1. Brigham Young said your own blood must atone for some sins. "There is not a ma n or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 247; see also, Vol. 4, pp. 53-54, 219-220.) Brigham Young said you must confess Joseph Smith as a prophet of God in order to be saved. "...and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is Antichrist." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 312). Brigham Young said his discourses are as good as Scripture. "I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 264; see also page 95.) Brigham Young said he had never given any counsel that was wrong. "I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 161.) Brigham Young compared his sermons with scripture. "I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95.) Brigham Young said you are damned if you deny polygamy. "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269). Brigham Young said you can't get to the highest heaven without Joseph Smith's consent. "...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 289). Brigham Young said God was progressing in knowledge. "God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 120). Brigham Young boasted. "What man or woman on earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens? The success which has attended me in my presidency is owing to the blessings and mercy of the Almighty . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p. 127). Brigham Young said that we are obligated to keep all the laws and ordinances of God. "Some of you may ask, Is there a single ordinance to be dispensed with? Is there one of the commandments that God has enjoined upon the people, that he will excuse them from obeying?' Not one, no matter how trifling or small in our own estimation. No matter if we esteem them nonessential, or least or last of all the commandments of the house of God, we are under obligation to observe them." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 339). Brigham Young said Jesus' birth was as natural as ours. "The birth of the Savior was as natural as the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 115).

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

894

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Brigham Young said that God the Father and Mary 'do it.' "When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, Page 218.) "The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood -- was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, page 115). Note: the late Bruce McConkie who was a member of the First Council of the Seventy stated "There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events..." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.) Brigham Young said that Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Spirit "I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 51). Brigham Young taught that Adam was God. "Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken -- He is our Father, and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50). Brigham Young made a false prophecy? "In the days of Joseph [Smith] it was considered a great privilege to be permitted to speak to a member of Congress, but twenty-six years will not pass away before the Elders of this Church will be as much thought of as the kings on their thrones." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, page 40.) Brigham Young comments about blacks "You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290). "In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172.) "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

895

Interesting Quotes from the book Articles of Faith, by James Talmage

On the jacket cover of James Talmage's book it says, "For clarity, brevity, and forthrightness, there is no finer summary statement of the basic beliefs of Latter-day Saints than the Articles of Faith, which were written by the Prophet Joseph Smith....For more than eighty years this book has been a standard text for gospel students and teachers alike. The publication of the work preceded Elder Talmage's call to the apostleship" (Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah.1984. The Publisher's Preface in the book says, "Articles of Faith is considered one of the classics in Latter-day Saint literature. It is the outgrowth of a series of lectures in theology give by Dr. James E. Talmage, commencing in October of 1893. At that time Dr. Talmage was serving as the president of the LDS College in Salt Lake City. The First Presidency of the Church invited Dr. Talmage to prepare a text for use in Church schools and religion classes...."On December 7, 1911, he was called as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, where he served faithfully until his death on July 27, 1933." 1. "Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body, infinitely pure and perfect and attended by transcendent glory, nevertheless a body of flesh and bones" (page 38). 2. "Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh..." (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, pp. 466467). 3. "Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed his mission in the flesh" (page 421). 4. "The twofold effect of the atonement is implied in the article of our faith now under consideration. The first effect is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of general Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins. As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements--obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel" (pages 78-79). 5. "Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience" (page 81). 6. "There are some who have striven to obey all the divine commandments, who have accepted the testimony of Christ, obeyed the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, and received the Holy Spirit; these are they who have overcome evil by godly works and who are therefore entitled to the highest glory" (page 83). 7. "The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil. The idea upon which this pernicious doctrine was founded was at first associated with that of an absolute predestination, by which man was foredoomed to destruction, or to an undeserved salvation" (page 432.) 8. "...the spirits of mankind passed through a stage of existence prior to their earthly probation. This antemortal period is oftentimes spoken of as the stage of primeval childhood or first estate (page 174). 9. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims against the incomprehensible God, devoid of body, parts, or passions, as a thing impossible of existence . . . " (page 44). 10. "The opportunity of winning the victors reward by overcoming evil was explained to our parents, and they rejoiced. Adam said: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. Eve was glad and declared: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient" (page 62). 11. "The redemption of the dead will be effected in accordance with the law of God, which is written in justice and framed in mercy. It is alike impossible for any spirit, in the flesh or disembodied, to obtain promise of eternal glory except on condition of obedience to the laws

896

12. 13. 14.

15. 16.

17.

and ordinances of the Gospel. And, as baptism is essential to the salvation of the living, it is likewise indispensable to the dead" (page 134-135). "Temples or other sacred places are required for the administration of the ordinances pertaining to the salvation of the dead, and in certain ordinances for the living" (page 138). "Salvation is attainable only through compliance with the laws and ordinances of the Gospel" (page 422). "Those who have been born unto God through obedience to the Gospel may by valiant devotion to righteousness obtain exaltation and even reach the status of godhood" (page. 424). "The preexistent condition is not characteristic of human souls alone; all things of earth have a spiritual being of which the temporal structure forms but the counterpart" (page 442). "Man in his mortal state is the union of a preexistent spirit with a body composed of earthly elements. This union of spirit and body marks progress from the unembodied to the embodied condition..."(page 428), "Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them....Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation" (page 426).

897

Interesting Quotes from Various Mormon Authorities

Bruce McConkie states that the conception and birth of Jesus was completely natural. "And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,...Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.) - Note. Bruce McConkie was a member of the first council of the Seventy, a very high and important position. "As far as this life is concerned, [Jesus] was born of Mary and of Elohim; he came here as an offspring of that Holy Man who is literally our Father in heaven. He was born in mortality in the literal and full sense as the Son of God. He is the Son of his Father in the same sense that all mortals are the sons and daughters of their fathers" (Bruce McConkie, Mortal Messiah 1:330). "The Father had a Son, a natural Son, his own literal Seed, the Offspring of his body" (Bruce McConkie, The Promised Messiah, pg.355). "There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord's coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mo rtal fathers. It is just that simple" (The Promised Messiah, pg.468). Joseph F. Smith says God the Father is the father of Jesus' body. "Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father ...Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body" (Family Home Evening Manual, 1972, Joseph F. Smith, pp. 125, 126). "Christ Not Begotten of Holy Ghost ...Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18). First Presidency says God is the father of the body of Christ. "Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh ..." (First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, pg.150). Articles of Faith says God is the father of the body of Jesus. "Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh..." (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, pp. 466-467). Bruce McConkie states that God became a God by being saved by obedience to laws The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same. (McConkie, Bruce R. A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1985. p. 64) Man and God are of the same race, and it is within the power of righteous man to become like his Father, that is to become a holy Man, a Man of Holiness. (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 465-466) This Holy Man, the Father of us all, who reigns supreme and is a saved being , ordained and established a plan of salvation so that his Firstborn and all his spirit children might advance and progress, become like him, have all power, know all things, live in the family unit, having eternal increase of their own or in other words, that they might gain for themselves immortality and eternal life. (A New Witness, p. 704) Heber C. Kimball, who was a member of the First Presidency, stated that Brigham Young would become President. "The Church and kingdom to which we belong will become the kingdom of our God and his Christ, and brother Brigham Young will become President of the United States." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, page 219).

898

Heber C. Kimball said the earth conceives and is alive. "Does the earth conceive? It does and it brings froth. If it did not, why do you go and put your wheat into the ground? Does it not conceive it?.... Where did the earth come from? From its parent earths. Well, some of you may call that foolish philosophy. But if it is, I will throw out foolish things, that you may gather up wise things. The earth is alive. If it was not, it could not produce." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 36). Orson Pratt (a Mormon apostle in the 1800's) makes a false prophecy. "God promised in the year 1832 that we should, before the generation then living had passed away, return and build up the City of Zion in Jackson County....We believe in these promises as much as we believe in any promise ever uttered by the mouth of Jehovah. The Latter-day Saints just as much expect to receive a fulfillment of that promise during the generation that was in existence in 1832 as they expect that the sun will rise and set to-morrow. Why? Because God cannot lie. He will fulfill all His promises. He has spoken, it must come to pass." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 362). He also said, "The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father. (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158, 1853.) -- Note: the Seer is often regarded by Mormons as untrustworthy though it was published by Pratt who was a Mormon apostle. Its purpose was to "Illucidate the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," The Seer, Vol. 1, Jan. 1853, No. 1, Nevertheless, Brigham Young said in Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 268, "The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband." John Taylor, the third President of the Mormon Church, said Christianity is of the Devil. "Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its [Christianity] pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 167). History of the Church states that Joseph Smith fired a gun into the mob that killed him. "Joseph reached round the door casing, and discharged his six shooter into the passage, some barrels missing fire....When Hyrum fell, Joseph exclaimed, "Oh dear, brother Hyrum!" and opening the door a few inches he discharged his six shooter in the stairway (as stated before), two or three barrels of which missed fire." (History of the Church, Vol. 6, page 618.) Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President, said God was increasing in knowledge "If there were a point where a man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God himself is increasing in knowledge, power and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with us." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 120). James Talmage, a Mormon Apostle, said Psalm 82:6 is not about becoming gods. "In Psalm 82:6, judges invested by divine appointment are called 'gods.' To this scripture the Savior referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomon's Porch. Judges so authorized officiated as the representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title 'gods.' Compare the similar appellation applied to Moses (Exo. 4:16; 7:1). Jesus Christ possessed divine authorization, not through the word of God transmitted to Him by man, but as an inherent attribute. The inconsistency of calling human judges 'gods,' and of ascribing blasphemy to the Christ who called Himself the Son of God, would have been apparent to the Jews but for their sin-darkened minds." (James Talmage, Jesus the Christ, page 501). -- Mormons often quote Psalm 82:6 which Jesus quoted in John 10:30-34 to show that we can become gods. Rather than them believing the truth from a Christian, perhaps they will believe it from their own apostle.

899

Various comments by authorities on the negro race. Joseph Fielding Smith: "That negro race, for instance, have been placed under restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits, few will doubt. It cannot be looked upon as just that they should be deprived of the power of the Priesthood without it being a punishment for some act, or acts, performed before they were born." (The Way to Perfection, page 43.) "Ham, through Egyptus, continued the curse which was placed upon the seed of Cain. Because of that curse this dark race was separated and isolated from all the rest of Adam's posterity before the flood, and since that time the same condition has continued, and they have been 'despised among all people.' This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith .... we all know it is due to his teachings that the negro today is barred from the Priesthood." (The Way to Perfection, pages 110-111.) John Taylor: " . . . after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pro nounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation a upon a the earth as well as God;.... " (Journal of Discourses, Volume 22, page 304.) "When he (Satan) destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian worlds, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 23, page 336.) "As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage." (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, page 102.)

900

Mormonism Unvailed,158 eyewitness testimonies against Joseph Smith

Mormonism Unvailed is a book written in 1834 by E. D. Howe. It was printed and published by the author. The copyright on it is long expired so I am free to reproduce the information here. Mormonism Unvailed can be considered the first 'anti-Mormon' work. It is an examination of the teachings of Mormonism existing at that time and claims to contain eye-witness accounts and sworn affidavits by those who knew the family of Joseph Smith. If this is true, then we can actually read what people who knew Smith and his family had to say about their character, manners, disposition, etc. These written accounts, gathered by a Mr. Philastus Hurlbut and included in the book by Howe, were taken under oath and before judges and justices of the peace, are legal documents, and worthy of examination regarding Joseph Smith's character. Howe said, We have not only testimony impeaching the moral characters of the Smith family, but we show by the witnesses, that they told contradictory stories, from time to time, in relation to their finding the plates, and other circumstances attending it, which go clearly to show that none of them had the fear of God before their eyes, but were moved and instigated by the devil. (Mormonism Unveiled, p. 232.). Of course, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) repudiates the claims of Howe and the testimonies of the witnesses by stating they are not trustworthy since they had an agenda hostile to the Smith family and are, therefore, prejudiced. This sword cuts both ways since that would then invalidate anything from Mormon sources that support the idea that Smith's character was admirable since they too would be authored by those with an agenda. Also, it is alleged that statements from Mormon scholars and, they claim non-Mormon scholars, validate the proposition that Howe himself wrote the affidavits against Smith. The proofs offered from these scholars are, from what I have seen, opinions dealing with alleged similarities in style of the testimonies. But, I see no evidence of this as I read the testimonies. Also, note that many of the testimonies are purported to have been made under oath, before judges, and pastors. It would be up to the LDS church to prove that these are all lies. They haven't yet, so far as I am aware. The Mormons must attempt to repudiate the eye-witness accounts against Joseph Smith. Because, if Smith's character is shown to be untrustworthy, it would cast a huge shadow of doubt over Mormonism as a whole. The LDS church does not want this. But, these testimonies are not needed to cast a doubt upon Mormonism's validity. Doubt is automatically cast when the doctrines of Mormonism come to light and are compared to the Bible. For example: God used to be a man on another world; he has a goddess wife; they both have bodies; they produce spirit children; Jesus, Satan, you and I are all brothers and sisters from the spirit realm; a good temple-worthy Mormon has the hope of becoming a god of his own world with his own wife with whom he can populate that planet, etc. Such doctrines defy common sense but are gradually swallowed, bit by bit, by those who do not know God's word, nor possess true spiritual discernment, and are slowly led astray by the teachers of Mormonism. I leave these testimonies for your examination.

158

The title of the original book had the spelling of Mormonism Unvailed and not ..Unveiled.

901

Mormonism Unveiled Defended

The book Mormonism Unvailed (sic)1 5 9 by Eber D. Howe, printed in 1834, contains sworn testimonies from neighbors and acquaintances of Joseph Smith concerning the dubious character of him and his family. The testimonies were gathered by a Mr. Philastus Hurlbut and were included in E. D. Howe's Book. Many of the witnesses deal specifically with Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, and show him being involved in money digging, divination, and lacking moral integrity. If these testimonies were true about Joseph Smith, then it would be difficult for Mormons to continue to proclaim him as a true and virtuous prophet of God. For this reason, many Mormons have attempted to discredit the accounts contained in Mormonism Unveiled as well as other equally damaging testimonies by other witnesses concerning Joseph Smith's character. This is to be expected. Some Mormons have felt that they have an ally in Fawn McKay Brodie. Though Mrs. Brodie's biography of the Mormon prophet is anything but faith-promoting, she also was suspect of the Hurlbut testimonies. She says this on page 143 of her book No Man Knows My History: 1 6 0 The past that Joseph had hoped to bury in New York now returned to plague him. He had made a vindictive enemy of Philastus Hurlbut, a handsome, ambitious convert whom he had excommunicated in Jun 1833 for "unchristian conduct with the ladies." In vengeful mood, Hurlbut began an investigation of the beginnings of the Mormon Church. First, I suspect the past that Joseph Smith was trying to bury in New York was his money digging ventures, being a drunkard, and various schemes to acquire wealth. For these he had become well known. Nevertheless, if what Mrs. Brodie says is true, that Mr. Hurlbut was excommunicated from the LDS church, it does not necessarily discredit the information presented by him. After all, the affidavits are sworn testimonies by eyewitnesses. Mr. Hurlbut is merely the messenger. Second, to label Mr. Hurlbut as one who is excommunicated is, in my opinion, a type of character assassination. I have seen this approach used by Mormons many times. In twenty years of dealing with them, I have spoken with many ex-Mormons who had discovered that Mormonism was false, left the church, and then spoke out against it. Many have told me how they later discovered that they had been ex-communicated, in absentia, and were now the victims of vicious rumors that involved accusations of immorality -- charges they flatly denied. That way, any testimony against the Mormon Church could be easily dismissed by its members. I am not denying that there are people who truly deserve excommunication. It is just that I've seen the same accusation falsely raised against exMormons too many times. Therefore, I am not surprised by the charge against Hurlbut considering the defensive agenda that Mormons often take. Third, I would like to add that through word of mouth from Mormon missionaries, from emails, and on my web site, I too have been accused by Mormons of various things - things I have not done. I can remember speaking to Mormon missionaries, not letting them know who I was, and listening to them talk about this guy named "Matt Slick" and saying things about me that were not true. This has happened more than once. In the case of my web site, I have been accused of lying and great efforts have been taken by Mormons to attempt to prove this. Why? To discredit the messenger. 1 6 1 Again, the Mormons have a strong need to discredit the critics of Mormonism. Character assassination is the most common and easiest way to accomplish it.

159

"Sic" means the error is in the original quote. In this case, the word "unvailed" is incorrect. It should be spelled "unveiled." Throughout this paper, I use "unvailed" in reference to the E.D. Howe's book since that is the original usage. 160 Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History. The life of Joseph Smith, 2 nd ed. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1985, p. 143. It is obvious when reading the context of this quote, that Mrs. Brodie favors Joseph Smith. 161 I would like to add that I have, on occasion, on my web site, attempted to vindicate myself of the false charges of lying. However, the Mormons on the boards were incessant, accusatory, and quite rude in their attempts to discredit me. I then decided to not answer them any more.

902

Richard L. Anderson's Article, Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reappraised Richard L. Anderson, a religion professor at Brigham Young University, authored one article in particular that was written against the Hurlbut Affidavits. It can be found at: Richard L. Anderson, Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reappraised, BYU Studies, Vol. 10, Spring 1970, pages 283-314. Many Mormons have used his article as a springboard from which to pose rebuttals against the Hurlbut Affidavits. However, a Mr. Roger Anderson, not to be confused with Richard L. Anderson mentioned above, wrote a book "Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined," published in Salt Lake City by Signature Books in 1990. 1 6 2 He has taken Richard L. Anderson's article and found many glaring weakness in it. I will use his comments as a springboard of my own to counter the general claims of those attempting to discredit Mr. Hurlbut's affidavits. The section by Roger Anderson is more than 30 pages and cannot be reproduced here. Nevertheless, Roger Anderson says of Richard L. Anderson's article: Superior as it is to Nibley's analysis in method and scholarly apparatus, Anderson's article still falls short on several counts. Its errors may be summarized under three main headings: misrepresentation of the contents and circumstances surrounding the compilation of the affidavits; failure to consider alternative interpretations for the evidence; and invalid conclusions based on faulty premises. In Anderson's analysis these errors recur regularly and sometimes flagrantly. (pages 27-28). He also says: Anderson's first charge of substance is that Hurlbut either composed or heavily edited the depositions he collected. Anderson finds evidence of this contention in the similar structuring of the affidavits and the use of certain recurring words: "acquainted with," "entitle," "digging for money," "addicted to," "lazy," "liar," "intemperate," "pretended," "visionary," "general employment," etc. What Anderson did not mention is that other statements about Joseph Smith dating from the early 1830s, statements which Hurlbut did not collect and which are not dependent on him, display many of the same characteristics. In the Pennsylvania statements made during the same period certain words recur: "acquainted with," "pretended," "liar," "digging for," "money-diggers." In an 1833 letter written by Jesse Townsend, minister of Palmyra's Presbyterian church, the following words appear: "intemperate," "pretended," "digging for money," and "visionary." This letter is similar in structure with Hurlbut's general Palmyra statement and also with the statement of Parley Chase.1 6 3 The structure and wording of all of these statements seem to reflect more about the period, geographic location, and level of education than an undisclosed common authorship. (page 28). Here we have evidence that similar language used to describe Joseph Smith was used by another source not even connected with Hurlbut. It seems then, that Mr. Anderson's charge isn't a very good one. It is worth noting, that Fawn Brodie makes an identical comment against the Hurlbut Affidavits in her book, No Man Knows My History: It can clearly be seen that the affidavits were written by Hurlbut, since the style is the same throughout. It may be noted also that although five out of the eight had heard Spaulding's story only once, there was a surprising uniformity in the details they remembered after twenty-two years. Six recalled the names Nephi, Lamanite, etc.; six held that the manuscript described the Indians as descendants of the lost ten tribes; four mentioned that the great wars caused the erection of the
162

Signature books, Inc., 564 West 400 North Street, Salt Lake City UT 84116-3411. Note that this is a Mormon publishing company. There is also a review of this book in "Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought," (Vol.24, No.2, p.146) by Roger D. Launius. 163 Townsend's Letter dated 24 Dec. 1833, Originally appeared in Pomeroy Tucker, The Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism. (New York: D. Appleton and Co. 1867), 288-291. As referenced in Roger Anderson's Article in his footnote #4. Parley Chase was one of the testifiers against the character of Joseph Smith in the book Mormonism Unvailed.

903

Indian mounds; and four noted the ancient scriptural style. The very tightness with which Hurlbut here was implementing his theory rouses an immediate suspicion that he did a little judicious prompting. 1 6 4 This comment has already been addressed above. But, it is worth noting that Mr. Roger Anderson states that the same questions given to different people who knew Joseph Smith can easily result in common answers. For example, "How long were you acquainted with the Smith family? What was the general reputation of the Smiths? Was it such as to entitle them to respectability among their neighbors, or were they addicted to indolence, intemperance, or lying?"1 6 5 There is nothing wrong with asking the same question to different people. It could easily explain the similarities in answers. This is something that neither Mrs. Brodie nor Richard L. Anderson addressed. Therefore, the negative opinions of Anderson and Brodie on this issue carry far less weight and amount to nothing more than what they are: opinions. What we do have along the lines of hard evidence are written affidavits sworn to and signed by people who claimed to know Joseph Smith. The documents were attested to be true by the witnesses and signed off as being true affidavits. In fact, these affidavits were signed in front of Thomas P. Baldwin a Judge of Wayne County Court in New York; Fred'K. Smith, Justice of the Peace of Wayne County; Jonathan Lapham, Justice of the peace; Charles Dimon, Justice of the Peace; and, some of the signers of the testimonies even had people who signed off as character references for them! (Mormonism Unveiled, page 248). In Howe's book on pages 261 - 262, are two affidavits dated 12/4/1833 from Palmyra New York and 11/3/1833 from Manchester, New York. The first states that the Smith family was "destitute of moral character" among other things. It is then signed by 51 people. The second of the accounts is much shorter and is signed by 11 people. I reproduce it here: We, the undersigned, being personally acquainted with the family of Joseph Smith, Sen. with whom the celebrated Gold Bible, so called, originated, state: that they were not only a lazy indolent set of men, but also intemperate; and their word was not to be depended upon; and that we are truly glad to dispense with their society. Parton Butts, Warden A. Reed, Hiram Smith, Alfred Stafford, James Gee, Abel Chase, A.H. Wentworth, Hoses C. Smith, Joseph Fish, Horace N. Barnes, Silvester Worden. (Mormonism Unveiled, page 262). Are we to say that all these people, 66 in total, who signed these documents, were lying or had been coerced or unduly influenced by Mr. Hurlbut? Do the Mormons actually think that Mr. Hurlbut was of sufficient deceit and mesmerizing influence that he could get so many people to sign documents that were not true? The Mormons often state that the documents were "doctored" by Mr. Hurlbut and are not trustworthy. If this is so, then where is the proof? I have never read any documentation where the signers of the affidavits complained that Mr. Hurlbut had misrepresented what they said. There was ample opportunity for them to complain if things were not accurate. With so many witnesses, surely some evidence of rebuttal would have surfaced. But none has. Mormons sometimes state that the affidavits are not trustworthy because Mr. Hurlbut had a strongly biased agenda against Joseph Smith and that any "anti-Mormon" information produced by him is automatically suspect. Well, the sword cuts both ways. If Hurlbut cannot be trusted because he had an agenda to disprove Joseph Smith, then neither can the Mormons who produce positive testimonies concerning Joseph Smith's character be trusted, since they too had an agenda; namely, to prove the opposite.

164

Fawn M. Brodie, No man knows my history. The life of Joseph Smith, 2 nd ed. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1985, pp. 446-447. 165 Roger Anderson, page 29.

904

Mr. Howe checked from himself. Mr. Howe was weary about including the affidavits in his book, Mormonism Unvailed because he knew that Hurlbut was having legal diffic ulties with Joseph Smith. Mr. Howe was naturally cautious about the trustworthiness of the documents. But, it turns out that Mr. Howe actually conducted some spot checks by interviewing some of the witnesses against Joseph Smith. Consider this comment written by Mr. Roger Anderson on page 30 of his book: When Hurlbut submitted his collected statements to newspaper editor Eber D. Howe for publication, Hurlbut was embroiled in legal difficulties with Joseph Smith which made Howe suspect Hurlbut's motives. The Mormons were also denouncing Hurlbut's statements as fabrications, a charge which Howe had no way of controverting without independently verifying Hurlbut's statements. Accordingly Howe decided upon a "spot check" of Hurlbut's affidavits, hoping thereby to determine their authenticity without having to reinterview every witness. He first wrote to Isaac Hale and received in reply a long notarized statement and an affidavit from Hale's son Alva testifying that the notarized statement was "correct and true."1 6 6 Howe then traveled to Conneaut, Ohio, to see if the statements Hurlbut had collected there accusing Smith of plagiarism in writing the Book of Mormon were authentic. While there he "saw most of the witnesses and was satisfied they were not mistaken in their statements."1 6 7 Apparently this was enough to satisfy Howe of the integrity of Hurlbut's reports. He promptly published them as part of his book, Mormonism Unveiled. Why is it that the Mormons don't include this information in their rebuttals to the Hurlbut affidavits? Is it because they don't do sufficient research or is it because they don't like the evidence and exclude it? This kind of evidence strongly supports the reliability and accuracy of the eyewitness accounts against the character of Joseph Smith. Are there other sources that say the same thing? Yes there are. Hurlbut's affidavits are not the only place where accusations like this have been made. In the booklet Book of Mormon Authorship: A closer Look, Vernal Holley states that Joseph Smith in 1826 was arrested and stood trial for "glass Looking," a misdemeanor. Smith was allowed "leg bail." Leg bail meant that he had to leave the area.1 6 8 Holley also quotes A. W. Benton in a letter to the editor of the Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate, April 9, 1831 which states: "In this town (South Bainbridge, N.Y.), a wealthy farmer, named Josiah Stowell, together with others, spent large sums of money in digging for hidden money, which this Smith pretended he could see, and told them where to dig; but they never found their treasure."1 6 9 Nevertheless, below is a chart where I have gone through the affidavits in Howe's Book, Mormonism Unvailed, and mapped the page numbers where the accusations occur against Joseph Smith. On the left side of the chart are the names of the people. You will notice that many of the witnesses say the same thing. You will also notice that I have included other writings by other authors, some are Mormon, with page numbers under the appropriate category demonstrating that some of the claims of the eyewitness accounts contained in Howe's book are not solitary.

166 167

Susquehanna Register, 1 May 1834. As noted in footnote # 8 of Roger Anderson's article on page 30 Statement of E. D. Howe, 8 April, 1885, Painesville, Lake County, OH. Original in the Arthur Deming File, Mormon Collection, Chicago Historical Society. As noted in Roger Anderson's Article, footnote # 9 on page 30. 168 Letter of Judge Joel K. Noble, Turner Collection, Illinois State Historical Library as cited in the booklet on page 48, footnote # 40. 169 As cited in the booklet by Vernal Holley, Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look. Ogden, UT: Zenos Publications, 1983, page 48, footnote # 41.

905

Money Digging on page(s) Peter Ingersol William Stafford Willard Chase Parley Chase David Stafford Barton Stafford Henry Harris Abigal Harris Lucy Harris Roswell Nichols Joshua Stafford Joseph Capron 51 signers 11 signers Isaac Hale Nethaniel C. Lewis Joseph Verse 56 Smith's Story (it is in Perl of mentioned) Great Price 260 261 262 263, 265 251 232 237, 239 240 248 249

Liar on page(s)

Drunkard

Buried Treasure on page(s)

Stone (in Hat) on page(s)

Gold Plates on page(s)

on page(s)

238, 239

237, 238 241, 247

239 242, 243, 245

248 249 249 250 251 251 253 251, 252 253 255 257 257 258 260 259 261 259 260

263

263, 265

264 266, 267

verse. 34

906

Money Digging on page(s) David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ A Voice of Warning Or an Introduction to the Faith and Doctrine Of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Lia r on page(s)

Drunkard

Buried Treasure on page(s)

Stone (in Hat) on page(s) 12,30,31, 37

Gold Plates on page(s)

on page(s)

71, 75, 81

Journal of Discourses

Volume 5, page 103 and numerous other references therein.

What we can see in this chart is that the eyewitnesses are saying the same things. This is exactly what you'd expect of real witnesses. Furthermore, other, independent resources also mention items covered in the Hurlbut affidavits: Gold Plates, putting a stone in a hat to see things in it, and money digging. The eyewitnesses had personal experience with Joseph Smith so their subjects covered a wider range whereas the Mormon authors had every opportunity to omit any and all unfavorable accounts that they knew about. The point is that the affidavits contain many of the same accounts that are documented in LDS church writings. Are the eyewitnesses then wrong in some areas but right in others? Or, are their sworn affidavits before Judges and Justices of the peace indeed accurate? What is the real issue here? It seems the real issue behind the Mormon complaints about the affidavits is not concerning their reliability and accuracy. Remember, these are legal documents. Rather, the Mormon is concerned with their content. I do not believe the Mormons want to hear about their prophet's sins and shameful character. They claim a testimony from God that Mormonism is true and, in their eyes, there is no way that the accusations against Joseph Smith could be valid. Therefore, they automatically assume the affidavits must be wrong and react and believe accordingly. But, I believe they are sufficiently accurate to accurately reflect the true nature of Joseph Smith: a false prophet. However, it is not the eyewitness accounts that convince me of Joseph Smith's error. It is the word of God that contradicts his teachings and condemns his doctrines. Joseph Smith isn't wrong because the eyewitnesses said he is. He is wrong because God's word says he is.

907

Mormonism Unveiled: Testimonies of Barton Stafford and Henry Harris

THE TESTIMONY OF BARTON STAFFORD Manchester, Ontario Co., N. Y. Nov. 3d, 1833 Being called upon to give a statement or the character of the family of Joseph Smith, Sen. as far as I know, I can state that I became acquainted with them in 1820, and knew them until 1831, when they left this neighborhood.-- Smith, Sen. was a noted drunkard and most of his family followed his example, and Joseph, Jr. especially, who was very much addicted to intemperance. In short, not one of the family had the least claims to respectability. Even since he professed to be inspired of the Lord to translate the Book of Mormon he one day while at work in my father's field, got quite drunk on a composition of cider, molasses and water. Finding his legs to refuse their office he leaned upon the fence and hung for sometime; at length recovering again, he fell to scuffling with one of the workmen, who tore his shirt nearly off from him. His wife who was at our house on a visit, appeared very much grieved at his conduct, and to protect his back from the rays of the sun, and conceal his nakedness, threw her shawl over his shoulders and in that plight escorted the Prophet home. As an evidence of his piety and devotion, when intoxicated, he frequently made his religion the topic of conversation! ! BARTON STAFFORD. State of New York, Wayne County, ss : I certify that on the 9th day of December 1833, he personally appeared before me, the above named Barton Stafford, to me known, and solemnly affirmed according to law, to the truth of the above statement and subscribed the same. THOS. P. BALDWIN, a Judge of Wayne County Court. _______________________ I, Henry Harris, do state that I became acquainted with, the family of Joseph Smith, Sen. about the year 1820, in the town of Manchester, N. York. They were a family that labored vary little--the chief they did, was to dig for money. Joseph Smith, Jr. the pretended Prophet, used to pretend to tell fortunes; he had a stone which he used to put in his hat, by means of which he professed to tell people's fortunes. Joseph Smith, Jr. Martin Harris and others, used to meet together in private, a while before the gold plates were found, and were familiarly known by the name of the "Gold Bible Company." They were regarded by the community in which they lived, as a lying and indolent set of men and no confidence could be placed in them. The character of Joseph Smith, Jr. for truth and veracity was such, that I would not believe him under oath. I was once on a jury before a Justice's Court and the Jury could not, and did not, believe his testimony to be true. After he pretended to have found the gold plates, I had a conversation with him, and asked him where he found them and how he come to know where they were. He said he had a revelation from God that told him they were hid in a certain hill and he looked in his stone and saw them in the place of deposit; that an angel appeared, and told him he could not get the plates until he was married, and that when he saw the woman that was to he his wife, he should know her; and she would know him. He then went to Pennsylvania, got his wife, and they both went together and got the gold plates -He said it was revealed to him, that no one must see the plates but himself and wife. I then asked him what letters were engraved on them, he said italic letters written in an unknown language, and that he had copied some of the words and sent them to Dr. Mitchell and Professor Anthon of New York. By looking on the plates he said he could not understand the words, but it was made known to him that he was the person that must translate them, and on looking through the stone was enabled in translate. After the Book was published, I frequently bantered him for a copy. He asked fourteen shillings a piece for them; I told him I would not give so much; he told me had had a revelation that they must be sold at that price.

908

Sometime afterwards I talked with Martin Harris about buying one or the Books and he told me they had had a new revelation, that they might be sold at ten shillings a piece. State of Ohio, Cuyahoga County, ss : Personally appeared before me, Henry Harris, and made oath in due form of law, that the foregoing statements subscribed by him are true. JONATHAN LAPHAM, Justice of the peace.

909

Mormonism Unveiled: Testimonies of Abigail Harris and Lucy Harris (Martin Harris' wife)
Palmyra, Wayne Co. N. Y. 11th mo. 28th, 1833. In the early part of the winter in 1828, I made a visit to Martin Harris and was joined in company by Jos. Smith, sen. and his wife. The Gold Bible business, so called, was the topic of conversation, to which I paid particular attention that I might learn the truth of the whole matter.--They told me that the report that Joseph, jun. had found golden plates, was true, and that he was in Harmony, Pa. translating them --that such plates were in existence, and that Joseph, jun. was to obtain them, was revealed to him by the spirit of one or the Saints that was on this continent, previous to its being discovered by Columbus. Old Mrs. Smith observed that she thought he must be a Quaker, as he was dressed very plain. They said that the plates he then had in possession were but an introduction to the Gold Bible--that all or them upon which the bible was written, were so heavy that it would take four stout men to load them into a cart--that Joseph had also discovered by looking through his stone, the vessel in which the gold was melted from which the plates were made, and also the machine with which they were rolled; he also discovered in the bottom of the vessel three balls of gold, each as large as his fist. The old lady said also, that after the book was translated, the plates were to be publicly exhibited--admittance 0-5 cents. She calculated it would bring in annually an enormous sum of money-that money would then be very plenty, and the book would also sell for a great price, as it was something entirely new-that they bad been commanded to obtain all the money they could borrow for present necessity, and to repay with gold. The remainder was to be kept in store for the benefit of their family and children. This and the like conversation detained me until about 11 o'clock. Early the next morning, the mystery of the Spirit being like myself (one of the order called Friends) was reveal by the following circumstance: The old lady took me into another room, and after closing the door, she said, "have you four or five dollars in money that you can lend until our business is brought to a close? the spirit has said you shall receive four fold." I told her that when I gave, I did it not expecting to receive again--as for money I had none to lend. I then asked her what her particular want of money was; to which she replied "Joseph wants to take the stage and come home from Pennsylvania to see what we are all about." To which I replied, he might look in his stone and save his time and money. The old lady seemed confused, and left the room, and thus ended the visit. In the second month following, Martin Harris and his wife were (at my house. In conversation about Mormonites she observed, that she wished her husband would quit them as she believed it was all false and a delusion. To which I heard Mr. Harris reply : "What if it is a lie ; if you will let me alone I will make money out of it ! I was both an eye and an ear witness of what has been stated above, which is now fresh in my memory, and I give it to the world for the good of mankind. I speak the truth and lie not, God bearing me is witness. ABIGAIL HARRIS ___________________________ Lucy Harris, wife of Martin Harris Palmyra, Nov. 29, 1833 Being called upon to give a statement to the world of what I know respecting the (Gold Bible speculation, and also or the conduct of Martin Harris, my husband, who is a leading character among the Mormons, I do it free from prejudice realizing that I must give an account at the bar of God for what I say. Martin Harris was once industrious attentive to his domestic concerns, and thought to be worth about ten thousand dollars. He is naturally quick in his temper and in his mad-fits frequently abuses all who may dare to oppose him in his wishes. However strange it may seem, I have been a great sufferer by his unreasonable conduct. At different times while I lived with him, he has whipped, kicked, and turned me out of the house. About a year previous to the report being raised that Smith had found gold plates, he became very intimate with the Smith family, and said he believed Joseph could see in his stone any thing he wished. After this he apparently became very sanguine in his belief, and frequently said he would have no one in his house that did not believe in Mormonism, and because I would not give credit to the report he made about the gold plates, he became more austere towards

910

me. In one of his fits of rage he struck me with the but end or a whip, which I think had been used for driving oxen, and was about the size or my thumb, and three or four feet long. He beat me on the head four or five times, and the next day turned me out of doors twice, and beat me in a shameful manner. The next day I went to the town or Marion, and while there my flesh was black and blue in many places. His main complaint against me was, that I was always trying to hinder his making money. When he found out that I was going to Mr. Putnam's, in Marion, he said he was going too, that they had sent for him to pay them a visit. On arriving at Mr. Putnam's, I asked them if they had sent for Mr. Harris; they replied, they knew nothing about it; he, however, came in the evening. Mrs. Putnam told him never to strike or abuse me any more; he then denied ever striking me; she was however convinced that he lied, as the marks of his beating me were plain to be seen, and remained more than two weeks. Whether the Mormon religion be true or false, I leave the world to judge, for its effects upon Martin Harris have been to make him more cross, turbulent and abusive to me. His whole object was to make money by it. I will have one circ umstance in proof of it. One day, while at Peter Harris house, I told him he had better leave the company of the Smiths, as their religion was false; to which he replied, if you would let me alone, I could make money by it. It is in vain for the Mormons to deny these facts; for they are all well known to most of his former neighbors. The man has now become rather an object of pity; he has spent most of his property, and lost the confidence of his former friends. If he had labored as hard on his farm as he has to make Mormons, he might now be one of the wealthiest farmers in the country. He now spends his time in traveling through the country spreading the delusion of Mormonism, and has no regard whatever for his family. With regard to Mr. Harris being intimate with Mrs.. Haggard, as has been reported, it is but justice to myself to state what facts have come within my own observation, to show whether I had any grounds for jealousy or not. Mr. Harris was very intimate with this family, for some time previous to their going to Ohio. They lived a while in a house which he had built for their accommodation, and here he spent the most of his leisure hours ; and made her presents of articles from the store and house. He carried these presents in a private manner, and frequently when he went there, he would pretend to be going to some of the neighbors, on an errand, or to be going into the fields. After getting out of sight of the house, he would steer a straight course for Haggard's house, especially if Haggard was from home. At times when Haggard was from home, he would go there in the manner above described, and stay till twelve or one o'clock at night, and sometimes until day light. If his intentions were evil, the Lord will judge him accordingly but if good, he did not mean to let his left hand, know what his right hand did. The above statement or facts, I affirm to be true. LUCY HARRIS.

911

Mormonism Unveiled, Testimony of Artemas Cunningham

Artemas Cunningham, of Perry, Genuga county, states as follow: "In the month of October, 1811, I went from the township of Madison to Conneaut, for the purpose of securing a debt due me from Solo mon Spalding. I tarried with him nearly two days, for the purpose of accomplishing my object, which I was finally unable to do. I found him destitute of the means of paying his debts. His only hope of ever paying his debts, appeared to bear upon the sale of a book, which he had been writing. He endeavored to convince me from the nature and character of the work, that it would meet with a ready sale. Before showing me his manuscripts, he went into a verbal relation of its outlines, saying that it was a fabulous or romantic history of the first settlement of this country, and as it purported to have been a record found buried in the earth, or in a cave, he had adopted the ancient or scripture style of writing. He then presented his manuscripts, when we sat down and spent a good share of the night, in reading them, and conversing upon them. I well remember the name of Nephi, which appeared to be the principal hero of the story. The frequent repetition of the phrase, "I Nephi," I recollect as distinctly as though it was but yesterday, although the general features of the story have passed from my memory, through the lapse of 22 years. He attempted to account for the numerous antiquities which are found upon this continent, and remarked that, after this generation had passed away, his account of the first inhabitants of America would be considered as authentic as any other history. The Mormon Bible I have partially examined, and am fully of the opinion that Solomon Spalding had written its outlines before he left Conneaut." Statements of the same import, might be multiplied to an indefinite length; but we deem it unnecessary. We are here willing to rest the question, in the hands of any intelligent jury, with a certainty that their verdict would be, that Solomon Spalding first wrote the leading incidents of the Book of Mormon, instead of its being found by the Smith family, while digging for gold, and its contents afterwards made known by the Supreme Being. But our inquiries did not terminate here. Our next object was to ascertain, if possible, the disposition Spalding made of his manuscripts. For this purpose, a messenger was dispatched to look up the widow of Spalding, who was found residing in Massachusetts. From her we learned that Spalding resided in Pittsburgh, about two years, when he removed to the township of Amity, Washington Co. Pa. Where he lived about two years, and died in 1816. His widow then removed to Onondaga county, N.Y., married again, and lived in Otsego county, and subsequently removed to Massachusetts. She states that Spalding had a great variety of manuscripts, and recollects that one was entitled the "Manuscript Found," but of its contents she has now no distinct knowledge. While they lived in Pittsburgh, she thinks it was once taken to the printing office of Patterson & Lambdin; but whether it was ever brought back to the house again, she is quite uncertain: if it was, however, it was then with his other writings, in a trunk which she had left in Otsego county, N.Y. This is all the information that could be obtained from her, except that Mr. Spalding, while living, entertained a strong antipathy to the Masonic Institution, which may account for its being so frequently mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The fact also, that Spalding, in the latter part of his life, inclined to infidelity, is established by a letter in his hand-writing, now in our possession. The trunk referred to by the widow, was subsequently examined, and found to contain only a single M.S. book, in Spalding's hand-writing, containing about one quire of paper. This is a romance, purporting to have been translated from the Latin, found on 24 rolls of parchment in a cave, on the banks of the Conneaut Creek, but written in modern style, and giving a fabulous account of a ship's being driven upon the American coast, while proceeding from Rome to Britain, a short time previous to the Christian era, this country then being inhabited by the Indians. This old M. S. has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognize it as Spalding's, he having told them that he had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that I might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance to the "Manuscript Found." Here, then, our esquires after facts partially cease, on this subject. We have fully shown that the Book of Mormon is the joint production of Solomon Spalding and some other designing knave, or if it is what it purports to be, the Lord God has graciously condescended, in revealing to Smith his will, through spectacles, to place before him nd appropriate to his own use, the writings and names of men which had been invented by a person long before in the grave. Having established the fact, therefore, that most of the names and leading incidents contained in the Mormon bible, originated with Solomon

912

Spalding, it is not very material, as we conceive, to show the way and manner by which they fell into the hands of the Smith family. To do this, however, we have made some inquiries. It was inferred at once that some light might be shed upon this subject, and the mystery revealed, by applying to Patterson & Lambdin, in Pittsburgh. But here again death had interposed a barrier. That establishment was dissolved and broken up many years since, and Lambdin died about eight years ago. Mr. Patterson says he has no recollection of many such manuscript being brought there for publication, neither would he have been likely to have seen it, as the business of printing was conducted wholly by Lambdin at that time. He says, however, that many M. S. books and pamphlets were brought to the office about that time, which remained upon their shelves for years, without being printed or even examined. Now, as Spalding's book can no where be found, or any thing heard of it after being carried to this establishment, there is the strongest presumption that it remained there in seclusion, till about the year 1823 or 24, at which time Sidney Rigdon located himself in that city. We have been credibly informed that he was on terms of intimacy with Lambdin, being seen frequently in his shop. Rigdon resided in Pittsburgh about three years, and during the whole of that time, as he has since frequently asserted, abandoned preaching and all other employment, for the purpose of studying the bible. He resided in this vicinity about four years previous to the appearance of the book, during which time he made several long visits to Pittsburgh, and perhaps to the Susquehannah, where Smith was then digging for money, or pretending to be translating plates. It may be observed also, that about the time Rigdon left Pittsburgh, the Smith family began to tell about finding a book that would contain a history of the first inhabitants of Ame rica, and that two years elapsed before they finally got possession of it. We are, then, irresistibly led to this conclusion: --that Lambdin, after having failed in business, had recourse to the old manuscripts then in his possession, in order to raise the wind, by a book speculation, and place the "Manuscript Found," of Spalding, into the hands of Ridgon, to be embellished, altered, and added to, as he might think expedient; and three years' study of the bible we should deem little time enough to garble it, as it is transferred to the Mormon book. The former dying, left the latter the sole proprietor, who was obliged to resort to his wits, and in a miraculous way to bring it before the world; for in no other manner could such a book be published without great sacrifice. And where could a more suitable character be found that Jo Smith, who's necromantic fame and arts of deception, had already extended to a considerable distance? That Lambdin was a person every way qualified and fitted for such an enterprise, we have the testimony of his partner in business, and others of his acquaintance. Add to all these circumstances, the facts, that Rigdon had prepared the minds in a great measure, of nearly a hundred of those who had attended his ministration to be in readiness to embrace the first mysterious ism that should be presented -- the appearance of Cowdery at his residence as soon as the Book was printed -- his immediately repairing to the residence of Smith, 300 miles distant, where he was forthwith appointed an elder, high priest, and a scribe to the prophet--the pretended vision that his residence in Ohio was the "promised land,"--the immediate removal of the whole Smith family thither, where they were soon raised from a state of poverty to comparative affluence. We therefore, must hold out Sidney Rigdon to the world as being the original "author and proprietor" of the whole Mormon conspiracy, until further light is elicited upon the lost wrings of Solomon Spalding.

913

Mormonism Unveiled, Testimonies of Nahum Howard and Oliver Smith

Nahum Howard Conneaut, August, 1833 I first became acquainted with Solomon Spalding, in Dec, 1810. After that time I frequently saw him at his house, and also at my house. I once in conversation with him expressed a surprise at not having any account of the inhabitance once in this country, who erected the old forts, mounds, &c. He then told me that he was writing a history of that race of people; and afterwards frequently showed me his writings, which I read. I have lately read the Book of Mormon, and believe it to be the same as Spalding wrote, except the religious part. He told me that he intended to get his writings published in Pittsburgh, and he thought that in one century from that time, it would believed as much as any other history. ---------------------------------------Oliver Smith Conneaut, August, 1833 When Solomon Spalding first came to this place, he purchased a tract of land, surveyed it out and commenced selling it. While engaged in this business, he boarded at my house, in all nearly six months. All his leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country. He said he intended to trace their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till their arrival in America, give an account of their arts, sciences, civilization, wars and contentions. In this way, he would give a satisfactory account of all the old mounds, so common to this country. During the time he was at my house, I read and heard read one hundred pages or more. Nephi and Lehi were by him represented as leading characters, when they first started for America. Their main object was to escape the judgments which they supposed were coming upon the old world. But no religious matter was introduced, as I now recollect. Just before he left this place, Spalding sent for me to call on him, which I did. -- He then said, that although he was in my debt, he intended to leave the country, and hoped I would not prevent him, for, says he, you know I have been writing the history of the first settlement of America, and I intend to go to Pittsburgh, and there live a retired life, till I have completed the work, which will enable me to return and pay off all my debts--the book, you know will sell, as every one is anxious to learn something upon that subject. This was the last I heard of Spalding or his book, until the Book of Mormon came into the neighborhood. When I heard the historical part of it related, I at once said it was the writings of old Solomon Spalding. Soon after, I obtained the book, and on reading it, found much of it the same as Spalding had written, more than twenty years before.

914

Mormonism Unveiled, Testimony of John N. Miller

John N. Miller Springfield, Pa. September, 1833. In the year 1811, I was in the employ of Henry Lake and Solomon Spalding, at Conneaut, engaged in rebuilding a forge. While there, I boarded and lodged in the family of said Spalding, for several months. I was soon introduced to the manuscript of Spalding, and perused them as often as I had leisure. He had written two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the "Manuscript Found." From this he would frequently read some humorous passages to the company present. It purported to be the history of the first settlement of America, before discovered by Columbus. He brought them off from Jerusalem, under their leaders; detailing their travels by land and water, their manners, customs, laws, wars, &c. He said that he designed it as a historical novel, and that in after years it would be believed by many people as much as the history of England. He soon after failed in business, and told me he should retire from the din of his creditors, finish his book and have it published, which would enable him to pay his debts and support his family. He soon after removed to Pittsburgh, as I understand. I have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end, but mixed up with scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found." Many of the passages in the Mormon Book are verbatim from Spalding, and others in part. The names of Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, and in fact all the principal names, are bro't fresh to my recollection, by the Gold Bible. When Spalding divested his history of its fabulous names, by a verbal explanation, he landed his people near the Straits of Darien, which I am very confident he called Zarahemla, they were marched about that country for a length of time, in which wars and great blood shed ensured, he brought them across North America in a north east direction.

915

Mormonism Unveiled, Testimonies of Roswell Nichols & Joshua Stafford

Manchester, Ontario County, Dec. 1st, 1833 I, Roswell Nichols, first became acquainted with the family of Joseph Smith, Sen. nearly five years ago, and I lived a neighbor to the said family about two years. My acquaintance with the family has enabled me to know something of its character for good citizenship, probity and veracity -- for breach of contracts, for the nonpayment of debts and borrowed money, and for duplicity with their neighbors, the family was notorious. Once, since the Gold Bible speculation commenced, the old man was sued; and while the sheriff was at his house, he lied to him and was detected in the the falsehood. Before he left the house, he confessed that it was sometimes necessary for him to tell an honest lie, in order to live. At another time, he told me that he had received an express command for me to repent and believe as he did, or I must be damned. I refused to comply, and at the same time told him of the various impositions of his family. He then stated that their digging was not for money but it was for the obtaining the Gold Bible. Thus contradicting what he had told me before: for he had often said, that the hills in our neighborhood were nearly all erected by human hands -- that they were all full of gold and silver. And one time, when we were talking on the subject, he pointed to a small hill on my farm, and said, "in that hill there is a stone which is full of gold and silver. I know it to be so, for I have been to the hole, and God said unto me, do not it now, but at a future day you shall go find the book opened, and then you shall have the treasures." He said that gold and silver was once as plenty as the stones in the field are now-- that the ancients, half of them melted the ore and made the gold and silver, while the other half a read it deeper in the earth, which accounted for disease hills. Upon my inquiring who furnished the food for the whole, he flew into a passion, and called me case in their, and said he, "you must be eternally damned." I mentioned these facts, not because of their intrinsic importance, but simply to show the weak mindedness and low character of the man. ROSWELL NICHOLS ______________________ Manchester, Ontario County, Nov. 15th, 1833. I, Joshua Stafford, became acquainted with the family of Joseph Smith, Sen. about the year 1819 or 20. They then were laboring people, in low circumstances. A short time after this, they commenced digging for hidden treasures, and soon after they became indolent, and told marvelous stories about ghosts, hob-goblins, caverns, and various other mysterious matters. Joseph once showed me a piece of wood which he said he took from a box of money, and the reason he gave up for not obtaining the box, was, that it moved. At another time, he, (Joseph, Jr.) at a husking, called on me to become a security for a horse, and said he would reward me handsomely, for he had found a box of watches, and they were as large as his fist, and he put one of them to his ear, and he could hear it to "tick forty rods." Since he could not dispose of them profitably at Canandaigua or Palmyra, he wished to go east with them. He said if he did not return with the horse, I might take his life. I replied, that he knew I would not do that. Well, said he, I did not suppose you would, yet I would be willing that you should. He was nearly intoxicated at the time of the above conversation. JOSHUA STAFFORD

916

Atheism
Introduction

Atheism denies Gods existence. It is a growing movement in the world. Atheists repeatedly attack Christianity. But, is it an intellectually viable system of thought? Does it have merit? Can it be opposed successfully? Check out this section and see.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

What are some of the definitions of atheism? p. 918 What is deism? p. 920 What are some mistakes Christians make when dialoguing with atheists? p. 923 Why do atheists need to attack Christianity? p. 926 Is I lack belief in a god a truly defensible position? p. 943 What are some of the problems with saying there is no God? p. 964 What can you say to There is no sufficient evidence for God's existence. p. 965 Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up? p. 972 What is the problem with saying there is no proof that God exists? p. 975 How do you respond to, "If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God?" p. 984 Why believe in Christianity over all other religions? p. 987 How can entropy and causality be used as a proof for God's existence? p. 990 Can an atheist account for the laws of logic? pp. 993-994

917

Atheism
The word atheism comes from the negative a which means no and theos which means god. Hence, atheism in the basest terms means no god. Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god. By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God and that He is knowable. I need to mention that most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists. Most consider themselves as non-theists. I've encountered many atheists who claim that atheism is not a belief system while others say it is. Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which definition of atheism to use can be difficult. Following are some definitions offered by atheists. "An "An "An "An "An atheist atheist atheist atheist atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god." lacks belief in a god." exercises no faith in the concept of god at all." is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry." is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas."

Which ever definition you go by, atheism denies God. There are two main categories of atheists: strong and weak, with variations in between. A strong atheist actively believes and states that no God exists. They expressly denounce the Christian God along with any other god. Strong atheists are usually more aggressive in their conversations with theists and try to shoot holes in theistic beliefs. They like to use logic and anti-biblical evidences to denounce God's existence. Agnostic Atheists, as I call them, are those who deny God's existence based on an examination of evidence. Agnosticism means 'not knowing,' or 'no knowledge.' I call them agnostic because they state they have looked at the evidence and have concluded that there is no God. But, the interesting thing with them is that they say they are open further evidence for God's existence. Weak atheists simply exercise no faith in God. The weak atheist might be better explained as a person who lacks belief in God the way a person might lack belief that there is a green lizard in a rocking chair on the moon; the subject simply isn't an issue and they don't believe or not believe it. Finally, there is a group of atheists that I call militant atheists. They are, fortunately, few in number. They are usually highly insulting and profoundly terse in their comments to theists, particularly Christians. Ive encountered a few of them and they are vile, rude, and highly condescending. Their language is full of insults, profanity, and blasphemies. Basically, no meaningful conversation can be had with them at all. Two Main Types of Arguments from Atheists Atheist positions seem to fall into two main categories. The first is the lack of evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn't good enough for him to affirm God's existence. The second is the category where they believe that the idea of God existing is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand. To simplify, one says there isn't enough evidence to decide and the other says there is evidence contrary to God's existence. For those atheists who simply lack belief and exercise no energy in the discussion, neither category applies because are not involved in the debate. A typical argument posed by an atheist to show why God does not exist is as follows: God is supposed to be all good and all powerful. Evil and suffering exist in the world. If God is all good he would not want evil and suffering to exist. If He is all powerful then He is able to remove all evil and suffering. Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means he is not perfect and not God), or he is not all powerful (and limited in abilities and scope). Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist.

918

Some Basic Tenets of Atheism

Presuppositions are important to us all. We look at the world through them. The atheist has a set of presuppositions, too. Though there is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt. They are listed below. Please note however, that not all atheists assert all of these tenets. The only absolute common one they hold to is that they do not believe in a God or gods. 1. 2. 3. 4. There is There is Miracles There is of God's no God or devil. no supernatural realm. cannot occur. no such thing as sin as a violation will. 5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable. 6. Man is material. 7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact. 8. Ethics and morals are relative

For the Christian, atheism clashes with many aspects of our faith. Some atheists openly attack Christianity citing apparent contradictions in the Bible, perceived philosophical difficulties related to God, and what they consider as logical evidences against God's existence. But the atheists' criticisms are not without answers. Hopefully, this information will help answer some of their claims and give reasons for believing in God.

919

Terms and Definitions

1. 2. A priori - Knowledge, judgments, and principles which are true without verification or testing. It is universally true. Agnosticism - The belief that the existence of God is not knowable. The word is derived from the negative a combined with the Greek word gnosis which means knowledge. Hence, agnosticism is the belief that God cannot be known. Argumentum ad hominem - An irrelevant attack upon a person to deflect the argument from the facts and reasons. Argumentum ad populum - An argument where appeal is made to emotions: loyalties, patriotism, prejudices, etc. Argumentum ad verecundiam - An argument using respect for great men, customs, institutions, and authority in an attempt to strengthen one's argument and provide an illusion of proof. Atheism - The lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god. The position held by a person or persons that lack belief in god(s) and/or deny that god(s) exist. Autonomy - Freedom from all external constraints. Independence consisting of selfdetermination. Causality - The relationship between cause and effect. The principle that all events have sufficient causes. Chance - Being undetermined. Events without apparent cause. An accidental happening. Choice - Action based on one's volition, will, desire. Christian - A person who believes in biblical person of Jesus who claimed to be God in flesh, died, and rose again from the grave and who lives according to the principles of Christs teaching. Cosmological argument - An attempt to prove that God exists by appealing to the principle that all things have causes. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes, therefore, there must be an uncaused cause: God. Cosmology - Study of the origin and structure of the universe. Deduction - A system of logic, inference and conclusion drawn from examination of facts. Conclusions drawn from the general down to the specific. Deism - The belief that there is a God but that God is not involved in the world. Deism denies any revelatory work of God in the world whether it be by miracles or by scripture. Deontology - The study of moral obligation. Determinism - The teaching that every event in the universe is caused and controlled by natural law. Dialectic - The practice of examining ideas and beliefs using reason and logic. It is often accomplished by question and answer. Didactic - The branch of education dealing with teaching. Dogma - A generally held set of formulated beliefs. Empiricism - The proposition that the only source of true knowledge is experience. Search for knowledge through experiment and observation. Denial that knowledge can be obtained a priori. Epistemology - The branch of philosophy that deals with knowing and the methods of obtaining knowledge. Ethics - Study of right and wrong and wrong, good and bad, moral judgment, etc. Evolution - Change from simple to complex. That system of study authored by Charles Darwin that seeks to explain the development of life. Fact - An indisputable truth. Faith - Acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason. Free will - Freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes. Freethinker - A person who forms his opinions about religion and God without regard to revelation, scripture, tradition, or experience. God - Deity, infinite being of power, influence, knowledge, and immortality. Hedonism - That pleasure is the principle good and proper goal of all action. Self indulgence. Humanism - The system of philosophy based upon human reason, actions, and motives without concern of deity or supernatural phenomena. In facto - Something that exists and is complete.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

920

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

In fieri - Beginning to be, but not yet complete. Induction - A system of logic where specific facts are used to draw a general conclusion. Infidel - A person who does not believe in any particular religious system. Karma - In Hinduism, the total compilation of all a person's past lives and actions that result in the present condition of that person. Metaphysics - The study of the nature and being of reality and its origin and structure. Monism - The view that there is only one basic and fundamental reality, that all existence is this one reality. Monolatry - The belief that there are many gods but only one of them is served and worshipped. Monotheism - The belief that there is only one God in the universe. Morals - Ethics, the codes, values, principles, and customs of a person or society. Myth - Something not true, fiction, or falsehood. A truth disguised and distorted. Ontological argument - An attempt at proving the existence of God by stating that God exists because our conception of Him exists and nothing greater than God can be conceived of. Ontology - The study of the nature of being, reality, and substance. Panentheism - The belief that God is in the universe. It differs with pantheism which states that God is the universe and all that it comprises. Pantheism - The belief that God is the universe and all that comprises it: laws, motion, matter, energy, consciousness, life, etc. It denies that God is a person and is self aware. Philosophy - The study of seeking knowledge and wisdom in understanding the nature of the universe, man, ethics, art, love, purpose, etc. Polytheism - The belief that there are many gods in existence in the universe. Pragmatism - A method in philosophy where value is determined by practical results. Rationalism - A branch of philosophy where truth is determined by reason. Relativism - The view that truth is relative and not absolute. It varies from people to people, time to time. Religion - Generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief. Teleological a rgument - An attempted proof of God's existence based upon the premise that the universe is designed and therefore needs a designer: God. Teleology - The study of final causes, results. Having a definite purpose, goal, or design. Theism - The belief that there is a God and that He is knowable and involved in the world. Theodicy - The study of the problem of evil in the world in relation to the proposition that there is an all powerful good God. Theology - The study of things pertaining to God and/or the relation of God to the world. Transcendent - That which is beyond our senses and experience. Existing apart from matter. Trinity - The Christian doctrine that there is only one God in existence and that He consists of three separate and ontologically divine persons. Yin and Yang - A dualistic philosophy of passive and active, good and bad, light and dark, positive and negative, male and female, etc., and that they are in opposition, each is part of the whole and works together.

____________ Resources: Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Edited by Everett F. Harrison, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1960. Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976 Dictionary of Philosophy, edited by Dagobert D. Runes, Ph.D., Philosophical Library, New York, 1942. Webster's New World Dictionary, edited by David B. Guralnik, Simon and Schuster, 1986

921

Can Atheists be ethical?

The answer to this question is a definite, "Yes." Atheists are people who, whether they like it or not, have the law of God written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15). They are subject to the same laws of our country (and other countries). They have a sense of right and wrong. They must work with people and being unethical in society would not serve them very well. It is practical and logical for an atheist to be ethical and work within the norms of social behavior. Atheists, generally, are honest, hardworking people. Nevertheless, some Christians raise the question, "What is to prevent an atheist from murdering and stealing? After all, they have no fear of God and no absolute moral code." The answer is simple: Atheists are capable of governing the own moral behavior and getting along in society the same as anyone else. At the risk of labeling the atheist as self-centered, it does not serve the best interests of an atheist to murder and steal. It would not take long before he was imprisoned and/or killed for his actions. Basically, society will only put up with so much if it is to function smoothly. So, if an atheist wants to get along and have a nice life, murdering and stealing won't accomplish it. It makes sense for him to be honest, work hard, pay his bills, and get along with others. Basically, he has to adopt a set of ethics common to society in order to do that. Belief in God is not a requirement for ethical behavior or an enjoyable life. On the other hand Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do have a legal system with a codified set of moral laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes (slavery was legal 200 years ago but is not now), the morals in a society can still change. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." This can be a problem as the norms of society shift and the ethics shift with them. In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. Well, is it or isn't it right? If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it. Unfortunately, however, social experimentation is often harmful. There are potential dangers in this kind of ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings? It serves his selfinterests, so why not? But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based upon the Bible is no guarantee that he will not also join forces for the killings. But the issue is the base and ramifications of that base. Beliefs affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. A boat adrift without an anchor soon crashes into the rocks. The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian; in this the Ten Commandments are a summary. In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be evolutionary. Since evolution teaches that life is the product of purely natural and utilitarian properties of our world, survival of the fittest, natural selection, and equating humans to animals as a species are the ontological basis for our existence and living. With this the value of man is lowered. In contrast, it is a very high calling to treat people properly who also are made in the image of God. Basically, I do not see how the atheist could claim any moral absolutes at all. To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad. But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's word.

922

Mistake Christians make when dialoguing with Atheists

Most Christians mean well when they defend their faith. But, too often, many make fundamental errors when dialoguing with atheists. We need to make as few errors as possible, not simply to win an argument, but to help the atheist come to a saving relationship with the Lord Jesus. Following are common mistakes made by theists when dialoguing with atheists. Asking an atheist to prove there is no God Sometimes Christians will attempt to dismantle an atheist argument by demanding that the atheist prove there is no God. Well, to be fair, an atheist can no more prove there is no God than he can prove that there isn't an ice-cream factory on Jupiter. The problem does not lie with the atheist, but with the theist who demands such an impossible and illogical request. Generally, you do not try to prove a negative. If I asked you to prove there wasn't an ice-cream factory on Jupiter, could you do it? Of course not. It isn't a fair request. In fact, it isn't even a good request. Let's think about this idea of proving there is no God. First of all, how could an atheist prove there is no God? Can he know all things to know there is no God? Well, of course not. If he knew all things, he'd be God. Can he answer every bit of evidence raised in support of theism? Again no. He is not omniscient. There is simply too much information in the world for one person to know. Again, in argumentation you don't try to prove a negative. Its the same thing as making something up and then asking a person to prove it doesn't exist -- like an ice-cream factory on Jupiter. Labeling Atheists Some Christians have labeled atheists as evil, stupid, devil-worshippers, or morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not evil, stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals. Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient. For a Christian, or anyone, to make a blanket statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on either side of the argument of truth. Generally, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought through their position over a long period of time. Some were raised in religious homes, have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course, I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very cogent arguments against the existence of God -- which need to be addressed -- and rest their eternity on their arguments. So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and name-calling have no place in the discussion. Ignoring Atheists' Questions If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.

923

Stating that Atheism is a religion Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief that there is no God," but is "not believing either way." To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to any effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to torture people." The Christian would simply role his eyes and think that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much. Stating unsupportable facts No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said. Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least occasionally. It adds an air of credibility to your argument. Of course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented. Never admitting when you are wrong Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages. It leads to anger and selfrighteousness. It has no place in the Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful. If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong in something, be kind and courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply loose the respect of the one with whom you are debating.

924

Mistakes Atheists make when dialoguing with Christians.

Following are examples of mistakes I've seen atheists make when dialoguing with Christians. They are important to know for both sides. First of all, the atheist must realize that making these mistakes lessens his credibility with a Christian and does not help his cause. Second, the Christian should know these errors so he can identify them during a conversation and, hopefully, not commit them himself. Atheists often challenge the theist to prove Gods existence only within the confines of science. Science has served humanity well. Through it we have discovered countless natural laws of universe and use that knowledge to make our lives easier in every area of our existence. But to limit a theist's proofs to the confines of what the atheist determines is one sided. To a Christian, there are experiences that science and logic cannot explain and these experiences are real. The atheist needs to recognize that we have experiences that are life changing. No mere psychological set of theories explains the changes in our lives. So please, don't mock them. Can science nail down all that exists in mind, body, and soul? No. Can it quantify the beauty of a sunset, the cooing of a baby, or the love of a man and a woman? Science and logic have served us well, but they are not the ultimate truth to all things. Of course, that does not mean we ignore science. In fact, we use it in our proofs for God. But to limit the playing field to your set of rules is an unfair way to start. It is mostly an attempt to initiate control and keep command of the conversation by setting the ground rules according to your criteria. Name-calling and insults. Of course, this is obvious. I heard it said once that the man who strikes first admits his arguments have run out. In some of the discussions I've had with atheists, when I've made a valid point in logic, I have been insulted. To call someone a name is to attack the person and not the issue and it closes the door to true discussion. Condescension This is the most common of all mistakes I've encountered with atheists. I've been told by atheists that I'm an idiot for believing God, that if I were truly intelligent I'd abandon my anachronistic thinking, etc. I've yet to meet a single humble atheist. Straw-man argumentation Sometimes atheists will construct an argument against Christianity that does not reflect a true Christian position. For example, one atheist stat ed that the Trinity was illogical because three gods could not be one God. I had to correct him and show him that the Trinity is the doctrine that there is only one God in three persons, not three gods. Other straw-man arguments deal with person's who claim to be Christians and act in an unchristian manner. A typical example is the white supremacists often claim to be true Christians and when they do something which is against the Bible, their bad example is used to label all Christians.

925

Is Atheism viable?

Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a god, or actively believing there is no God or choosing to not exercise any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position. In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isnt to say that atheists havent attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? Besides, if there were a proof of Gods non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we dont hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying Gods existence. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheisms truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith. Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for Gods existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life. There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, it is possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a logical option is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability. They must come up with more than "It is possible," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists. But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for Gods existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been insufficient. Therefore, since there could be evidences presented in the future, the atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of Gods existence. This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning Gods existence which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.

926

Response to criticism of "Is Atheism Viable"

Following is my response to the first portion of an atheist's critique of two of my papers dealing with atheism. His original criticism was one page, but I have broken it up into two pages relating to each paper he addressed. The article was posted on infidelguy.com, an atheistic website, and that is the only reason I am responding to the paper which, in my opinion, does not present its case very well. Nevertheless, I have copied the entire article with the author's permission and reproduced the the two halves, one here, here so that it can be more easily address. His original comments are in black, and my comments are in italics. I have left his typo's and grammar errors intact. "Is atheism viable?" This is my refutation of Matt Slick's other article, "Is atheism viable? I'll show why he is wrong again, point by point. Follow along in his article. Atheism is a negative position. This is true. It doesn't sound so good, and this is what he's looking for, to make atheists look bad, but it is technically true. Mr. Lonovy is trying to play the mind reader. He does not know if I am trying to make atheists look bad or not. In fact, why would I want to do that? Making an atheist look bad isn't how truth is established. Rather, I attempt to tackle the issues and not the individuals -- unlike Mr. Lonovy who has stated in his original paper that I am an idiot. Matt says he doesn't hear any evidence for atheism when he has discussions with atheists. I'm sorry that there are so many stupid atheists, then. There is proof against God's existance, even if Matt doesn't discuss it with atheists who know this. Is it enough to completely rule Him out? No. It is enough to say what He does and does not do. As I stated earlier, the only scientific place left for Him is the Big Bang. People used to believe He did many different things, until science proved that they could function on their own without Him. Is that not a good point against Him? It is hard to prove He doesn't exist, because it is proving a negative, but we can prove the negative that His Christian interpretation is false by proving positives - That things like evolution, abiogenesis, and an atheistic [without God] Big Bang can and have actually occured. These things are strongly rooted in truthful science. There is our best weapon. Mr. Lonovy not only insults me, but now he insults atheists. For him to say there is proof that God does not exist is really quite a statement. How do you prove a negative? How do you prove that God, the creator of the universe, who exists outside of time and space, does not exist? That is a tall order and I would truly love to see the proof. If it is indeed proof, I will abandon my Christianity. After all, proof is proof. I have asked atheists for proofs and have not yet seen one offered that has stood the test of cross examination. Mr. Lonovy fails to understand that even though science has answered many issues about life, medicine, mechanics, the universe, etc., it does not invalidate God's existence nor is it in any way a proof or evidence that God does not exist. The only thing science does is explain things using naturalistic principles. But, since Christians define God as being outside of time and space (yet able to interact within it), explaining things naturalistically does not effect the proposed existence of God or not since He is not limited to a naturalistic system. After all, the Bible states that God created the naturalistic principles working in the universe. Since these principles exist, how is it that it means that God does not exist? It doesn't. Therefore, Mr. Lonovy is again failing to make his point. As for the rest of the paragraph, Mr. Lonovy again begs the question regarding evolution, abiogenesis, et. al. He assumes that all of it occurs due to naturalistic principles in the universe though he has not offered any evidence for this. The topics he introduces are too deep and varied to address here (as they have been addressed elsewhere on my site), but the principle of his presuppositions clouding his objectivity is, to me, very obvious.

927

Atheists don't hold their position by faith, as a Christian does. Faith is defined as being belief in something for which there is no proof. There is proof that things other than what the Bible says have occured. We prove the negative by proving a positive that will contradict it, and therefore render it false. But even with this, how dare a Christian say someone else can't hold their position by faith? With this logic, we should all be agnostics! Attacking yourself in the process of attacking someone else doesn't help you. It leaves a level playing field. Why do it? I appreciate that Mr. Lonovy attempts to define faith. But I do not accept his definition as being sufficient, though there is some merit in it. I would agree that if something had proof, then there would be no faith. But that isn't all there is to it. Faith can rest on evidence. That is, a person can decide to have faith based upon evidence. I am sure Mr. Lonovy lives this kind of faith regularly. Let me illustrate. I assume Mr. Lonovy drives a car. Can Mr. Lonovy offer proof before he takes his next drive, that the next time he drives to the store that he will make it there alive? No, he cannot. But, past evidence of him being able to drive, people abiding by driving laws, and previous successes of him getting to the store and back safely, are all evidences by which Mr. Lonovy decides to have the faith that he will be able to get to the store alive...even though there is no proof that he will. He is acting faithfully to the evidence. So, Mr. Lonovy's definition, though true in part, is insufficient and it does not reflect the biblical representation of faith which rests on evidence, i.e., the resurrection, Jesus' miracles, etc. My proposition that atheists hold their position by faith is based upon the idea that there is no proof for atheism; there is no evidence that God does not exist; and that atheism only succeeds if it can refute all theistic proofs and evidences -- which they can only hope they can do. Therefore, I conclude that there is a large measure of faith that the atheists use to hold to their atheism since there is no proof. Again, atheists do attack Christian claims. It is the duty of a skeptic to do so. It is not only this 'evidential vacuum' that atheism gains it's justification, but it is one of the ways. Proof for things which contradict the Bible is much more effective, though. I have not yet seen any "proof" offered by an atheist that contradicts the Bible. There may be something out there that does, but I have not yet seen it. So, I really cannot comment beyond that. Atheism can only be defended by it's status as a possibility? Wrong. Science and logic have clearly shown that it is much more than a simple possibility. But what right does a Christian have to say someone else can't believe something because it's a possibility? That's exactly what they do. Again, Mr. Lonovy begs the question. Science has not shown that there is no God nor is there any logical proof (that I am aware of) that there is no God. Since atheism is the position of "no God" either in belief or "lack of belief," and since there is no proof that God does not exist, then faith must make up the difference. Either atheism is absolutely true or it is possibly true. Since it cannot be proven that atheism is absolutely true (i.e., prove that there is no God in all space and time, etc.), then all that is left is that it is a possibility that it is true -- or, dare I say, that it simply is not true. Furthermore, Mr. Lonovy seems to believe that because science can explain things that it means there is no God. But, this is not logical as I have demonstrated above. Finally, people can believe what they want to believe. I simply question the evidential and logical validity of the atheistic belief system. The ice cream factory on Jupiter really shows Matt's stupidity. Why would anyone believe that there actually is an ice cream factory on Jupiter when there is no evidence for it and many other things, like the planet Jupiter itself, contradict such a possibility? I don't know, but this is exactly what Christians do with God. I suggest that the reader actually read the article in question and read the context of my statement about the ice cream factory on Jupiter. It was merely an illustration. Nevertheless, I will quote the relevant material from that paper

928

"...stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is a possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a logical option is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability." Again, attacking me personally is not the best way to establish a point. Whether or not I am stupid is, I am sure, a debatable issue among the atheist community but it should be best left aside when addressing issues of truth. Refuting 'evidence' for God's existance doesn't prove atheism true. This is correct. What about this: Does proving atheism false prove Christianity true? No, it doesn't. It works both ways. But I'm quite sure I've shown that we have many other ways to prove that the Christian god doesn't exist, so his point is null. Finally, Mr. Lonovy is logical. However, he has failed to show proof that the Christian God does not exist. An atheist can't say he knows everything in the universe. Can a Christian? No. Then, how can he say God does exist? Again, Matt's logic attacks his own religion, too. How stupid. An atheist can know many, many things, though. Enough to come to a logical conclusion that God, at least the Christian interpretation of such a being, does not exist. As a Christian my belief in God rests on evidence, experience, and decision. I see the biblical evidence, experience the work of God in my life, and I have chosen to continue in belief based upon these factors. What I lack in absolute proof, I complete in faith. I certainly agree that an atheist can conclude that God does not exist. But, it does not mean that his conclusion is correct. I can conclude that screaming blue ants are spying on me, but that doesn't mean I am right. An atheist can say that there is more than just no available proof for God's existance. There is proof that contradicts the Christian notion of God. Science has shown us how many things in this universe occured, esspecially the appearance and evolution of life. The truth of these things is for a different discussion, though. Again, I have not seen this proof Mr. Lonovy keeps mentioning. If there is such a proof, why is it that the atheists are not unanimously using it? I do not believe in macro evolution, but even if it were true, it is not proof that God does not exist. An atheist must acknowledge that there may be proof for God in the future if they are truely intelligent. Atheism isn't a dogmatic religion like Christianity, atheists are allowed to do this. This doesn't make the atheist an agnostic. It makes them open minded. You can accept that such a being may exist without actually believing it does exist. Why don't Christians accept that there ma y be no God? If Matt wants atheists to be agnostic because they accept that God might exist, then why isn't he an agnostic? It works both ways. That is by far the stupidest thing he's said in his papers. As a Christian, I can accept the possibility that there might not be a God. However, I most definitely believe and affirm that the God of the Bible exists and is the only true God. This does not make me agnostic; that is, it does not mean that I don't know if God exists or not. On the other hand, the atheist states, basically, that there is no God. But if this same person states that God may exist, then doesn't that mean that he isn't sure, that he doesn't know if God does or does not exist? That is not the same position I hold at all. That is not why atheists attack Christianity. They don't even need to. I've shown this already. Christianity makes irrational claims about God that make me think the Christians are high. [LOL] Their

929

claims no more "poke holes in my vacuum" than someone claiming that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter. I've shown why already. I am sure that there are Christians who make irrational claims about God. I am also sure there are Christians who make rational claims about God. I do not like my "vacuum". I'd much rather there be a loving god who would take us all to Heaven when we die. I'd extremely afraid of dying. I'd give up my atheism for immortality in Heaven any day! I am glad to see this honesty. But, God allows us to have what we want. If you want your sin and independence from God, He will let you have it and He will not reveal Himself to you. The evidence is there in the Bible. We like having ourselves as gods? We're not all that egotistical. How dare you say this, Matt? Not only is Matt stupid, he's an as***le to atheists, too. All too much like a typical Christian. I've shown why I believe him to be this way. Thank you for reading. Again, anyone who sees my points, please urge Matt to take down his fallacious articles. We don't need him lying to people about what we believe. [I substituted three asterisks in the cuss word with which Mr. Lonovy referred to me.] Mr. Lonovy is referring to my closing statement quoted here... "This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning Gods existence which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves." Of course, the context is that God is the true sovereign and that atheists want that for themselves. In this, they take the place of God and set themselves up as master of their own lives, future, etc. Again, Mr. Lonovy uses a personal attack in his paper. This is definitely a poor way to address an opponent. Conclusion: I am always open to intelligent dialogue with atheists and have even changed parts of my site in response to some well intentioned and well delivered correspondence from atheists. However, Mr. Lonovy demonstrates a lack of tact and logical acumen. He has not established his case nor has he 'refuted' my paper.

930

Another response to criticism of "Is atheism viable?"

Some atheists take their atheism seriously and others do not. Either way, I am pleased to see atheists attempt to refute what I've written on CARM. The following article is just such a case. I was contacted by a Mr. Dawson Bethrick who told me he had written a response to my paper "Is Atheism Viable?" After glancing at his piece I noticed it was a bit condescending. I mentioned this to him in a return email and Mr. Bethrick proceeded to challenge me on proving his condescension. He further stated I "obviously could not refute" what he had to say. Anyway, I have reproduced most of his comments in order to address important information. His original comments are in black, and my comments are in italics. I have left his typo's and grammar errors intact. ______________________ Slick's Fuss: A Review of CARM's "Is Atheism Viable?" by Dawson Bethrick The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, or "CARM.org," has an entire section of their website devoted to responding to atheism. One of the site's articles is a short essay called Is Atheism Viable? by author Matt Slick. This essay gives the author's reasons for why he thinks atheism is wrong and indefensible. As is the case with many attempts to make mysticism seem rational, Slick's faulty conceptions leave a lot to be desired. Mr. Bethrick implies that mysticism cannot not rational. Mysticism is a belief in realities or existences outside our perceptual and/or one's intellectual apprehension. This would include the idea that God exists. But, is it irrational to believe that there are things in existence beyond our apprehension? Of course not. Furthermore, he has not demonstrated why belief in God is not rational. He just states it is not rational. In so doing he commits the fallacy of begging the question; that is, he assumes the thing true he is trying to prove. He assumes atheism is true and labels theism as irrational mysticism. This is neither a competent nor logical assertion on his part. The title of Slick's essay asks the question "Is Atheism Viable?" What does it mean to be viable? Webster's Dictionary defines 'viable' as "capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately"; "capable of existence and development as an independent unit"; "having a reasonable chance of succeeding." Is atheism any one of these things? Please notice that Mr. Bethrick does not even afford me the respect of calling me Mr. Slick. Instead, it is just "Slick." This is a personal preference, but when I address someone I criticize I try and show him the respect of calling him "Mr." as in Mr. Bethrick. But Mr. Bethrick mentions "Slick" 84 times by itself in his response, not once with Mr. in front of it. Nevertheless, the issue is not whether or not someone can believe in atheism. The issue is whether or not it is a defensible and logical position to hold. Since atheism is essentially a negation or negative condition, it is up to considerable debate whether atheism can be said to be "viable." One does not typically think of a negation as being "capable of working" or of developing "as an independent unit." But the essence of the Slick's question is clear: Is atheism the proper alternative to god-belief? As an atheist myself, I would answer with an emphatic yes to this question. This is, of course, because I think god-belief is irrational. 1 7 0

At least Mr. Bethrick is stating an opinion when he says that he "thinks" belief in God is irrational. If had stated it was irrational without logical support, he would be offering nothing but opinion in the place of fact. This is, to be sure, what many atheists accuse Christians of doing in believing in God.
170

I agree fully with CJ Holmes' arguments as presented in his essay Why God-Belief Is Irrational.

931

Slick states that, "In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism." But what would Slick consider to be "evidence for the validity of atheism"? As he acknowledges in the opening of his essay, he is essentially asking for evidence for the validity of a negation. But a negation is necessarily valid, epistemologically, in the absence of evidence or convincing argument for the positive. To illustrate, consider the example of the Greek god Zeus. Let us call "Zeusism" the belief that Zeus exists and that he is the supreme being. Let the term "aZeusism" mean the absence of such a belief. Clearly, the term "aZeusism" is a negation, just as the term 'atheism' is: it is the absence of a particular kind of belief. Does Slick hold to Zeusism, or to aZeusism? I would wager that he is an aZeusist, i.e., one who has no Zeus-belief. But what would one consider to be evidence for the validity of aZeusism? If Slick is an aZeusist, he would have to present such evidence if he wants to be consistent with his expectation that atheists should present "evidence for the validity of atheism." I don't suppose we should hold our breath. Mr. Bethrick's defense here is basically worthless. He states that the "absence of evidence or convincing argument for the positive" is what makes atheism viable. But this is nothing more than a statement centered around subjectivity; namely, his subjective atheistic presupposition. Mr. Bethrick's atheistic presupposition does not allow him to view theistic arguments with any serious acumen because he has already stated he believes that theism is irrational. Therefore, by default, any argument proposed for the existence of God must be, according to his presupposition, irrational and invalid from the beginning. Mr. Bethrick has effectively cut off any true and convincing dialogue on the existence of God and forced all logic and evidence to fit into his subjective mental box or else it is irrational. This is not the method of serious intellectual inquiry. For more information on this, please read I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God. The expectation that non-believers present "evidence for the validity of atheism" is symptomatic of the intention to evade the onus of proving one's existentially positive claims. If Slick claims that a god exists and he expects others to accept this claim as truth, then he would have to support this claim. Clearly the default is not belief, but non-belief. Pining as Slick does that he doesn't "hear any evidence for the validity of atheism" simply misses the point. Mr. Bethrick misses the point. Elsewhere on CARM I present evidences for God's existence. Some of it is on the atheism section which, if he had read more thoroughly, would negate his statement here about proving God's existence. But, I never maintain that I can prove God exists. Instead, I have offered various evidences for God's existence. But since Mr. Bethrick's presupposition is that God does not exist, any evidence I offer will be, by default, insufficient and my argumentation must also be suspect and irrational. Mr. Bethrick again assumes too much. He says, "Clearly the default is not belief, but non-belief." This is again nothing more than guesswork. What "default" is he speaking about? If he means that babies are born without belief in God, that is nothing more than a guess. How does he know what is or is not in the mind of a baby? If we define belief as a cognitive assent, then babies don't believe in God since they do not (we assume) cognitively assent that God exists. But if we define belief as the presupposition that God exists due to some innate quality in a person, then the baby does believe in God. It depends on definition and since Mr. Bethrick has not been specific here, we cannot be sure what he means. Also, we cannot know the mind of infants, so we cannot authoritatively state which is the case. Finally, I am not "pining." His use of the word means that I am nostalgic, or have a lingering desire. But, desire for what? God? I do not "pine" for God's existence. There is no nostalgia involved in this. I simply believe that God exists and that the Christian revelation of God is the only correct one. I would prefer that Mr. Bethrick stick to the issues instead of trying to play the mind-reader and disclose to the world what he thinks are my motives and emotions concerning God. To further commit such errors of argumentation is a demonstration of a clouded judgment on his behalf. However, Slick does give some indication of what he would consider to be "evidence for the validity of atheism" when he states, "There are no 'proofs' that God does not exist." Of course, this is the expectation that one prove a negative, an onus which non-believers do not bear. To illustrate, how does Slick prove his claim that "There are no 'proofs' that God does not exist"? This is a negative claim, but where's the proof? Does Slick special plead his case, assuming that he has no onus to prove

932

that "There are no 'proofs' that God does not exist" while those who do not believe the claim that there is a god must "prove" that god does not exist? How does Slick know that "There are no 'proofs' that God does not exist," and how does he show this claim to be true? As I said earlier, my evidence for God is elsewhere on CARM and a section is devoted to it on the atheism section -- which Mr. Bethrick, apparently, has not chosen to examine or mention. Here is the paragraph that Mr. Bethrick is referring to from my paper: "In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist. Of course, that isnt to say that atheists havent attempted to offer some. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? Besides, if there were a proof of Gods non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we dont hear of any such c ommonly held proof supporting atheism or denying Gods existence. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheisms truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith." I make one clarifying comment here. To say "there are no proofs of God's existence" is not completely logical since I cannot know all proofs that might exist. I could really only state that so far I have not seen any sufficient proof for God's non-existence. But, in the paragraph above, the context is dealing with the conversations I've had with atheists where I "don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism." It is that context that I have said there are no proofs for God's non-existence. Furthermore, how do you prove that in all places and in all times and in all dimensions, God doesn't exist? In order to do that, you'd have to be God to know all things to know there isn't a God, which is not logical. Nevertheless, I have since modified the paragraph in the original paper to make the point more clear. The irony of Slick's predicament, however, does not stop here. For even Slick, after announcing that "attempted proofs [that God does not exist] are invariably insufficient," asks, "how do you prove there is no God in the universe?" (I thought Christians believed that God exists "beyond" the universe) Does Slick think that "a proof of God's non-existence" is necessary for atheism to be the proper response to theism? If so, why does he think this? Apparently, Slick thinks that god-belief indeed, his god-belief - is true until proven false. It seems that he thinks a proof for God's existence is not necessary. One does not need a reason to believe; rather, one needs a reason not to believe. How consistently would Slick apply such a reversal of rational principle? Mr. Bethrick misses the point and offers a distraction instead of addressing the issue. I asked "how do you prove there is no God in the universe?" Instead of addressing that question, he offers a nonsequitor by stating (I thought Christians believed that God exists "beyond" the universe). It seems Mr. Bethrick needs to adjust his thinking since we Christians believe that God is also in the universe as well as outside of it. He is, after all, omnipresent. Mr. Bethrick then goes on to raise issues which are constructed upon his erring premise. He asks several questions about what I might be thinking and then tries to address the straw man answers he's constructed.. Again, Mr. Bethrick should leave the mind-reading and guess-work out of this discussion, adopt a more logical approach, and stick to the issue at hand. Slick continues: "Besides, if there were a proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it." This would only be true if the atheists in question a) knew about the supposed proof, and, perhaps, b) considered the proof to be consistent with their own worldview outlook. However, as indicated above, a proof of the non-existence of something is certainly not warranted simply because someone makes the claim that the something in question exists. One does not inherit an obligation simply because another presents a claim. It is the atheists who claim atheism is valid. Why is the atheist not able to prove his position or offer evidence for its validity? He can't. That is why Mr. Bethrick is trying to shift the onus of proof onto me by trying to get me to prove God exists. I may not be able to prove God exists, but I do have evidence (as given on CARM). It is up to Mr. Bethrick if he wants to examine it or not. But given his atheistic presupposition, I am sure that all such evidences would be insufficient.

933

The problem for Mr. Bethrick is, as I have stated before, that atheism can only survive in a theistic vacuum. It only exists in the minds of atheists who claim a position that is, as far as I can tell, logically unprovable. I do not see how anyone could prove there is no God in all the universe since we cannot know all things about all places in all times about the universe in order to determine that there is no God. If there is some other way of proof, i.e., logic, then let's see it. But until then, I am "atheistic" about atheistic proofs for God's non-existence and will stick to the evidence supporting the reality of God. Again, Mr. Bethrick is not addressing the real issue. He is attempting to shift the topic to theistic proofs. This is only a demonstration of the validity of my premise that atheism exists in a theistic vacuum which it must construct by presupposing God does not exist and then negating all proposed theistic proofs. But, since there are no known atheistic proofs, atheism is not a viable option. It is only a belief system; that is, a belief system which states there is no God -- or lacks belief in God. Slick himself acknowledges the problematic nature of his expectations when he states, "The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative." If it is the case that it "is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative," then what exactly is Slick's fuss? And, furthermore, if perchance an atheist were to present a proof that god-belief is irrational, would Slick accept it and abandon his god-belief? Again, I am not supposing that we should hold our breath. Reason as such does not seem to be his epistemological absolute. Instead, a commitment to a primitive worldview, complete with invisible magic beings, is what he considers to be non-negotiable. Reason is dispensable when it gets in the way: he has no onus of proving his positive claims, but those who do not accept his claims bear an onus of disproving those claims. Where is this man's confidence? First of all, Mr. Bethrick has admitted his difficult position of substantiating atheism by saying, "Slick himself acknowledges the problematic nature of his expectations when he states, 'The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.'" Exactly correct. Mr. Bethrick agrees with me that it is problematic for atheists to prove their position which only supports my premise in the original paper. Thank you, Mr. Bethrick. Also, it is not me who is making a fuss. It is Mr. Bethrick. My paper was on the viability of atheism. But it seems that Mr. Bethrick is addressing something I haven't' written. Note how he quotes me saying atheism is "very difficult, if not impossible to prove" and yet ignores the implications of that statement by saying I am making a fuss. In other words, he offers no rebuttal. He says I am making a "fuss," something children are known to do, instead of addressing the issue. Furthermore, I suggest that Mr. Bethrick stop holding his breath. If I see a proof that there is no God, I'll become an atheist. After all, proof is proof. It would not be rational for me to believe in God in light of "proof." Furthermore, I would abandon Christianity if it can be reasonably demonstrated that Jesus did not rise from the dead. I say these things because I have long ago come to grips with the acceptance of facts and evidence. I am not a brainwashed, non-thinking believer who holds on to God so desperately that nothing, not even the facts, can shake it. On the contrary. I have no fear of the facts and welcome them. I welcome any atheist proofs and counter evidence. I welcome any proofs that there is no God. I would love to see them -- or it. Mr. Bethrick is the one, in my opinion, who is dispensing with reason. The paper "Is atheism viable" is not about proofs for God's existence. It is about whether or not atheism is logically viable. I suggest that he reread the paper and then address what it actually says instead of what it does not say. Slick concludes his point with the following statement: "Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheisms truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith." I am compelled to ask: how does he show that "there are no proofs for atheism's truth"? Even Slick himself makes the point later in his essay that atheists "cannot say there are no evidences for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world." Where does Slick present an argument which soundly concludes, "therefore, there are no proofs for atheism's truth"? Indeed, he nowhere presents such an argument so far as I can determine. Perhaps he knows of one, but insists on holding back? Just as Mr. Bethrick asserts that I must provide proof for the validity of the position I hold, I ask where is the proof of the validity of the atheistic position that he holds? Is this a double standard?

934

Atheism, as I have said before, lives in a theistic vacuum. It exists only by attempting to disprove theistic evidences and/or offering attempted reasons why no God can exist. But, I have already stated above that the atheist has no proof that God does not exist because it is impossible to prove that in all the universe in all places and in all times God does not exist; at least, I don't see how it is possible. If Mr. Bethrick would like to show me how that is possible, I'm open to that discourse. Nevertheless, since it seems that the atheistic position is not provable, how is atheism intellectually viable based upon logic, proofs, or evidence? I have ask this question and Mr. Bethrick has not answered it. However, Atheism is viable in one sense: it is simply a possibility. But, being a possibility does not mean it is a reality. But Slick's immediate agenda comes quickly to light when he insinuates that "the atheist must hold his position by faith." Apparently, holding a position "by faith" is philosophically suspicious in Slick's view. I would agree. But even before we attempt to examine Slick's dependence on faith, we must ask: does Slick present a sound case to establish the supposition that "the atheist must hold his position by faith"? I thought atheism was a negation, yet here Slick is treating atheism as if it were a positive belief. If atheism is the absence of god-belief, then atheism is properly classed as a negation, not as a positive belief. Atheism "means not believing in God - which leaves wide open what you do believe in."1 7 1 This is a point which Slick and other theists need to integrate into their thinking. I did not say that holding a position by faith was philosophically suspicious. This statement by Mr. Bethrick demonstrates that he is trying to add into what I am saying in order to bolster his position. Since the atheist cannot prove that God does not exist and since at best all he can do is offer negation so theistic proofs, and since he has not negated all theistic proofs, he holds his position that there is no God, at least to some extent, by faith. That is, he believes that the future will not provide proof contrary to what he already believes. This is an act of faith, not fact. And yes, I do treat atheism as a positive believe system. I have stated this already on my web site and in public in debates with atheists. If you read my paper dealing with the atheistic position of lacking belief in God, you can see this. Also, different atheists have different definitions of what atheism is. So far, Mr. Bethrick has not stated which particular position he holds. Atheists consistently and in all practicality assert that God does not exist. If they say that they merely have no intellectual position or commitment concerning belief in God, then I ask why they go through such a long and arduous effort to denounce and disprove theistic proofs as well as refute papers attacking atheism -as he has done here. In other words, he is behaving as though he believes there is no God by trying to refute my paper dealing with the viability of atheism. He is therefore confirming my assertion which he complains about; namely, that atheism is a positive belief. He is behaving consistent with his belief and his behavior is to substantiate atheism. Therefore, it is a positive belief system. Mr. Bethrick has not read my information on this subject which explains why he has not incorporated my comments about this subject into this paper. I suspect that Mr. Bethrick may have only read one paper and then decided to tackle it without reading the rest of what I have a written on atheism. Again, this is not the best way to do things. In contrast to what Slick apparently desires, he does not establish that atheists must assume their positions as a matter of faith. He seems to be assuming that one must either hold a belief by proof, or by faith. While there are good reasons not to accept this dichotomy, 1 7 2 Slick overlooks the fact that atheism is not a belief, but the absence of a belief. Does one need faith not to believe that Zeus

171

Leonard Peikoff, "Religion Versus America," The Objectivist Forum, June 1986, p. 14.

172

In response to Christian apologist John Robbins' essentially identical criticism of the Objectivist axioms (insinuating, as Slick does here) that a thought must be either a product of proof or accepted on faith if it is to be believed as truth, Bryan Register points out the fact that Robbins' criticismassumes that there are only two kinds of claims: those one proves and those which one takes on faith. In fact, as the Objectivist literature makes clear, there is a third type of claim: one which is valid because it formulates a fact that is directly perceived. Such are the most fundamental perceptual judgments and such are the axioms. (Has Objectivism Been Refuted?)Thus Slick's own endorsement of the "proof or faith" dichotomy, like Robbins, is simply a ploy in the attempt to discredit non-believers.

935

exists? It would be preposterous to suggest this, yet this is precisely what Slick is suggesting when he wants to conclude that "the atheist must hold his position by faith," even when Slick himself has recognized that atheism is a negation. I do not agree with his assertion that atheism is simply on "absence of belief." As I have stated in other papers on atheism, when atheists behave in such a manner as to demonstrate their belief that there is no God, then I am forced to conclude that the particular belief system they adhere to is the one that says "I believe there is no God." I would assume that if Mr. Bethrick were asked directly if he believes that a God exists or not, he would conclude that one does not exist. After all, this is how he is behaving in his attempts to verify atheism. Of course, I could be wrong. Mr. Bethrick has apparently missed this point that I have raised before on the web site concerning this issue. It is regrettable that he has not included this information in these comments. Slick states that faith "is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of adhering to atheism," thus making the whole matter sound like it's an issue of likes or dislikes, or whimsical preference. Apparently Slick resents the prospect that non-theists are justified in not accepting his god-belief claims, so he attempts to derogate non-belief as such. This is a sign that such a course is all Slick has: make atheism as such appear to be ridiculous. But to do so, he must characterize it in such a way to make it appear ridiculous. If Slick's god-belief had a genuine rational basis, he would not need to do this. All he would need to do is present his proofs for the existence of his god, and leave it at that. Those who do not accept his proofs certainly do not need Slick's approval not to accept them. For the most part, atheists' preferences are not "whimsical." However, I have yet to meet an atheist who actually likes the idea of the existence of god. My experience with atheists has lead me to conclude that actually dislike theistic proofs. This makes sense since theist proofs would challenge their presuppositions and people don't like their presuppositions challenged. This has been consistent with every atheist that I have encountered. Mr. Bethrick seems no different. Furthermore, Mr. Bethrick again tries to sidestep the real issue about the lack of intellectual viability in atheism as a verifiable position/system by trying to attack the rational basis for belief in God. This is typical of atheists and is a verification of my earlier comment that atheism must exist in a theistic vacuum which atheists must try and maintain. So far in his response, he has offered nothing at all for they validity of atheism. The only thing he has tried to do, is attempt to demonstrate that my thinking is incorrect. Perhaps it is. But in so doing, he has taken his eyes off the subject and tried to misdirect to another topic. Again, where it is his validity for atheism? He has offered none. What we have here, and with so many apologists (particularly on the internet) is a kind of sobbing complaint: "they don't believe my god-belief claims, those horrible atheists!!" To say that this nonacceptance of god-belief claims is itself an expression of faith, is to miss the point and set up a straw man. In addition to these, such subterfuge on Slick's part simply closes him off to an honest examination of reasons why god-belief is irrational (indeed, look what defending god-belief drives Slick to do!). Thus, he vilifies atheism to spite himself. Now we see a caricature introduced by Mr. Bethrick in his condescending rebuttal. This caricature of a sobbing and whining apologist is a misrepresentation of the facts. Mr. Bethrick fails to understand the point that since atheism has no proof that God does not exist, and since it can only exist in an evidential and theistic vacuum, and since it has not refuted all evidences, it must therefore be held, at least to some degree, by faith. This is perfectly logical. Of course, Mr. Bethrick does not afford the same consideration to Christians as he does to himself or up other atheists. If a Christian were to present evidences i.e., the biblical accounts of Christ and his resurrection, etc., these cannot be accepted due to the atheists non-God presupposition and therefore the atheist judges the Christian as irrational -- even though the Christian can offer evidence. But the atheist, at least Mr. Bethrick, who has no evidence or logical proofs for his position of atheism, is considered rational. Again, I cannot help but notice that he does not provide any evidence for the truth of atheism. All he is doing is trying to unravel a paper written exposing the fact that atheism has no proof. Slick then makes the charge that "atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position." Exactly who is

936

"on the attack"? Atheists in western society are not a new thing per se, but their freedom of expression is relatively new, thanks to secular rights-affirming philosophy and documents like the US Constitution. Slick ignores the fact that, historically, atheists in western cultures have for the most part found themselves in a predominantly theistic society where god-belief is the norm and atheism has been vilified and discouraged, even at the level of the state, sometimes to the point of intolerable persecution. If anyone has been "on the attack," history shows that it has not been the atheist, but those theists who believe they are charged with the mission of converting the world. To say that "atheists must go on the attack" is symptomatic of Slick's myopia on this larger context of the matter. Apparently he considers it to be an affront to him personally when people do not accept his god-belief claims. Mr. Bethrick again commits the logical fallacy of the red herring. In other words, instead of addressing the issue at hand he introduces something off-topic. He quotes where I said that atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidence presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position. This is true as is demonstrated by Mr. Bethrick himself. But, instead of addressing the issue of the atheists attack, he then mentions the US Constitution, history, persecution and other emotionally laden concepts instead of dealing with the issue. He concludes this paragraph with yet another emotionally heavy, ad hominim sentence when he says "apparently he considers it to be an affront to him personally when people do not accept his god-belief claims." The truth is that contrary to Mr. Bethrick's faulty guesswork. I do not consider it a personal affront when someone does not believe in God. I have friends who are atheists and we get along fine. I am not offended by their atheism and I do not hound them about their position. The problem with Mr. Bethrick is his lack of concentration on the issues and his introduction of emotional issues not related to the subject. Personally, and this is my opinion, I have seen this with atheists before and I believe that it is because their position is weak and they cannot substantiate it with logic and evidence. The only thing they have left to do is exactly what I have said before and that is to attack theistic proofs and evidences. In this case Mr. Bethrick is attacking my paper which attacks atheism. This is nothing new. And, precisely what does Slick take to be "evidences presented for God's existence"? Are those "evidences" the same as those which theists defending a different god present in defense of their godbeliefs? And are atheists necessarily acting "on faith" if they find the "evidences" proposed to support the claim that a god exists insufficient to the task? If one were to claim that the moon is made of green cheese and presented "evidences" for this claim, would Slick be acting "on faith" if he found those "evidences" insufficient to establish this claim and thus did not accept it as truth? What exactly does Slick consider 'faith' to mean? And does he not recognize that the Bible, which nowhere advocates rationality, claims all its "truths" as a matter of faith?1 7 3 If Mr. Bethrick had simply bothered read a little more of my web site in the atheism section under proofs for God's existence, he would have his question answered. Then, being more educated on the topic at hand, he could have addressed that issue instead of asking questions which are already answered in the atheism section on CARM. In addition Mr. Bethrick is slowly sliding into more and more irrationality in his arguments. The moon-made-of-green-cheese comment does not logically follow. Furthermore, to say that the Bible nowhere advocates rationality is a statement of his ignorance. The Bible says in Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, Says the Lord..." reason deals with logic. God wants us to be logical. Mr. Bethrick is proven wrong on this point and has demonstrated that he does not know the Bible very well - yet he condemns it.
173

CJ Holmes has prepared two lengthy discussions about the nature of 'faith' as it is both defined and used in the New Testament. In Some Comments About 'Faith' Part I, he discusses the various ways one can interpret Hebrews 11:1, which is supposed to serve as a definition of 'faith'. In Some Comments About 'Faith' Part II, he responds to a Christian apologist who attempted to defend the idea that faith is compatible with reason, and in so doing he points out the exceedingly problematic fact that the definition for 'faith' provided in Hebrews 11:1 is insufficient given the many examples of faith in the gospels which portray faith as a means of conforming nature to one's will. It is doubtful that someone who is so confessionally motivated as Matt Slick of CARM.org would accept any of these points, even though they must be contended with if one wants to defend the idea that biblical faith is in any way rational.

937

Slick writes, "If they [i.e., atheists] can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable." Why would one have to "create an evidential vacuum" in order to show why theism is irrational? One merely needs to show why the notion of a universe-creating, reality-ruling god is a terminally invalid idea to show that belief in such a being is wholly contrary to reason. Theistic arguments quite literally invalidate themselves before they even attempt to get off the ground. The logic al reason why someone would need to create an "evidential vacuum" in order to show why theism is irrational is because if there is evidence that there is a god, that would disprove atheism. Therefore, atheists don't want theistic evidence to stand lest their position fail and atheism is be proven wrong. This is a simple matter of logic and Mr. Bethrick, apparently, missed it. Also note that Mr. Bethrick, yet again, offers an unsubstantiated claim. He says, "Theistic arguments quite literally invalidate themselves before they even attempt to get off the ground." I have seen no demonstration of this by Mr. Bethrick. He simply makes the assertion without logic or evidence and then goes on as though his self-assumed point is true. This is not how debate nor logic works. Slick thinks that there is "only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility." By this, he is referring to the supposition that "it is possible that there is no God." This, however, Slick holds, is not sufficient to disprove theistic claims since "stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the position." Slick gives an example to demonstrate his point. He reasons: If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a logical option is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability. They must come up with more than "It is possible," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists. Ironically, the very point which Slick is making here is one which works against his own commitment to theism in two fundamental ways. For one, this same objection can serve adequately to parody Slick's god-belief in order to show just how unstable it is. For, simply by saying that it is possible that there is a god which created the universe, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is suggested as a possibility? Slick should agree with himself here: "Not at all." And he provides the reason why: "simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more that it being a logical option is not sufficient grounds for [theists] to claim viability." Indeed, it's even worse if the proposed possibility in question does not have the advantage of being "a logical option," but turns out to be an idea completely antithetical to the very foundations of logic. What Mr. Bethrick fails to understand is that we Christians, myself in particular, do not simply offer an evidential-less and non-rational reason for God's existence. I have never stated that believing in God is sufficient simply because believing in God is sufficient. I have no problem with producing logical proofs for God's existence nor do I have any problem defending the reliability of the biblical accounts of God's miraculous works in the person of Jesus Christ. Simply go to the atheism section for proofs and the Bible section on CARM for biblical evidences. So Mr. Bethrick fails to take this into account -again. And notice something else: Slick is obviously assuming the primacy of existence principle in his reasoning here: he is assuming that reality does not conform to one's desires or hypotheses. And he's right - reality does not conform to consciousness. However, it is this very principle, ironically, which tells us why god-belief is irrational, since it is this principle which god-belief essentially contradicts.1 7 4 Rather than bolstering his overall case, he simply points to the very principle which one must both assume and deny whenever he makes the claim that a god exists, since the notion of a god is squarely
174 For details on why this is the case, see Anton Thorn's How the Theist Checkmates Himself and How the Claim "God Exists" Contradicts Itself.

938

planted on the contradiction of the primacy of existence principle, which is the primacy of consciousness. Back the truck up. I have made no assumption that reality does or does not not conform to my desires or hypotheses. His insertion of an irrelevant and unsubstantiated comment further invalidates the ability of Mr. Bethrick to validate his position of atheism. Seriously, what relevance is this to the issue of the viability of atheism? It would be far better for him to actually tackle the issue at hand instead of inserting into the argument things which I have not stated nor assumed. Is he at a loss for logical response and so needs to introduce irrelevant material? Moreover, Slick's entire analogy is wholly misapplied in the context of the debate on the existence of a god. He wants to characterize "the atheistic position" with one asserting the existence of an ice cream factory on Jupiter. However, it's more likely to be the other way around: the theist is the proper analogue of the hypothetical somebody claiming the possibility that an ice cream factory exists on Jupiter, and the atheist is the who points out that merely asserting the existence of a god is not sufficient to show that assertion to be true. The theist, like the one making a claim about an ice cream factory on Jupiter, is making an existentially positive claim, for he is the one saying that somewhere a particular something exists. The atheist is making no such claim; he simply does not accept the existentially positive claim which the theist asserts. Ironically, Slick not only inadvertently makes the atheist's case all the more simple to grasp, he also weaves the rope to hang himself in the process. The truth is that it is Mr. Bethrick's missed application of the information that is demonstrated here in his paper. Atheism is a claim. Atheism is not a "non position." A non position has no existence. The atheist has a position called atheism which he can define and try to defend. How do you defend a non position? Mr. Bethrick is doing nothing more than dodging the real issue and attempting to introduce concepts not dealt with nor addressed in the original paper. Additionally, he has repeatedly based comments upon what he thinks I believe or know or assume. At least, he has admitted some subjectivity in a few of his comments in this regard. But it is unfortunate that he cannot retain such subjectivity in regards to his unprovable atheistic position. But the point which Slick should be considering is not whether something is possible simply at the suggesting thereof, but whether or not he can prove the negative. Does Slick believe that "it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter"? If he does, how would he substantiate this belief? If he doesn't believe this supposed possibility, how does he rule it out? If Slick accepts the proposed possibility that a god exists, why wouldn't he accept the proposed possibility that an ice cream factory exists on Jupiter? He does not argue in an attempt to prove that there is no such ice cream factory on Jupiter; rather, his whole concern is to point to reasons why one can justifiably dismiss such claims. I am actually amused (no disrespect meant) at the attempts to try and turned the ice cream factory on Jupiter illustration around against me. Mr. Bethrick needs to read the context again. Atheism, like an ice cream factory on Jupiter, is an intellectually possible position if we were to assert that basically anything is possible. But being possible does not mean that it is probable, let alone an actuality. That is the point of the ice cream factory on Jupiter. Atheism has no proof for its position. It has no evidence to substantiate itself. At best all it has is attempts to invalidate theistic proofs and evidences. That is it. That is all there is for atheism. Aside from the mere intellectual "possibility" that there might be no god and existence, atheism doesn't have much going for it any more than there is the intellectual "possibility" of an ice cream factory on Jupiter. And, as I said before, trying to claim "non belief" or "lack of belief" concerning God has its problems as well. For this, see my paper responding to the atheist position of "I lack belief in God." Slick points out that "there is another problem for atheists." That problem, he holds, consists of the following: "Refuting evidences for Gods existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage." How are the two situations which Slick has in mind here at all analogous? In the case of a disputed marriage, what is being debated is a contract between two people. This dispute can be settled simply by asking the couple involved. But is there any dispute that either party of the marriage in question exist?

939

But even more importantly, Slick simply points to the evasive nature of his god-belief commitment. Where earlier he expected proofs of god's non-existence from atheists, he now admits that he would not allow himself to accept any such proofs as conclusive. In other words, Slick is simply announcing that he intends to believe that there is a god regardless of the rational merits (supposing there are any) of his particular god-belief. As Richard Robinson points out, the essence of faith is "the determination to believe that there is a god no matter what the evidence may be."1 7 5 In other words, no matter what criticisms are brought forward against his god-belief, and no matter how irrational his god-belief turns out to be, Slick is determined to believe anyway. So the ultimate question amounts to: what relevance does argument have to Slick's god-belief in the first place? It is Mr. Bethrick who is being evasive about his atheist belief commitment. He has not demonstrated the intellectual viability of atheism at all -- and that is what the paper was about. Mr. Bethrick has not invalidated the original paper nor validated atheism. Furthermore, he makes even more inaccurate statements when he says "Slick is simply announcing that he intends to believe that there is a god regardless of the rational merits (supposing there are any) of his particular god belief." What is that? I did not announce anywhere in the original paper that I intended to believe in God regardless of rational merits. Again, this is another fabrication on the part of Mr. Bethrick in his attempts to weaken the paper. It is a faulty method of defense and a faulty method of attack. But the fact that he has introduced innuendo without substantiation only weakens his arguments. He quotes a Mr. Robinson who says that faith is "the determination to believe that there is a god no matter what the evidence may be." I do not know who Mr. Robinson is, but I do not agree with what his definition of faith is and I know no Christian who would adopt such a fallacious definition. I do not believe contrary to evidence nor rationality. But, this is not something that Mr. Bethrick seems to care to admit. Instead, Mr. Bethrick has only quoted a definition of faith that agrees with his premises. Since the definition is faulty it is a straw man argument that he is trying to establish. Mr. Bethrick then goes on to say then I am determined to believe no matter what the criticisms and evidences are. Since I have already stated contrary to that and since I have already commented upon the lack of, shall we say, mind reading ability on the part of Mr. Bethrick, I will leave it to the reader to discern whether or not he is being rational in his argumentation or if he is merely inserting his own prejudices and emotions into the subject in an attempt to dismantle my paper. Slick reasons, "Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible." But where does Slick prove that "atheism cannot be proven"? How does Slick establish this claim? All he does is assert it in one form or another. But assertion does not equal proof. Besides, Slick is again missing the point by treating atheism as if it were a positive claim which needs to be proven. As has already been shown, atheism is the absence of a belief, and it is fully justified if the context of one's knowledge does not support the claim that there is a god. Again, I have offered the proof that atheism cannot be proven by stating that in order to prove there is no god one must know all things in all places in all times to be able to determine that there is no god anywhere. I cannot see how offering an intellectual proof that God does not exist is possible. If Mr. Bethrick would care to offer some intellectual proof that God does not exist, I would be more than happy to examine it. But since neither he nor any other atheists have provided such proof, as far as I have seen, and since he cannot know all things in all places in the universe, I assume that no proof for God's non existence exists. Perhaps I have assumed too much, but since the subject is atheism and its viability, and since Mr. Bethrick has chosen to defend its viability by attacking the paper, I await his proof that there is no god. I have tackled the "absence of belief" issue on CARM already under the paper titled "I lack belief in God" and attempted to demonstrate in the paper that any atheist who openly states that he lacks belief in God and in so doing negates proofs and/or evidences for God's existence is in reality believing

175 Religion and Reason," An Atheist's Values, pp. 113-123, quoted in Holmes, Some Comments About Faith Part I.

940

that there is no God since his actions reflect his belief system. If someone has a lack of belief in something, then his actions would be consistent with that. I lack belief in the existence of screaming blue ants from Venus. And because I lack belief in them, I do not try and defend the position that I lack belief in them nor do I go around announcing to people that I lack belief in screaming blue ants from Venus. Unlike Mr. Bethrick, I am not try to prove or substantiate a negative position or "non position" about something. In other words, his actions speak louder than his words as he claims that he lacks belief in God yet behaves as though he believes there is no god. Slick then admits that "atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God so far presented." But if that's the case, then what precisely is Slick's fuss? If a particular non-believer holds that the "evidences for God" are not convincing, does Slick think that the non-believer should believe anyway? If a person is honest to himself and finds, after reviewing arguments and "evidences" proposed on behalf of proving one's god-belief, that those arguments and "evidences" are insufficient to convince him, he will acknowledge that believing the claim that there is a god would be irrational. I have no fuss. Mr. Beth Frank does not challenged my comment the atheists can only say there are no convincing evidences for God. That is all atheists can really say in spite of what the evidence of the logic might be. Remember, the atheists presupposition will not allow him or her to seriously entertain the possibility of does existence lest he undermine his own belief system; namely, that there is no god. Again, let me say that I am far from convinced that the "lack of belief "position of atheists is anything more than an attempt to get around the weakness of their position. Logically, if they said there was no god, and they would be at a great loss to prove their position. If they believe that there is no god, this opens them up to further cross-examination. So, atheists tend to say "I lack belief" as if to say that they have no position at all about God. But, as I have stated elsewhere on Carm, in the I lack belief paper, if the atheist lacks belief and why is he so adamant about attacking theistic proofs? His behavior is that he believes there is no god and works to substantiate the belief. When Slick points out that atheists "cannot say there are no evidences for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world" [sic], he overlooks the fact that an atheist can justifiably say that he does not know of any legitimate evidences for god. And, given that the same "evidences" are offered in support of claims that different gods exists, it is hard to see how any "evidences" can be considered legitimate. Again, knowledge and belief are hierarchic ally and contextually dependent upon prior knowledge and beliefs, reducing ultimately to one's starting points (assuming one is systematic about the content of his mind). If one is not aware of any "evidences for God," he is certainly justified in not accepting the claim that there is a god. If one has been presented with "evidences for God" and, after examining those evidences, concludes that they are insufficient, he is justified in not accepting the claim that there is a god. Furthermore, if one can present good reasons for why belief in a god is irrational, then by all means, he is fully justified in rejecting the claim that a god exists. Slick does not seem to be aware of these points. Again Mr. Bethrick makes another mistake. I stated in the paper "Is atheism viable?", "At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God so far presented." This means, logically, that the atheist does not yet know of any legitimate evidence for God. That is why I said "so far presented." I am fully a ware of the points that Mr. Bethrick has raised in the preceding paragraph and I have attempted to deal with them in my writing against atheism in other papers by stating that there is a degree of agnosticism among atheists. What I mean that is that since the atheist cannot know all evidences, or anti-god evidences, or anti-god proofs, etc., it is logically necessary that there may indeed be such evidence and/or proofs out there not yet known. Since he cannot know that there is no god, he can only believe, based upon a "lack of evidences" that there is no god. This is not proof. This is a measure of faith in knowing you don't know enough; hence, the agnosticism, or the not knowing for sure. My position is that the atheist makes a choice to believe that there is no god and/or makes a choice to hold the position of "lack of belief." I further maintain that logic requires agnosticism rather than atheism.

941

Slick then wants to conclude that "since there could be evidences presented in the future, the atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible." That would be the case if the what is claimed were shown to be a legitimate possibility. However, if one recognizes that god-belief is inherently contradictory to reality and thus irrational, then it would be wrong to think that "there could be evidences presented in the future" for such belief. Thus I cannot accept Slick's contention that an atheist is really only an agnostic "since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's existence." Clearly this is not the case for those who embrace reason consistently. One need not "prove that there is no god" nor does he have to worry about hypothetical "evidences presented in the future." If he does not believe, he is an atheist. Mr. Bethrick continues to commit logic fallacies. Here he begs the question. He says "if one recognizes that god belief is inherently contradictory to reality and thus irrational" as though this is the truth. He has not established its defensibility nor rationality. He simply stated an "if then" premise that is unsubstantiated in order to sound more rational. But it is not logically consistent to base the conclusion upon a premise that is unsubstantiated, which is what he has done here and other places. Slick closes his little piece with the following statement: This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning Gods existence which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves. While it is the case that "Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence," it is not the case that these claims pose a challenge to atheists. Christianity is long on claims, but short on proofs, and even shorter on rationality. Slick seems to think that the recognition of these facts constitutes a "vacuum" and reflects a desire to see oneself as a god. However, it is hard to rule out, judging by Slick's tone of resentment here, that his comments are not motivated by disingenuous intentions. For not believing in the Christian god does not mean that one necessarily considers himself to be the Christian god, any more than not believing that Zeus exists means that one necessarily considers himself to be Zeus. If Slick could achieve any consistency in applying the principles which he himself wants to throw around in his rant against atheism, he might begin to see some of the holes in his own faith commitments. If the claims of Christianity posed no challenge to atheism, then why are atheists constantly attacking the Bible and Christian theistic proofs? Take this very paper that I am answering. Mr. Bethrick is going to great lengths to "refute" a challenge that he says is no challenge. If it were no challenge, then why is he tackling it? Again, how does Mr. Bethrick justify his mind-reading abilities by stating my "tone" and my "resentment" and my "disingenuous intentions." I say mind-reading because what else could it be? My emotions are not stated in the paper. He must either guess or manufacture information to bolster his position. Either way, he is failing to stick to the issue at hand as well as failing to present a logical defense of the viability of atheism. Perhaps it is Mr. Bethrick who needs to examine what true rationality is. I do not know what he thinks, since I cannot claim the ability to read minds. However by his claiming that belief in God is irrational, he must by necessity also condemn to the ranks of irrationality the likes of Einstein, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Pascal, etc. who all believed in God. Who is Mr. Bethrick to state what is and is not rational in light of the intellectual giants of history who have believed contrary to what he claims is true rationality not to mention the fact that he has been irrational in his paper by playing the mindreader? In conclusion, the existence of God is not established nor verified by whether or not intellectual giants of history have or have not believed in God. To make the assertion is a logical fallacy. I simply stated that those who are rational and brilliant have indeed believed in God. I am far from brilliant, but I do not consider myself to be irrational. My belief in God is based both on experience, logic, and

942

evidence. My presupposition allows me to examine evidence even against God's existence. As I said earlier, if it can be reasonably demonstrated that Jesus did not rise from the dead I would give up Christianity. This is not irrational faith. On the contrary, it is faith based upon evidence and rationality as well as biblical revelation. And finally, Mr. Bethrick has not supported atheism in any way.

943

"I lack belief in a god"

The statement I lack belief in a god is becoming a common position of atheists. In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way they lack belief in invisible, pink unicorns. In other words, they have no position, take no intellectual action, have no belief or unbelief on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced to an idea you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But, you cannot return to a lack of belief position if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning it. Though I admit that an atheist can claim he lacks belief even after being exposed to an idea and contemplating its rationality, I still assert that a position of some sort is required. Lets pick a baby that has no awareness of the concept of invisible, pink unicorns. Later in life, when the baby is mature and is introduced to the concept, he either accepts the existence of invisible pink unicorns, rejects them as a ridiculous notion, chuckles about it and dismisses it, becomes unsure about them, holds off judgment until later, etc. Either way, he develops a position on the concept of invisible pink unicorns. He has to do something with the concept once hes been exposed to it. He doesnt continue in a lack-of-belief or a lack-of-awareness state of mind because the fact is, some sort of intellectual action occurs in regard to it. He cannot become unaffected by the concept. He has been made aware of it and he, by default, does something with it. Nevertheless, some might say that to hold off judgment until later is to be "atheistic" concerning pink unicorns and therefore support the atheist position of "lack of belief." But, as I said earlier, after being exposed to a concept a decision is made about that concept even if it is to withhold judgment. In other words, an assessment has been made and a position taken. This is not the same as going back to a state of unawareness. To suspend belief on a subject is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired. This is agnosticism, not atheism. It is an admission that not all information is acquired thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered. This is something atheists do not do by definition, but agnostics do. Agnosticism is the position, in part, that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired. If I said that there was an ice cream factory on Jupiter, what would you think? Would you entertain the idea as a serious possibility? Would you quickly dismiss it as an outlandish absurdity? Would you request evidence for it? Or, did you suddenly have a desire to go to Jupiter for some Jupiterian Swirl? Of course, an ice-cream factory on Jupiter is ridiculous and we automatically know this so we naturally make a judgment on it. Thus, we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once weve been introduced to it. We assign it to the that is ridiculous category. This is why the lack of belief defense of atheists is not logical. It ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection. It is our nature and it is the nature of the human mind. Is my cat an atheist? Animals lack belief in God. Are they atheistic? Should we include atheists and infants and plants and rocks and water and air in the category of atheism since they too lack belief in God? Of course not. It would be ridiculous to include animals in the category of atheists. I had a cat named Punchface. (Its a long story.) Punchface was a beautify cat with long white hair and powder blue eyes. He was very smart, even brilliant. He could play tag, fetch, play hide and seek, catch mice with Olympian skill, and enjoy an evening of watching Star Trek with me. I would defend completely the fact that he had quite a personality. As brilliant as my cat was, he lacked belief in God. I could have sat him down, looked him in the eye and said, Punch, there is something I have to talk to you about. Its God. You see, God is the being that created the universe and everything in it, including you and me. Of course, after I would say this, Punch would probably be chasing a piece of air-born lint. He had no concept whatsoever of God. Does that mean my dear cat Punchface was an atheist? Of course not. He was only a cat , even if he is a brilliant one.

944

Nevertheless, the atheist will assert that the position of "lack of belief" relates only to sentient beings. This would be a necessary position given that cats cannot be atheistic; that is, they can't make a choice to accept or deny God's existence. Therefore, the atheist should amend his statement and say something like "As a person, I lack belief," or "I have decided to lack belief in God," or "Lacking belief in God is a position for sentient beings only." This would negate my cat as being included since to describe an atheistic position as simply "lacking belief" is too broad. So what is this position of lack of belief really about? In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see, if they say they have no position, by saying they lack belief, then their position is not open to attack and examination and they can quietly remain atheists. The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and are exposing them. Without a doubt, there are far more people in the world who believe in God (or a god) than dont and more and more Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position. The majority belief doesn't make it right, but the increase of examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to defend their position. This also explains why atheists seem to becoming more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms. There is an intellectual battle being waged and both defensive and offensive measures are being taken on both sides. In the end, the truth will be known.

945

Response to criticism of "I lack belief in God "

Following is my response to the first portion of an atheist's critique of two of my papers dealing with atheism. His original criticism was one page, but I have broken it up into two pages relating to each paper he addressed. The article was posted on infidelguy.com, an atheistic website, and that is the only reason I am responding to the paper which, in my opinion, does not present its case very well. Nevertheless, I have copied the entire article with the author's permission and reproduced the the two halves, one here, here so that it can be more easily address. His original comments are in black, and my comments are in italics. I have left his typo's and grammar errors intact. _________________ Donny Kay Lonovy's Refutations of Matt Slick's Articles on Atheism

This essay is a refutation of Matt Slick of CARM.org's "I lack belief in God" and "Is atheism viable?" articles. As an atheist, I find his position to be idiotic and even downright offending. I'm going to show you exactly why he is an idiot when it comes to atheism, point by point. Read his papers along with mine to understand what I'm saying, as the paragraphs skip from point to point and wouldn't seem as coherent otherwise. Unfortunately, this individual begins his paper with an ad hominem attack. Name-calling is generally considered a poor way to make a point. He should address the issues and not insult the person. "I lack belief in God" This is my refutation of Matt's "I lack belief in God"article. It is fallacious and misinformative to the core. Let us first get our definition of "atheism" straight. Atheism is a lack of belief in any deity, which means an atheist lacks belief in God. Matt got this point right, but he doesn't seem to understand that lacking belief is not holding off on having a position. Once you are exposed to the concept, you do have to make a choice, which he also got right. To say that you lack belief in God is to say that you do not believe He exists. It's the same thing. You have taken the position that you believe God does not exist if you choose not to believe he exists. It's that simple. You have a position if you are an atheist after being exposed to theism. Matt set up a straw man and tore it down by confusing the concept. You can disregard all of the other points he makes in that section because it was based on that straw man. Quite honestly, I am not sure what his point was. He said I got several points correct. But, to say, "lacking belief is not holding off on having a position" is a confusing statement. "Not holding off" is essentially a double negative. Is he saying he then does have a position because of his lack of belief? Or is he saying he does not have a position? He says I set up a straw man but I cannot determine what that alleged straw man really is. "Is my cat an atheist?" Your cat is an atheist by definition. All things which cannot understand the concept of a deity are atheists. The false premise here is that they have never been mentally exposed to the concept of theism. They can't understand it. They have made no choice to remain atheists. The difference is that mentally mature humans who are exposed to theism are capable of making the choice to remain an atheist. A cat can't make this choice...as far as we know. Matt Slick tried to use this, another straw man, to attack atheists. He is wrong again.

946

To say that "All things which cannot understand the concept of a deity are atheists" is not logically necessary. It all depends on which definition of atheist you want to go by and what level of understanding is to be had regarding deity. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, Atheism is "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god." There can be a wide range of meaning held by this definition. As far as deity goes, there are a host of different definitions in the world on what constitutes deity. Therefore, Mr. Lonovy cannot rightfully make his claim since he has not adequately defined nor established his position. If a cat can't make the choice to accept God or not, then perhaps this atheist might want to refine his definition of atheism since, rocks cannot understand the concept of a god either. Are they atheistic as well? Are we to include water, rainbows, and clouds as members of the atheist community as well? Obviously this "lack of belief" position is inadequate to sufficiently define atheism. "So what is this 'lack of belief' really about?" Lacking belief is not some scapegoat technique to get out of defending the atheistic position. It's what an atheist believes by definition. Atheists do have a position and defend it very well. My assertion about "lack of belief" is found in my original paper. I will reproduce the first paragraph from my paper "I lack belief in God". The statement I lack belief in a god is becoming a common position of atheists. In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way they lack belief in invisible, pink unicorns. In other words, they have no position, take no intellectual action, have no belief or unbelief on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced to an idea you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But, you cannot return to a lack of belief position if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning it. Though I admit that an atheist can claim he lacks belief even after being exposed to an idea and contemplating its rationality, I still assert that a position of some sort is required. [emphasis added to my quote] Whether or not atheists defend their "lack of belief" very well or not is a debatable issue. But, this really shouldn't be a battle of opinions. Rather, we should be using logic and evidence to persuade. Matt Slick is trying to trick the readers of his article into believing that atheists really are liars who have no true basis for what they believe. He claims that Christians who see it's problems are attacking it. From what I've seen, atheism is coming under attack by Christians who don't understand it or science. They aren't recognizing it's problems. They're making false claims about it, then attacking their own misconceptions. Yet they still continue to do this when they've been proven wrong. Now, tell me why I believe most Christian debaters are liars. There are more people who believe in God in this world than there are atheists. Sadly, this is true. Does that make them right? No. Using the number of people who believe in God to your advantage is pathetic. If you need to use that, then you really are out of good arguments. Atheists do defend atheism by attacking Christianity and any other theistic religion that trys to convert them. Does this mean that they can't defend their own position? No. Atheists use science and logic to prove their point. There is no place left for God to have done anything in the universe that wouldn't have occured anyways, except for at the Big Bang, which we don't fully understand yet. There's some science for you. God can't be all of the "omnis" at one time, as they contradict each other. Actually, being omnipotent is a logical fallacy all by itself. There's a logical point. Matt Slick is, once again, wrong. First of all, Mr. Lonovy has erringly stated that I am trying to trick people. He is either trying to read my mind or extrapolate my alleged deceptive intent. Of course, I am not trying to trick anyone nor am I trying to convince anyone that atheists are liars. I do, however, maintain that atheism is, to a large extent, a matter of faith and not evidence with atheists -- but that is another subject. Mr. Lonovy states that I am making false claims about atheism, but he does not mention what they are.

947

Mr. Lonovy continues and makes several unsubstantiated claims. For example, he says, "Atheists use science and logic to prove their point. There is no place left for God to have done anything in the universe that wouldn't have occurred anyways..." Apparently, Mr. Lonovy is unaware of the logical flaw of "begging the question." That is, he assumes the thing to be true that he is trying to prove. He assumes there is no God and then says that all things that exist in the universe could have occurred without God. He assumes that naturalism is true yet provides no evidence for it nor does he give a logical reason why there is no God. He just makes assertions and continues on them. I find this part of his paper to be very offensive. I hope any informed atheist would too. I've shown that he is wrong, and I hope that anyone who reads this will urge him to remove his fallacious article. Since Mr. Lonovy has not established logically anything wrong with what I have said and since he has only given unsubstantiated opinions, I will assume that he simply has a chip on his shoulder and is venting his frustration and that is why he is offended.

948

Another response to criticism of I lack belief in a god."

Following is another response to my paper dealing with "I lack belief in God." I have reproduced his paper here and responded to it. His original comments are in black, and my comments are in italics. ---------------Matt's first point is that once we are exposed to a claim it is more or less impossible to stay completely neutral to it, and that therefore the claim by atheists that they merely lack belief isn't credible. This is fine as far as it goes, but I believe it is an oversimplification of the true atheist position which includes a default belief that X is not true, where X is unparsimonious. That is, the atheist rejects claims about God in much the same way that we reject claims about an ice cream factory on Jupiter, as being extraordinary claims that are not supported by evidence. The atheist has admitted that he cannot remain neutral on a position once he has been exposed to it. But, how is it an oversimplification? It is either true or it is not (Is that too, an oversimplification?). Since there are many who claim to be "true atheists" yet contradict each other on exactly what atheism is, and since he has not defined what true atheism is, it isn't possible to fully delve into his position. Nevertheless, basing atheism on a lack of evidence for God's existence has been dealt with in my paper "I don't' see any convincing evidence for the existence of God." I can truthfully say that I believe God does not exist, but it is more accurate for me to say I have nowhere near sufficient positive reason to believe in God, and that, lacking belief in God, I hold to the default position that God doesn't exist. If he believes that God does not exist, then his atheism is a belief system since he is holding a belief that classifies him in a position. He said he holds to the default position that God doesn't exist. I'm not sure if he means that he holds that position because of lack of evidence or that atheism is the default position. If the former, the like above dealing with evidence is worth reading. If the latter, then he is simply assuming something that cannot be proven; namely, that atheism is a default position. No one knows what is automatic within the minds of people at birth. If atheists assume that non-cognition (non intellectual contemplation of God) is atheism, then infants, by definition, would be atheists. But that would also make cats, rocks, and chairs into atheists. Therefore, the latter definition of atheism would be insufficient. Is this sophistry? No. Rather, it reflects my thought process and my assessment of the burden of proof. Positive belief in something extraordinary must be established before I will accept it; lacking evidence or reason for such belief, I reject it. It is not as simply as providing sufficient evidence. A person's presuppositions strongly effect what evidence is accepted and how it is interpreted. If a person has an atheist presupposition, then is it possible he can be objective in his examination of theistic evidence? That would depend on the person, but convincing such a person would be a difficult task at best. Various evidences have been offered to atheists. Some have been convinced and converted to theism. Others have not. Therefore, it is not the evidence that is the issue, it is the atheist. In other words, different people see things differently. What is convincing to one person is not convincing to another. This is why presuppositions are so important. To someone who "will not see", no evidence will be sufficient. Finally, this person has not even offered any criteria by which evidence might be assessed. What would be sufficient evidence and why? If this person cannot describe logically what that would be, then he hasn't thought through his atheism sufficiently and really hasn't any right to make the claims that the evidences offered aren't good enough.

949

Describing my position as a lack of belief is sometimes helpful in explaining my position to theists. When someone demands that I prove God doesn't exist (or at least provide evidence that God doesn't exist), it helps to show that my position is not based solely on evidence for and evidence against a particular God concept but more fundamentally on the extraordinary nature of any claims about God and my default assumption about any such claim. Finally, distinguishing between my lack of belief in gods in general and my specific disbelief in particular God concepts can also be helpful in conversation. I lack belief in an omnipotent God because that is an extraordinary claim I do not believe is supported by the evidence. I disbelieve in any concept of a non-deceiving God who created the Earth 10,000 or fewer years ago because I believe the observable data strongly contradicts this age. It seems that this atheist has missed the point of my paper on "I lack belief". I stated that once a person is exposed to a concept, he categorizes that subject. He does something with it. Furthermore, I stated that if "I lack belief in God" means that the person has no mental assertions either positive or negative concerning God, then that is an illogical position because people do things intellectually with information and concepts. Even this atheist at the beginning of his response stated he cannot remain neutral on a position once he has been exposed to it. Yet he wants to hold a "lack belief" system. This is inconsistent. Also, this atheist fails to understand that not all Christians, myself included, believe in a young earth. I believe the earth is old. What he has done is narrowed the field to far and not allowed for other positions on an issue that he has stated negates belief in God(s). This is illogical to do and unfortunate. Unfortunately, Matt then shifts from attacking the position to ad hominem, attacking the motivations of atheists. Matt: Lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see, if they say they have no position, by saying they lack belief, then their position is not open to attack and examination and they can quietly remain atheists. The irony of this is that the great majority of atheists on these boards who describe their atheism as a lack of belief in gods are quite willing to explain their views in depth, including exactly what they mean by lack of belief (as I've described here), as well as positive beliefs they do hold. Matt knows this, so for him to claim otherwise is both an ad hominem and a straw man. My concern is to not produce ad hominem attacks. They are weak. However, the context of my comment he quoted above was at the end of the paper where I draw a conclusion after attempting to demonstrate that the "I lack belief" position is itself weak. Having done that, I draw the conclusion that some atheists are indeed trying to avoid the weaknesses of atheism in general. Nevertheless, I have modified the comment on that paper by adding "In my opinion." Stating what I know and do not know is risky business. My experience on the CARM discussion boards with the atheists has been that only a few are willing to discuss their "lack of belief" position in depth for very long. But, this is my opinion. Matt: The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems. How is this a problem for me or for any other atheist? Matt must presuppose that atheists do not want to find truth, since if they did any challenge to their position could only be a source of knowledge, not a problem. More ad hominem? This atheists asks how is it a problem for atheists that atheism is coming under more serious attack from Christians? Well, it is a problem in that many of their arguments have been answered, some of which I've demonstrated on the atheism section here on CARM.

950

I admit that this is a subjective statement I am going to make here, but my experience with atheists over the past twenty years is that they have generally moved away from saying "There is no God" to "I lack belief in God." I'm not the only one who has noticed this shift. Why? Again, my opinion is that atheists are discovering some weaknesses in their position and are adapting their atheism (even redefining it in some instances) so as to make it less vulnerable to attack. Now whether or not this critic wishes to acknowledge this matters little since I am offering my opinion based on my observations. Matt: Without a doubt, there are far more people in the world who believe in God (or a god) than dont and more and more Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position. Irrelevant. If popular vote decided what is true, astrology would work. More interestingly, the sun would once have revolved around the earth, with the relationship switching sometime in the past few thousand years. It is not irrelevant. If it were irrelevant, then why is this atheist responding here? I am one of those included in "more and more Christians" who are attacking atheism. This atheist has just proved the relevancy of my comment that atheism is being tackled by Christians. Furthermore, I did not commit the fallacy of ad populum, that the majority belief is correct. I made no such statement. I only said that more and more Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position. Atheism's validity is not determined by "more and more." It is determined by logic and evidence. Matt: After all, how does an atheist defend atheism? He cant. He has to attack theism in its different forms. This is why atheists attack Christianity, the Bible, and other religious systems and try and invalidate them. That really is all they have to go on. More ad hominem...and simply false. It would be more accurate to say that the atheist doesn't have to defend atheism rather than that he can't, since atheism is a perfectly reasonable default view. In any case, Matt would do better to challenge (real) atheist logic or arguments than to mind-read and tell the rest of us why atheists debate with theists. It may be that I committed the ad hominem fallacy here. Instead of defending the statement and after rereading my final comments on that paper, I have modified it to the following. The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and are exposing them. Without a doubt, there are far more people in the world who believe in God (or a god) than dont and more and more Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position. The majority belief doesn't make it right, but the increase of examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to defend their position. This also explains why atheists seem to becoming more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms. There is an intellectual battle being waged and both defensive and offensive measures are being taken on both sides. In the end, the truth will be known. I thank this atheist for trying to address the paper and for helping me improve it through my modification. However, I do not believe that he sufficiently addressed all the issues raised in it.

951

Additional response to criticism of "lack of belief" and "Is atheism viable"

Mr. Lonovy is a persistent atheist. I suspect that Mr. Lonovy is zealous for his faith of atheism and will attempt to defend it accordingly. But, since this can go on forever and since I have other things to do on CARM, I'll probably stop responding after this paper. My response is in italics. I have again received permission from him to quote him in his entirety for this work. Also, I have left his typo's and grammar errors intact. ------------------I refuted everything I felt needed it in my first essay, but Matt has either misunderstood the whole essay or dodged every point I made. He acts like he doesn't understand what I was saying, but I know Matt has a brain. He couldn't misunderstand everything in my essay...I'll leave it to the reader to decide why he responded the way he did. Was it really THAT hard to understand? Of course, Mr. Lonovy mistakenly thinks that he had refuted everything in his paper. He did not and he made several errors in judgment as well as in logic which I pointed out. Nevertheless, Mr. Lonovy continues to defend his position. I'd also like to inform the reader that I specifically asked Mr. Slick to inform me if he replied to my essay, so that I could defend myself. Here is the exact, quoted request for that: Matt: If i decide to do so, may I have your permission to copy your paper so that I ma y reproduce it on carm with my answers to your criticism? I would like to answer it and it is much easier to do if I can reproduce your paper. Myself: Sure. Just don't change my words or take anything out of context. I'd like to be informed if you do that, too, so I can defend myself. Thanks. I never received any notification about his new papers. I found out about them by checking his site. Thanks alot, Matt. I informed him of my original essay right after it was put up on InfidelGuy.com. He obviously thought he wouldn't have to deal with anything else from me if I didn't know. To be honest, I had completely forgotten about informing Mr. Lonovy about my refutations of his paper. I have been involved in many debates lately and it slipped my mind. I hope that Mr. Lonovy would forgive me my oversight. I'm now going to restate my two main points in an easier to understand manner so that Matt may understand me, and then deal with everything he said in his new articles. Please forgive the length of this essay. I'm going to be thorough this time. One of the issues that Mr. Lonovy needs to work on is his condescension. If he wants to be taken seriously as an atheist, then he needs to learn how to address the issue and not the individual. His attacks on my person is known as ad hominim attacks. Unfortunately, far too many atheists adopt this tactic and it is not productive. What is atheism? First, let's define atheism. Atheism is a "lack of belief in a deity or deities". The word itself literally means 'a': basically 'no', and 'theism': basically 'god belief'. Without, or "lack of", belief in gods. This is the generally accepted definition among atheists as far as I've seen, and the definition Matt and myself were talking about. Matt states in "I lack belief in God" that this is becoming a common position among atheists. No, it isn't. It's the definition of atheism, and Matt was trying to say that "lack of belief" isn't a position, yet he calls it a position. That doesn't make sense. Mr. Lonovy defines atheism a little different than the dictionaries I have read. Though these dictionaries include the "lack of belief" idea, they also add that it is a denial of God, or a doctrine that there is no god or gods. Therefore, atheism is not always defined as "lack of belief" in God, but also as the belief that there is no God since there are those who call themselves atheists who believe there is no God(s). I said on my section on Atheism under definitions and terms, that atheism is "the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god." Following are some definitions offered by dictionaries.

952

"Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods b) The doctrine that there is no God or gods." (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth addition, 2000.) "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god." (Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition) It seems that my definition is more consistent with the dictionaries than is Mr. Lonovy's since I include his definition as well as the other. Therefore, should I restrict my definition to "lack of belief" or should I also include in it "the belief there is no god(s)"? Both are offered in dictionaries and both are held by atheists. Therefore, I will use the broader definition. Furthermore, I suspect, that Mr. Lonovy actually believes that no God exists. But, that is just my opinion. A point in my original essay was to show that "lacking belief" can and is a position with the right qualifiers, which most every human who calls themself an atheist fit. These three qualifiers are: 1) The atheist must be able to understand the concept of a deity. You can't make a decision or have an intellectual position on something you can't understand. Matt has a whole section called "Is my cat an atheist?" about how atheists are no different in position than animals or non-animate objects, his cat in particular, in that they have no position concerning their lack of belief. I think he would agree with me about this qualifier, because we are obviously talking about human atheists who can understand this. I would like to add that the definition Mr. Lonovy offers above "Atheism is a 'lack of belief in a deity or deities'," logically includes my cat since he also lacks belief in god(s). Rocks also lack belief in god(s), etc. But, I applaud Mr. Lonovy for clarifying the definition to include the understanding of a concept of deity. So, if we were to modify the definition that Mr. Lonovy originally gave according to this additional information, we might say, "Atheism is the position held by a person or persons that 'lack belief' in god(s)." 2) The atheist must then actually understand the concept of the deity in question. You can't have a position on something if you don't even know what it is. Matt's part about cats, rocks, etc. has no bearing on if a human atheist has a position or not. We know what a "god" is, even though it is true that there is no real definition of what one is among theists, esspecially one that isn't full of contradiction, but we still have a general concept of it, so we can come to a decision and have a position. Actually, my original point was precisely relevant and demonstrated the insufficiency of Mr. Lonovy's original position on what atheism was. He has demonstrated its insufficiency by clarifying what he means by atheism. However, there is a problem. Mr. Lonovy claims to be an atheist. Others make that claim too. But, some atheists believe that there is no god(s). Therefore, the definition of atheism must be sufficient to include those atheists as well. I offer the following definition to cover all the bases: "Atheism is the position held by a person or persons that 'lack belief' in god(s) and/or deny that god(s) exist." I believe my definition is far more sufficient than is Mr. Lonovy's. 3) The atheist must make the CHOICE to be an atheist. Once someone understands what a "god" is, then he must come to a decision about it: to believe in it or not. Matt did understand that when you have been exposed to such a concept, you have to make a mental decision about it, and THAT is where the fact that you have taken a position comes in. Now, let me explain what I mean when I say it is a position. If you "lack belief" in something, then you don't "believe in" it. To "believe in" a deity, such as the Christian God, who I will use as my example here, is to believe it exists. If you lack this belief in God, then you don't believe He exists, right? Now, if you don't believe He exists, then it is only logical that you believe He doesn't exist. He must either exist or not, so there's no middle ground there. Let me make an example... theism=belief=existance atheism=no belief=no existance Isn't that clear enough? When an atheist CHOOSES to be an atheist, knowing what he's choosing not to believe in, it is the position that he believes it doesn't exist. Please remember the quealifiers for this. It isn't a way out of having a position or an excuse not to defend yourself. It's just being a human atheist. Now, Matt claims he didn't understand this point in my original essay. It's all too clear this time. I apologize if I wasn't thorough enough the first time. I was relying on the reader to put it together and do the logical math themselves so I wouldn't have to write a very long essay. I agree that the atheist must make a choice to be an atheist. Logically, this is a position, the position of atheism. Can you have a position of "lack"? The point I was trying to make in my original paper was that "lacking belief" in something, if it means to have no position on something, is only possible for people (or cats) that are unaware of a concept. Once you are made aware of the concept,

953

then you adopt a position whether it be rejection, acceptance, or waiting until more data comes in. Either way, you categorize the concept and you have a position. If someone takes "lack of belief" in God to be a neutral, no committed position, then why do so many atheists who "lack belief" behave as though they believe there is no God? That is the question I have been asking. It would seem that a non committed position would be held by those who are objective. But that does not appear the case with atheists whose position is "lack of belief in God" because they sure are actively trying to demonstrate that there is no God. Atheistic proof against the Christian God What? I can prove a negative? Yes, actually. I can do this by proving a positive that will contradict the positive claim of Christianity, and therefore render it false...as I said before, in my first essay. As we all know, the Bible is the only record of the Christian God's existance. Now, what if you prove something extremely important in the Bible to be false? That would mean that the Bible is not reliable as divinely inspired truth. That would mean there is no reason to trust it and base your "eternal fate" on it. I do not believe that the Bible is the only record of the Christian God's existence. I believe that the creation of the universe, its order, logical absolutes, etc., are also evidences for the God of Christianity. Nevertheless, let's see what Mr. Lonovy's proof is. It would also mean that the Christian God doesn't exist. Why? Because God can only be defined as being the "God of the Bible". What the Bible says He is, is what He is. What the Bible says He did, He did. Or the "God of the Bible", the Christian God, doesn't exist, even if some other god exists. But I'm only dealing with Christianity right now. This is not logically necessary. You have not declared what the "extremely necessary" thing is. If the truth of the Bible were based on this "extremely necessary" thing, then perhaps you might be correct. but that is yet to be established. So, what is my proof against the Christian God? There are so many logical and philosophical problems and contradictions in the very concept of this God that I refer you to the Infidel Guy's Questions About God page. The other evidence is scientific. Let's see about that evidence... Hold on, the proof that the Christian God is not true is that it is found on an anti-Christianity website? I would hope that Mr. Lonovy is able to provide this proof here instead of pointing to someone else's work. Also, though there are indeed Bible difficulties, they are not without answers. It seems Mr. Lonovy is only studying one side of the issue. There is a section of the Bible, perhaps the most important part of the Bible, actually, that has been proven false: The Genesis creation account. Anyone who has really researched it knows that the Earth is not 6,000-12,000 years old. Evolution is as close to being a proven fact as it could ever be, and the evidence keeps on rolling in. There is evidence that abiogenesis could have occured, which means that it most likely did occur, and there's no reason to invoke the supernatural when it isn't needed. We're not even in an important part of the universe. We're a crappy little planet with a yellow star. Not the center of the universe or God's attention. Genesis doesn't fit with the scientific explanation of how the Earth was formed. The Big Bang is also as close to being a proven fact as it could ever be. We just don't know how it happened yet. We only know that it did happen. Mr. Lonovy has demonstrated his lack of understanding concerning what is most important in the Bible. It is not the alleged age of the earth. It is, to be sure, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (God in flesh, John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9) from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4) that is most important since by it, we are saved from damnation. Furthermore, the Bible does not teach that the earth is 6,000-12,000 years old. There are Christians who hold that position and there are other Christians who do not. Quite simply, the Bible does not tell us for sure how old the earth is. I hold to a very old earth position as do many Christians and we interpret the "days" of Genesis to be periods; particularly since the days mentioned were before the creation of the sun and the sun and earth rotation together determine day length. Of course, there is debate on this within Christianity, but the point is that the Bible is not explicitly clear on this issue here. Therefore, Mr. Lonovy is making an assumption he has not qualified. Second, to say that evolution is a fact also assumes something to be true that has not been qualified. Micro evolution is a fact (minor variations in concentrations of extant genetic material in a gene pool), but macro (new speciation through mutation) is not. Macro evolution has not been observed. It has only been inferred by analogy from micro evolution...and that does not make evolution a fact. But, Mr. Lonovy simply believes, by faith, what some scientists say concerning evolution. Furthermore,

954

abiogenesis is wrought with problems, i.e., mathematical permutation problems when dealing with the spontaneous generation of life. The complexity of DNA is so great, that random formation of it is exceedingly small. Please consider these following quotes. "The probability of life having originated through random choice at any one of the 1046 occasions is then about 10-255. The smallness of this number means that it is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected." [Quastler, Henry. The Emergence of Biological Organization, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1964, p. 7.] Note, there are approximately 1080 electrons in the known universe. This should help give an idea of the insurmountable odds against abiogenesis. "The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." [R. Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.] If the Big Bang is true, then how did it happen? Would Mr. Lonovy say that out of nothing, something came, that when nothing existed, somehow something came into existence? Or would he assert that the Big Bang has no explanatio n "yet" but that, by faith, some scientist in the future will prove how it happened...even though it violates the laws of known physics? Actually, I believe in the Big Bang. I believe that God caused it. The Big Bang is the only place left for a god to have done anything important, and the intellegent "Christians" have realized this and taken to saying that's how "God" made the universe, and then directed the formation of life through evolution. But they have made up their own religion. They must contort the Bible to fit reality. It's common knowledge that the Genesis story was to be taken completely literal until science showed that it was actually false in the literal state. It was even talked about later in the Bible in a very literal way that God made Adam and Eve, rested on the Sabbath, and so forth. Now people have gone crazy about interpreting it right so that they can hold onto their religion. So, according to Mr. Lonovy, if a "Christian" does not accept the Big Bang and evolution, then he isn't intelligent? Also, how do the Christians "contort the Bible to fit reality"? Mr. Lonovy may not like the fact that some Christians believe in a literal 6 day 24 hour day creation scenario, but their belief or "lack of belief" in in this does not bear on the validity of the Bible or not. Furthermore, if there is a God, why can't He create the earth in 6 literal 34 hour days? But, we digress. For clarification, I absolutely believe that God made Adam and Eve, that they were in a garden, and that they sinned. To the "Christians" who do this reinterpretation the Bible: Just because some parts of the Bible are to be taken metaphorically, that doesn't mean the rest is. Why can't people accept that it's just a false myth? I don't get it. If God wanted it to be a scientifically accurate book, He would have made it that way. There was never anything more than moral commandments and small philosophical points to make the Bible even worth having unless you believed the stuff in it to be true. It didn't have any new, divine scientific knowledge in it. It's really crazy when people say the Christian God used evolution when there's no way you can make Genesis mean that even if you take it metaphorically. This is just my opinion, but I believe a re ligion recently made up [or "reinterpreted"] by humans is no religion to trust. Mr. Lonovy fails to understand that the Bible is not intended to be a book on science. Also, he simply offers several opinions as if his opinions matter in establishing the validity of atheism. Now, I'm sure there are alot of people who're going to argue that none of these scientific things ever even happened and that they have some "proof" that they didn't. If you disagree with me, I'd like to ask you to do something: Please, go research all of these subjects. Seriously read up on them. Don't rely on your religious propaganda. Always be skeptical of things, nomatter what side it's from. The evidence for each of these things, especially evolution - which alone would be enough to falsify Genesis, is overwhelming. Look at it with an open mind, but question everything. The facts will show you what is true and what is not. Anyways, why should you be afraid to accept science? If God told the truth, then science will only reveal that fact. If God didn't, then either you shouldn't be worshipping Him, or He doesn't exist. If Mr. Lonovy wants people to always be skeptical, then is he being skeptical about his atheism? Furthermore, I do not accept the notion that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Mr. Lonovy essentially begs the question by assuming evolution to be true when it is still only a theory. If he were to examine the fossil record, he would see that there are many problems related to missing

955

transitional forms. Of course, this is not a debate on the validity of evolution. There have been many books written on both sides of the discussion. But, I wonder how many anti-evolution books Mr. Lonovy has read, if any. If he wants people to be skeptical, then perhaps he could list for us the titles of the books that "disprove" evolution. If he has read none, then he is not following his own skepticism and he would not be consistent with his own advice. Now, about other gods. When it comes down to it, we can't absolutely prove no god exists. That doesn't really mean much. A very good quote on this is: "God is just a statistic." It's a 50/50% chance when you first look at it - god, or no god. Then, you must look at the evidence so far to see which one you should choose. We have no evidence that a god has ever actually done anything. I, personally, haven't seen any reason to believe a god has ever made contact with a human. Scientifically, we have no confirmation at all that any god has ever been seen. There is a startling lack of evidence for any kind of god. All we have is the fact that people have made up false gods. Even Christians know this. Why is it so hard to think that it's all just something humans came up with? To say that we have no evidence that "a god has ever actually done anything" is an unsubstantiated claim. It is also illogical. To say that there is "no evidence at all" means that all evidence has been examined. Of course, this cannot be the case; therefore, Mr. Lonovy cannot logically make his assertion. Also, a person's presuppositions will greatly influence how evidence is interpreted. If I were to present biblical evidence of the miraculous, of God's intervention in the world, Mr. Lonovy, because of his atheistic presupposition, would not be allowed to seriously entertain the information. He would be required to negate it. He could not be objective in his examination of it. Does this lend itself towards objectivity? I think not. Those are my biggest points. The rest will be addressed below, where I will be answering each of Matt's new points. Every space between a group of paragraphs means to skip to the next blue section on his paper. Read along in his articles so you'll know what I'm talking about, and I won't be able to take anything out of context. I'm going to answer his "I lack belief in God [response]", then go to "Is atheism viable? [response]". If these are Mr. Lonovy's biggest points, then Christianity is quite safe. I'll begin with his opening paragraphs, which aren't entirely in blue, and then every new set of paragraphs will deal with his blue replies: I lack belief in God Matt begins both of his replies by saying that he only wrote them because I had my essay on InfidelGuy.com. I'm sure he wouldn't have even cared to read it if it wasn't there, as he did with some of my emails to him. And he doesn't fail to mention that I had typos and grammar errors. Isn't that kind? I receive a great many e-mails everyday. I cannot answer all of them. Considering that Mr. Lonovy was rather insulting and condescending in his communication with me, I am sure that I simply disregarded what appeared to be yet another obstreperous atheist. Since I had debated, if you want to collect a debate, the infidel guy, I thought it might be interesting to respond to Mr. Lonovy's attempt to refute my papers, since the infidel guy thinks they are worthy of being posted. Fortunately for me, I have found his reasoning very easy to refute. Yes, I did start off with an ad hominum attack. I meant to. Matt offended me and insulted my intellegence in his original papers. I am an atheist, and he was talking about atheists. I'm just cutting to the chase. He fluffed up the fact that he's basically saying atheists are stupid, egotistical, and denying God so they can control their lives and continue to sin. I'll just tell it how I see it. He was being an ass. I'm glad to see that he has now taken off some of those insulting parts. As you can see, by his own admission, he was offensive to begin with. This would naturally result in me disregarding his e-mails. Of course, I never intended to offended or insult Mr. Lonovy. I have tried to be respectful in spite of his numerous personal attacks. But, Mr. Lonovy misrepresents me. I do not believe atheists are stupid. However, many of them have been rude, insulting, and condescending. Mr. Lonovy is no exception in his rudeness and use of insults. I probably shouldn't have said what I did, but I'm entitled to my opinion. Why is it that you should not have said what you did? Are you saying there is a standard of righteousness that you must adhere to? If so, where is it? On what is it based? If you are just simply expressing remorse for attacking my character why should that matter? After all, as an atheist, you answer to no one and have no absolute set of morals to follow. Other than simply complaining about my ad hominum attacks, Matt uses this as a distraction

956

against my actual points. He dares to say I should deal with the issues instead of attacking him, but he obviously only does this so he won't have to take on the issues. He should've ignored the personal attacks if he doesn't like that kind of arguing and got on with the real issues. He did not deal with any of the important points I made, if any at all. No Mr. Lonovy, this is not a distraction. It is a simple fact that you began to your argumentation with an attack on my person. This is something that you should not do if you want to have a decent conversation. I have repeatedly stated that you need to stick with the issues. If you feel you have done something wrong, then you need to apologize. As far as "the issues" goes, I tackled them. You can say I did not, but I did. The papers are there for others to read. I'm entitled to my opinion of him and I'm going to state that opinion because it's MY essay. I know alot of people would disagree with my use of personal attacks, but there are still alot fine points, so just look over it if you don't like it. The ad hominum attacks are irrelevant to the actual issues. If they are irrelevant to the actual issues then why are you committing them? Is this an example of your logic or is it an example of your emotionalism getting the best of you? This is a relevant point to me only in that it verifies my observation about atheists. The majority of my encounters with atheists on the Internet have been met with rudeness, insults and condescension from them. If atheism is so logical and true, then why do so many hurl insults instead of stick to the issues? This is observation after having encountered many many atheists. When Mr. Lonovy began with his personal attacks, I noticed the unfortunate but typical modus operandi yet again and most probably dismissed it outright. In my opinion, Matt now plays dumb so he won't have to take on the real issue. But he doesn't fail to mention that I acknowledged he did get some things right, but he won't do the same for me. I stated very clearly that "You have a position..." Matt doesn't see that I'm saying this? When it's right there in plain English? "Holding off" is not negative, either. "I am not holding off" is a fine sentence. I don't know where he got that from. The statement is quite clear. I would hope that you will be more specific and your complaints. You seem to be addressing generalities. The straw man I was talking about is also quite clear when you understand my point, which I restated at the beginning of this essay. He was making "lack of belief" out to be something it's not. That's the straw man. How is it not logically necessary? The definition of atheism is "lack of belief...", as I showed earlier. Matt's own paper is named after that. It's obvious what definition we're dealing with, and all things which cannot understand the concept of a deity fit into the definition. Matt's new definition of atheism doesn't even change anything. The wording is just different. Look up the meanings of the words. I made no new definition of atheism. Mr. Lonovy had simply stated that atheism was a lack of belief in God. Fine, then my cat qualifies as an atheist since he also has a lack of belief in God. We have already addressed this issue above, yet Mr. Lonovy continues to bring it up. We can see that Mr. Lonovy has already modified his definition of atheism to restrict it to those who are able to have on awareness of the concept of God. This is on admission by him that my point about who (or what) can qualify as atheistic was valid. If it was not true, then why it he modify his definition? I can't redefine the word atheism. I'm not the authority of what "atheism" is. I did explain the difference between a human atheist and a non-human animal/non-living atheist, though. Matt completely ignores this, and gives examples of very atheistic natural things to make atheism look stupid. Lack of belief is quite sufficient if you know that we're talking about humans. Please refer to the qualifiers I stated earlier. So, apparently I am correct in my original statement about nonliving and nonhuman atheists, my cat included. I don't know where Matt got the crazy idea that "lack of belief" is a "non-intellectual commitment or non-action". Lack means to be without. Belief, which in this context would be "belief in", means to think something exists. We do not think that God exists. It's that simple. He makes up a straw man definition and then attacks it. It's rediculous. Then perhaps Mr. Lonovy should we read my article "I lack belief in God." It is explained there. All Matt has done is use evasiveness to dodge all of the real issues. Either that or he truely didn't get anything I said. I believe he has more intellegence than that. You can decide for yourself if he is trying to trick people. I stated my opinion already. I showed exactly what false claims Matt has made. He ignored everything. I did not "beg the question". Matt is obviously unaware of the usual way to debunk a paranormal claim. If there is a scientific/natural way that something could happen, then it did happen that way.

957

The only way to prove something supernatural actually occured is to have absolutely no natural alternative. You can still go on saying that it did happen supernaturally, but in almost any case but this one, people will know you're wrong. I showed earlier in this essay why I said it the way I did, anyways. There are so many "goofs" in Mr. Lonovy's comments that I am not sure if I should take the time filling up the space to address each one. For example, he says I am "obviously unaware of the usual way to debunk a paranormal claim." Considering that he has never asked me about this, he would not know. Furthermore, since I made no c omments about addressing or debunking alleged paranormal phenomena, he again jumps to conclusions which have no basis. Just because I'm a Christian does not mean that I do not consider the natural explanations for events before the spiritual. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I do. It is only after natural explanations fail to explain a phenomena, that I would then look to the supernatural. Of course, my Christian presupposition allows me to do this; that is, to entertain both the natural and the supernatural. However, Mr. Lonovy's presupposition does not allow him the breadth of intellectual openness that I enjoy as a Christian. I established my points very clearly, but Matt completely ignored every single point. I was originally writing in hopes of showing him what was wrong with his papers, so that he would remove them or drastically change them. I don't want anyone else to be influenced by the misleading information in them. He could at least make a decent counter to my essay to prove he's right. Does anyone think that Mr. Lonovy's statement that I "completely ignored every single point" is a legitimate statement? I read through sentence by sentence Mr. Lonovy's paper and responded. Certainly, "every single point" was not ignored. So far, Mr. Lonovy has been less than convincing in his argumentation. I wonder what he or other atheists would say if I said, "he could at least make a decent counter to my essay." After all, I do not believe that he has done so. But, that is my opinion. Matt has shown me that misleading people is exactly what he wants to do. Again, only my opinion. I am actually surprised that Mr. Lonovy believes in the supernatural as is evidenced in his previous statement. You see, he apparently is able to read minds. So far there is no naturalistic explanation for this phenomena that I'm aware of. Mr. Lonovy is now trying to tell us all what my desires are. So, let me simply put this to rest. Since I know myself better than Mr. Lonovy does, I can tell all the readers that it is not to my desire to mislead anyone. I had no chip on my shoulder. I wrote the essay because I felt he was wrong, and I still feel that way. Matt could have shown me that he was right, but he did not counter anything I said. He dodged it all. I do have a chip on my shoulder now. Matt has angered me with his evasiveness. I'm not going to let him get away with brushing off every point I made, if he did it intentionally or not. That's the point of this essay. Well, Mr. Lonovy is certainly entitled to his emotional reactions. I was offended because Matt was lying [if intentional or not] about atheists, as I see it, and insulting them, which was very clear. I'm an atheist, you know. Need I comment about this statement? Now we will go to his second article: Is atheism viable? I think I can judge people quite well. I admit that the personal attacks are only my opinion, of course, and I'm refraining from name calling now, but it's obvious that Matt is trying to play dumb to dodge what I said or he really doesn't have the intellegence to put it together. I believe he's smarter than that. I cannot state whether or not Mr. Lonovy is a good judge of people. But I can tell confidently state that his assessments of me, my intentions, my desires, etc. have been less than accurate. Consider his comments that I am "trying to play dumb." I admit that I may miss a point or two of what Mr. Lonovy intends, but I'm certainly not trying to play dumb. On the other had, perhaps he is correct in that I lack the intelligence for a meaningful dialogue with him. Making atheists look bad is exactly what he attempts to do. I was a little harsh on the "negative position" part, though. He probably didn't say that to make atheists look bad, I admit, but he attempted to make atheists look bad in enough other ways for me to say this. .....??? Again, he complains about me calling him an idiot. I'll attack him all I want. I make enough real points. I'm allowed to state my opinion of him.

958

If calling me names and insulting my character makes Mr. Lonovy feel better, I would not want to rob him of emotional satisfaction. However, I would recommend that in a debate ad hominim attacks do not help in establishing a position. If an atheist is stupid, I'm damn well gonna say it. I'm not siding with all atheists. I'm quite sure there are some very stupid atheists. I'm quite sure there are atheists who fit exactly what Matt portrayed them as. I'm not going to defend someone just because they're an atheist. I have seen many very intelligent atheists, though, and I believe the atheistic community is mostly made up of these kind of people. These are the atheists I would side with. Is Mr. Lonovy telling us that he is able to differentiate between the intelligent and stupid atheists? I dealt with all of this earlier. I'm referring to the Christian God of the Bible. I admit that I erringly stated just "God" in my first essay without making it known that I meant ONLY the Christian god. He CAN be shown to not exist by proving the Bible false. Whether or not you have or can prove that the Bible is false is very debatable. From what I have seen of your argumentation so far, you have not shown the slightest ability to prove the Bible and incorrect. Again, I did not beg the question. Refer to what I just said. The topics are too deep and varied to address here, I agree. I may just write refutations of other portions of Matt's site about these things later if I disagree with him. Matt can attempt to define faith in whatever way he wants, but I got my definition from a dictionary. He is making up the definition he wants for faith. Why don't we look at the definitions... If Mr. Lonovy is allowed to use a dictionary to define faith, then certainly I am also able to use a dictionary to define atheism...as I have above. Therefore, I thank Mr. Lonovy for vindicating my definition of atheism. Faith: Belief in something for which there is no proof. Proof: The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. Cogency: The quality or state of being cogent. Cogent: Appealing forcibly to the mind or reason: CONVINCING If you are so convinced by evidence that you are willing to bet your life or "eternal safety" on it, then that evidence is defined as proof in my dictionary. T he Bible is evidence, whether you like it or not. You may not except it as evidence, but it is evidence. The issue is what you do with that evidence. There are old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament. There are the eyewitness accounts of the miraculous and of Jesus' Resurrection. Of course, I suspect that you are not capable of an unbiased the examination of the evidence since your atheistic presupposition will not allow you to consider the supernatural. Therefore, you must find a way to disregard the evidence. I am NOT taking my disbelief in the Christian God on faith. I showed a lot of my reasons for this earlier in this essay. I am also not taking my disbelief in other mythical deities by faith, but I'm not digging up things about every other god for this essay. It should be obvious that they aren't real, anyways. I cannot say that I know there is absolutely no deity anywhere in the universe, but there are reasons not to believe in them. I showed some of these earlier. Even if they exist, they have no effect on our lives, anyways. So, what would the purpose of believing in one even be? There is no proof for a deity, yet the amazingly complete lack of evidence and need for them is certainly evidence against them. Anyone who believes in them is actually in a less logically defensible position. How would Mr. Lonovy be able to ascertain whether a deity was affecting his life not? He simply says there is no evidence that this occurs. I have evidence to the contrary. My evidence is my encounter with God, the profound change in my life, that "awareness" of his presence, and much more. These are subjective but they are real. If I were of the mind to do so, I could pursue the issue of logical absolutes which exist but no atheist, that I have encountered so far, can logically explain. I have used this fact of logic and its existence to demonstrate the existence of an absolute mind...but I digress.

959

Ha. Very funny. Do some research, Matt. You'd be surprised how much of this proof there is. And don't try to weasel out of answering that this time with saying I didn't tell you what the proof is. I said it very clearly earlier. Actually Mr. Lonovy, I have done quite a bit of research and it has verified my belief in God. Science has not shown that there is absolutely no god [not capitalized]. Science has shown that the Christian God of the Bible doesn't exist, and science has shown a complete lack of evidence for any other god. That's enough for me. Could you please document for me precisely where science has shown that the Christian God does not exist? I would really like to have the documentation. As far as science showing that there is a complete lack of evidence for any other god, of course I would agree with you, since I believe that there is only one true God, the God of the Bible. Therefore all other god's would not exist. There are those who would say that there aren't even any absolute truths, but let's just say that there are. As far as I know, we can't prove there are no gods, so yes, atheism is a possibility, but I would definitely argue that atheism is much more than just a simple possibility. I've shown reasons for this earlier. To say that there are no absolute truths would be an absolute truth, which would be selfcontradictory and not true. To be honest, Mr. Lonovy has not shown much of anything as far as facts or evidence goes for his position. If science explains something, that means God didn't do it. If God didn't do it like the Bible says, then the God of the Bible doesn't exist. This is not a logical statement. The aurora borealis, for example, can be easily explained in science. But who is to say that God did not arrange it so that the aurora borealis would exist for His good pleasure? People can believe what they want to believe as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but Matt is spreading things which aren't true about another religion, or lack of religion, actually, with his articles. I feel this is wrong. I assume Mr. Lonovy is alluding to my articles on Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. He is stating that I am spreading things which are not true about other religions. Okay, what is it about these other religions that I'm stating that is not true? I am always open to being corrected. Perhaps Mr. Lonovy can explain to me, with documentation, where I am incorrect. I encouraged the readers of my essay to read Matt's paper along with mine. I did not take anything out of context. I was simply showing that the ice cream factory on Jupiter was a bad illustration for Matt's religion. It's a wonderful illustration AGAINST his religion, though. That is why I said what I did. Actually, the ice cream factory on Jupiter was used as an illustration against atheism, not religion. In it, I simply stated that atheism is viable only as a "possibility." That is, it is a logical possibility. But being a logical possibility does not necessitate that it is an actuality anymore then the possibility of an ice cream factory on Jupiter means that there is one. It is certainly possible, but not probable. I can attack Matt personally all I want, as I have already said. I didn't attack him to establish any point. I did it because it is my opinion. The points stand on their own without the insults. Is Mr. Lonovy attempting to expunge his ad hominim attacks do this repeat it clarification of why he has been personally insulting? I suggest that a better approach that he should take would be to admit that he was in error and that he would not do it again. That would be fine and then we could be done with it. Perhaps Mr. Lonovy is feeling a tinge of guilt. I do not know. I believe I was quite logical all through that essay, and I've explained this proof already. There is no evidence in the Bible. Nothing outside of it confirms any of the important things in it. The prophecies are the main claim of Christians, but it fulfills its own prophecies. The people, who wrote the later fulfillments of prophecy, even hundreds of years, read those same prophecies. It's not that hard to see how they were fulfilled. Really? There is no evidence in the Bible? You mean the eyewitness accounts of the miraculous, that they were written down, that they were accurately transmitted to us, that those who wrote what they saw, paid with their lives for what they said, etc., really is no evidence that all? As far as external confirmations, we certainly can go to the Middle East and find all sorts of cities and archeological digs is verifying biblical accounts. The Old and New Testament documents are ancient documents and, by default, are evidence. What you want to do with the evidence is up to you -- and your presuppositions.

960

I suggest that Mr. Lonovy read some of the works dealing with the prophetic nature of the Bible accounts. He is not being lucid in his statements concerning them. Perhaps more information would help him in this area. Matt again uses a very bad example. Atheists would be the ones saying his screaming blue ants don't exist. Theists make that kind of positive claim. They're the ones who fit right in with people who see screaming blue ants. Actually, I really liked the screaming blue ants comment. Do some research, Matt. I have done a great deal of research. Just take a look at www.carm.org. Macro-evolution is obviously real and easy to understand if you do the research, and it would falsify the Christian God, as I have shown. Two things. I understand the theory of macro evolution. I have done research on it. However, I'm not convinced that it is true. Second, even if macro evolution were true it would not falsify the Christian God. It would be logically possible that if God exists, and He created the universe, that He would also have put in it the means by which life could have developed. If macro evolution were true, and I am not admitting that it is, it would not necessitate that God does not exist because it could mean that God used it. Most Christians I have seen refuse to accept any possibility that there is no God. I have certainly said before that it is possible that there is no God. However, I believe there is a God and that he has saved me from the coming judgment through Jesus Christ who died, was buried, and rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Matt can claim to "know" God exists all he wants...That's all I say..... Ok, a theist believes that God does exist, and an atheist doesn't, right? Now, I would recommend that both accept the possibility that they are wrong. If they do this, that does not change their position at all. Matt tried to make it seem as if an atheist says God may exist, then he's not sure, but if a Christian says He may not exist, then he's still sure. What the Hell? That's a double standard. Mr. Lonovy's comment is not that clear. Perhaps it is my lack of intelligence getting in the way, yet again. But, I have been known to miss simple concepts. I don't think God is even a reasonable concept. There are some Christians who are reasonable, though. I'll give him that. Matt now decides to be an a***ole for no reason. He obviously doesn't know me. Amazing... God has obviously not allowed me to have what I've asked of Him. I don't want any sin or independance from God. I don't know where Mr. Slick got that bull*** from. I've asked God to reveal Himself to me so **** many times that it's not funny. I'm just trying to find the truth and spread it to others. He has already revealed Himself in the person of Jesus. If Mr. Lonovy or others have rejected Jesus, what should God to do now? Once again, there is no evidence in the Bible. You can write whatever you want in a book, but that doesn't make it true, esspecially if nothing else confirms what it says. That is not logically necessary, but I understand your frustration. How does this context change anything? This is the kind of **** that offended me, people. How many times must I say this? I DON'T WANT TO BE GOD! I WOULD LIKE FOR GOD TO SHOW HIMSELF TO ME! I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO HEAVEN! In that case, why don't you look to Jesus. If you'd like help, we can chat on the phone. Now Matt DARES to say I used a personal attack, when RIGHT ABOVE THAT, HE used a personal attack on ALL ATHEISTS. I believe my attacks were VERY fair. I don't see how I used a personal attack on all atheists. I have, however, stated that many atheists are quite crass and condescending in their opposition to Christianity. That is a fact. How is it an attack on Mr. Lonovy? Whether or not he fits into the category or not is up to the reader to decide at this point.

961

Matt has ignored my attempts at friendly dialogue before. I admit that I said some things I shouldn't have in an email dialogue with him before, and this may be his reason. I was going through some bad things at the time, and I explained this, heartfeltly apologized to him, and attempted to continue with a friendly dialogue. I thought Christians were supposed to forgive and forget? Well, Matt ignored me. He would've ignored me again if Infidel Guy hadn't posted my essay on his site. I thank IG very much for this. You do not have a friendly dialogue by beginning it with an insult. Also, I get a great many emails every day. I cannot answer them all. My tact is not in question here. I did refute him, and he ignored my points. I'm trying to make sure he won't get away with that. Sorry, Mr. Lonovy, you did not refute anything. Thank you for reading. Donny Kay Lonovy

This paper resembles more of a chat room dialogue than a 'debate' of some sort. I am sure that Mr. Lonovy will continue on with his responses. But, I doubt that I will continue with this since it is unproductive and is a bit rambling. If Mr. Lonovy wishes to question me about how he might encounter God, I'd be happy to help him as I would be happy to help anyone who also seeks to have an encounter with Him. Matt Slick

962

Lack-of-belief analysis outline

1.

2.

What does "lack belief in God" mean? A. "Lack" means, deficiency or absence. "Belief" means, acceptance and conviction that something is true or valid. i. Therefore, lack of belief would mean, basically, an absence of belief that something is true. But even this is debatable on what "absence of belief" can mean. Someone can say, "I have absence of belief in screaming blue ants" but it is a meaningless statement. B. If "Lack of belief" is complete ignorance about something, then it is a state of non-awareness about it. i. It is not a purposeful chosen neutrality about something since this is an intellectual categorization which implies awareness of a concept or thing -- even if the category is called neutrality. ii. We lack belief in concepts we are not aware of and we categorize/assess concepts we are aware of. C. If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses to not make an intellectual commitment to a position, but to remain intellectually neutral regarding belief or disbelief, that would be more logical. i. However, complete neutrality about a concept is impossible since all concepts have an effect upon the hearer and illicit a response. ii. Once you have been exposed to a concept, you categorize it as a. True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., but you do not return to a complete mental neutrality or state of ignorance. iii. We do not "lack belief" in invisible pink unicorns. That is, we do not hold a mentally neutral position of the concept. We make a decision to categorize them as iv. True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc. based upon our scope of knowledge and experience. v. To the extent that this categorization occurs, belief or disbelief is associated with it. a. If True, then positive belief is applied. b. If False, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied. c. If Ridiculous, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied. d. If Unsure, then belief and disbelief are pending with either as the outcome. i. This is because we realize that belief in the concept (acceptance) is possible as also is disbelief (rejection) depending on further information. ii. Being unsure about something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can logically get but even this is a categorization with pending commitment to belief or disbelief. Actions reflect belief A. We act based upon what we do believe, not upon what we do not believe. In other words, I do something because I believe something whether it be that my house is on fire or that there is food in my refrigerator. i. However, to say that I believe there is no food in my refrigerator and therefore, I do not get up to go get food is actually the active belief that there is no food there and the resulting decision (action) to remain where I am is the result. B. I lack belief in concepts I am unaware of. Therefore, I do not and cannot act based upon them since I am unaware of them. C. I can only act or not act based upon concepts I am aware of. i. If I believe there are invisible pink unicorns, I would act accordingly and either defend their existence or behave in a manner consistent with the belief that they exist. ii. If I believe there are no such things as invisible pink unicorns, I may or may not defend my position depending on the circumstances. But, I do not promote their non existence since it is not necessary to do so anymore than it is necessary to promote the assertion that there is no ice cream factory on Jupiter. iii. If I believe that the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns is ridiculous, I may or may not assert that it is ridiculous, but I have categorized them and believe they do not exist.

963

D.

E.

3.

To A.

B.

If I am unsure about the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns, I would wait for further information before making my decision. In this, I would be agnostic about their existence. If an atheist says he (or she) lacks belief in God, yet actively seeks to undermine theistic proofs and promote atheistic principles, then we must conclude that his actions are consistent with his beliefs; namely, that he actively believes that God does not exist. i. Furthermore, if the atheist is actively promoting the non-existence of God yet says he lacks belief in God, then his words and actions are inconsistent. Atheists who say they lack belief in God, or have disbelief in God, yet actively attack theistic proofs and seek to promote atheism, are acting according to their beliefs, not their "lack of belief." It is more consistent to say the atheist who supports and promotes the idea that there is no God, believes that there is no God, not that he lacks belief in God. Otherwise, he is behaving either without a reason, which is not logical, or with a reason; namely, the belief that God does not exist. say that you believe there is no God has problems To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what would the atheist be basing his belief that there is no God: evidence, lack of evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of all? i. If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence? a. There can be no such evidence since evidence is physical in nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove God's existence who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it? (I am defending the Christian God as revealed in the Bible). b. Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist. ii. If lack of evidence, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence to demonstrate God's existence. This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really is an agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement. iii. If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence? a. At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient. b. Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence. c. If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for God's nonexistence. iv. If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position. v. If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism. For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.

iv.

964

Answers to positions held by atheists

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

There is no God A. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God. I believe there is no God A. To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of the three? i. If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence? a. There can be no such evidence since evidence is physical in nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove God's existence who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it? (I am defending the Christian God as revealed in the Bible). b. Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist. ii. If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence? a. At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient. b. Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence. c. If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for God's nonexistence. iii. If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position. iv. If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism. B. For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative. There is no evidence for God A. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God. I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's existence. A. To say you haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence is a more intellectually honest position, but it is really a form of agnosticism which maintains that God is not known or knowable while admitting that the possibility of God's existence. B. If a person has not seen sufficient evidence for God, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence. This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really is an agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement. I lack belief in God. A. To lack belief in God appears to be a defensive position since the assertive atheist positions are wrought with logical problems (shown above). If the atheist says he "lacks belief" in God, then it appears its goal is to maintain a position that is unattackable since then he has no position to attack.

965

6.

7.

The problem is that "lacking belief" in God is an intellectual position made by a choice to "lack belief." Therefore, it is a position since it is the result of a choice. Any position held, must have reasons or it is not a position. It would be nothing. The atheist who asserts that he lacks belief is asserting a position of lack of belief. B. My cat lacks belief in God as does my computer. Are they also atheists? Therefore, simply lacking belief is not a sufficient statement since it can include animals and inanimate objects. C. If you say that "lacking belief" refers only to yourself as a human being, then see point A. I don't believe in God. A. Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not believe in God? B. Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can you please tell me what it is? Naturalism is true; therefore, the re is no need for God. A. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them. B. Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws, then it means there is no evidence for God. i. But, can all things be explained via naturalism? No, because naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert that all things in the future will be explained via naturalism because we do not know all phenomena that can and will occur. Therefore, it is not a fact that naturalism can explain all things. Therefore, God is not negated via naturalism.

966

Comments from atheists

Sometimes, debating atheists on the internet is like trying to heard cats. It just doesn't work very well. There are several options for Internet debates with atheists: AOL instant messenger, Yahoo chat rooms, my website, email, etc. But, my favorite is Paltalk, a voice enabled chat system. It works very well and allows instant communication via a microphone and speakers. It is a great place to debate, to learn, and to teach. Periodically, I jump into various atheist rooms on Paltalk, or AOL, Yahoo, or some atheist based discussion board, read, listen, and sometimes comment. The standard reception I get from atheists is less than cordial. Now, I realize that some "Christians" misrepresent Christ and show no politeness to the atheists and some of them want to retaliate. But, when I quietly "lurk" in atheist lead rooms and Christians come in, it isn't the Christians who are overwhelmingly rude. It is the atheists. I mean, the majority of the atheists are rude, condescending, insulting, and foul. I do not mean to offend any atheists, but this is my observation. Okay, so why am I bringing this up? Because it is so prevalent among atheists that I cannot help but wonder why so many are so belligerent, so full of anger and condemnation. When I have asked this, and after the insults are finished, some of them have told me that they hate that the Christians try and tell them that they need to believe in Jesus or they will go to hell. Okay, so I can see how that might upset them. But, that's too bad. The truth is that all people need Jesus and the Christians are simply telling them the truth. Do they need to be insulted, cussed at, and called names? No, they don't. I have always tried to be civil to atheists. I do not cuss at them, call them names, and I try not to personally attack individuals, though, I admit, I've gotten upset with a few of them. Nevertheless, following are some samples of actual comments I've received from atheists. Of course, this does not represent all atheists, but it does represent a significant portion -- at least in my experience. So, following are just a fraction of the insults I've personally received. You brain dead idiot. Take your brain dead hypocritical sorry self and leave. You lying sack of crap. Matt you fool You play mind games. I copied his [my text chat] comments to show how inane it was. "slick" - how appropriate a nick is that? Just like all the slick preachers. You ignorant peace of Christian fecal matter. Go to **** you *******. We will let you think when you get a brain Matt. Matt...when was the last time you actually thought? You sound like you are in second or third grade. Why does your freaking god judge the creation it made? Matt is a retard. You are repulsive as a human being and you need to stay away from children. Matt, insults where insults are due is just plain speaking truth. You just want to fly planes into buildings.

Amazing comments. In fact, some of the insults are so poorly stated that I sometimes suggest that they go to my Pick Your Insult page on CARM they can at least insult me properly. Anyway, if the atheists are so sure of themselves and so rational as they claim, why do so many of them resort to insults and foul language instead of addressing the issues? Can't they rationally defend their position of atheism? And, what is it about atheism that leads them to such behavior? I received an e-mail from an atheist recently. It represents about 50%-60% of the emails I get from atheists. The rest of them are less insulting and a minority of them are actually thoughtfully written. I can count on two hands the emails from atheists that have been polite and intelligently written. Anyway, this atheist wrote me complaining about the atheism section on CARM. His e- mail was quite lengthy and I responded to him that I do not read long e- mails because I get so many every day. This is clearly stated on the email page of CARM where he had to go in order to email me:

967

"Please keep your emails short and to the point." Therefore, I was not asking him anything out of the ordinary. He then wrote me the following: "I took the time to write in it hope of bringing a little truth to you, you could take the time to read it. You're an apologist, aren't you? Don't you think it'd be smart to at least see my arguments, so you can have a counter-argument ready if you ever encounter them again? No, you don't care. You either don't have the attention span of a chimpanzee or you don't want to read it because it's the truth, something you don't care to hear. I'm right and you know it. Don't make pathetic excuses. Your page is full of lies and you don't want to change it. Just like on all the other Christian websites, you have to lie to keep any argument going. You guys never welcome change when it doesn't fit your agenda. I'll have my own page soon and expose your pathetic lies." Why would it be necessary for this atheist and other atheists to be so abusive? I ask them this and they accuse me of whining and then they often strongly demand that I prove there is a god. Most interesting. Again, what is it in atheism that lends itself to such behavior?

968

Concerning atheist attacks on Theism

Some might think that atheists would be content with simply not believing in God and leave the theists to themselves. After all, if God doesn't exist then what's the big deal? Why not let the theists believe in God the way a child believes in the tooth fairy? To the atheist neither exists. So why bother? Even though many atheists don't care if people believe in God or not, others feel obligated to fight what is often labeled as "oppressive religious bigotry." To this end, many of them are active in politics, social groups, the Internet, and various lawsuits with the intent of changing society to a more atheistic nature. They often consider Christians as a threat to freedom, common sense, and a good life. Consider this quote I found on an atheist web site at atheists.org. "We are constantly being overrun by people trying to get their ticket to Heaven at our expense, and if we dont stand up and be counted we will lose the very freedom we hold most dear; freedom of thought..." This kind of statement is quite common in atheist circles. Many atheists I've spoken to tell me that I cannot think logically, that I am deluded, and that I believe in myths. They tell me that I am bound by foolish antiquated beliefs and need to abandon my religious bigotry and become a 'free thinker' like them. Additionally, after reading much atheist material and debating with them over the internet, I've discovered that they often use mockery of God, religious leaders, and the Bible as weapons. This isn't the case with all atheists, as I have had very good conversations with some of them, but ridiculing attitudes are surprisingly prevalent and strong. Character assassination, half-truths, and out-ofcontext Bible quotes are typical tools used by many of them in attempts to make Christianity look bad. Now, I am not trying to dismantle the atheist position with a generic character assassination. I am only making on observation. In the majority of my dealings with atheists, I have encountered great arrogance, rudeness, and condescension. Atheists have told me that religion is only a giant con-game designed to get peoples' money, that clergymen are in business for themselves, and that I was mentally ill for believing in God. Following are other comments from atheists: "I do not want to be bound to archaic mythologies. This is the 20th century." "Christianity is an oppressive system used to control and manipulate people." "Logic demands that religion be proven wrong." "Christians should all be in mental wards." "We are free thinkers and not bound by outdated and oppressive myths." "Christians are sycophantic sheep."

Atheists often imply that reason is best used by them and not by Christians who, many say, need psychological help for believing in God. This condescending attitude is a fountain for derogatory comments. I have been called stupid, absurd, illogical, and a slave to my religion. I get the impression from atheists that they are so convinced they have the truth that no other options are available to them and that if you don't agree with them, you're not smart. Of course, they will deny this and say I am being ridiculous, but this is what I have observed -- right or wrong. Consider some of the terms the atheists use to describe themselves: "Free thinkers," "Free from religion," "Rational," etc. They use these self-descriptive terms in juxtaposition to statements of Christians as religious bigots, losers, and brainwashers. On the atheist.org website I read, "Critical thinking, objectivity, scientific methodology, and peer review are all hallmarks of Atheism. Submission, fear, credulity, and insupportable claims are the hallmarks of religious belief. " When I read statements like this I can't help but wonder which religion they are referring to. It can't be Christianity because the Bible teaches us to love God and love our fellow man. It teaches that the fear of the Lord is wisdom, that truthfulness is a way of life, and that eyewitness accounts of the miraculous is one of the evidences for its validity. Of course, the atheist would argue with all of this

969

because he must. But still, if an atheist wants to attack religion in general and Christianity specifically, it should, at least, do so objectively. But this doesn't seem to be the hallmark of the atheistic movement; at least not from what I've seen so far. Consider the following statements from Atheists. "Godism is consistent with crime, cruelty, envy, hatred, malice, and uncharitableness." "As long as religious purposes are served, ethics, inquiry and reason are abandoned."

Are these the statements of tolerance, impartiality, truth, and sound judgment? Not at all. It seems to me that if the atheists who expressed the above quotes were in power, with their views of religion being cruel, evil, and unreasonable, would they then either jail the 'offenders' or legislate complete and total annihilation of all things religious? Who knows, but it is something to ponder. Does atheism really teach freedom? No. It teaches bondage for its adherents and for those who disagree with it.

970

I don't' see any convincing evidence for God

Following are some of the approaches I use when dealing with atheists in conversations that deal with alleged lack of evidence for God's existence. Now, no argument is fool-proof and no single argument answers all the objections. Nevertheless, it is important to have thought out some of the implications of the statements and bring them up during conversations. Of course, conversations rarely follow a logical format. They usually take tangents and detours. That is normal and good. But we need to be prepared as much as possible. I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God, A. That does not mean there is no God. i. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports his existence. a. Therefore, it is possible that God exists. i. If it is possible, then faith has its place. ii. If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.) B. It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God. i. But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence. a. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism. C. Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable? i. If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state that there is no evidence for God. ii. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it? a. Does Christianity fit within those criteria? i. If not, why not? D. Is it possible that your criterion for evidence is not reasonable? i. Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example a. Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory? i. Even if that did happen, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? ii. How would you know? ii. Do your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic? a. Do you want him to make square circles, or some other self-contradictory phenomena or make a rock so big He cannot pick it up? b. If God exists, He has created the laws of logic. He, then, cannot violate those laws. E. Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented? i. Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can? ii. But, do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur? a. If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. i. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence. a. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position. b. Do you define the miraculous out of existence? i. If so, on what basis do you do this? iii. If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof. a. If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an assumption.

971

Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?

This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist. Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate. What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else. For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature. The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature. Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn't pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He. Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn't logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth's crust." A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock. What the critics are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. So what they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist instead of logic. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

972

God cannot exist because His attributes would require limits

I received an email from a Christian who was taking a philosophy class. He stated that the following argument as a proof against God's existence was presented in the book, Atheism: The Case Against God, written by George H. Smith (page 41). I have reproduced the argument given to me in his email and will attempt to answer it. If a supernatural being is to be exempt from natural law, it cannot possess specific, determinate characteristics. These attributes would impose limits and these limits would restrict the capacities of this supernatural being....A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature--which amounts to existing without any nature at all. If I understand the argument correctly, the argument is that God can't exist because an existent being would have specific attributes which are naturally limits. These limits would mean it is subject to natural laws and therefore, not supernatural. Therefore, God cannot exist. In order to answer this objection, I will break down his statements into an outline with answers included in the outline. 1. If a supernatural being is to be exempt from natural law, it cannot possess specific, determinate characteristics. A. "Determinate" means "precisely limited or defined." A "characteristic" is a distinguishing feature or prominent aspect of something. An "attribute" is a quality in something, usually that which identifies a characteristic. A characteristic of God is that He works patiently with people. An attribute of God is that He is all knowing. B. I assume that Mr. Smith means that to be "exempt" from natural law means that God is not restricted to them or by them. That would make sense since, if God exists and if He created the universe, then by nature, all laws thus created by Him are a reflection of His creative will and nature and therefore subject to Him. C. However, I see no logical reason to state that God cannot have limited or defined characteristics. A supernatural being must, by logical necessity, operate in concert with His nature. In other words, God could not violate His own nature. This non-self-violation truth would be a characteristic: the inability of self-contradiction. By default, this is a limitation upon God that does not negate His existence. Since God is eternal by nature, He could not destroy Himself and thus violate His attribute of eternality. In fact, such thinking would demonstrate the logic of His existence by affirming the lack of ability of self-contradiction. As we can see around us, all things that exist have a nature against which they cannot act in a contrary manner. A tree cannot be a galaxy; their natures are different. A cat cannot be a jumbo jet; their natures are different. The fact that a cat cannot be a jet does not mean that neither the cat nor the jet exist. The same with God. God is limited to His own nature because He cannot do things which are against His nature. For example, God cannot lie, stop being God and then become God again, etc. Therefore, the claim that attributes which necessitate limits disproves God's existence is illogical. D. Additionally, natural Laws are creations of God and are reflections of His creative nature. But, they are not beyond Him nor greater than Him since, by definition, God is greater than all things. These attributes would impose limits and these limits would restrict the capacities of this supernatural being. A. As stated above, a restriction of capacity does not negate the possibility of God's existence. Again, God does not have the capacity to lie, steal, cheat, not be God, or violate His own nature and this limits do not prove He cannot exist.

2.

973

3.

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature -- which amounts to existing without any nature at all. A. This is not a logical statement. The "must" in the statement is unqualified. Why "must" a supernatural being exist without limits? Limited how? In scope, size, duration, extent, nature, etc.? It is unspecified and, therefore, difficult to address in detail. B. Furthermore, above I demonstrated that God is limited to the characteristics of His own nature in that He cannot violate His own nature. His attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, etc.), which are reflective of His nature, cannot be self-contradictory. C. Since God is not self-contradictory, He would act in concert with the natural laws which have been "designed into" the universe. However, since these natural laws are created by Him, He is in full control of them all and can act in a way that to us is Miraculous. D. Furthermore, since God would be infinite, any natural laws reflected in a universe would be, by definition, limited since the universe, a created thing, cannot exceed the scope, nature, and power of God since it is a created thing. By necessity, then, when God created the limited universe, the natural laws in it, cannot control or restrict Him since they are finite and He is infinite. At best, the natural laws are only a reflection of His infinitude and internal consistency and are subject to His control.

Also, I noticed the switch in terms from characteristic to attribute. Mr. Smith said, "If a supernatural being is to be exempt from natural law, it cannot possess specific, determinate characteristics. These attributes would impose limits..." The terms are not defined (at least not in the email I received) and are not identical words. Yet, Mr. Smith uses them synonymously which, I believe, weakens his argument further by demonstrating a lack of consistency.

974

There is no proof that God exists

Sometimes atheists assert that there is no proof that God exists. The only problem is that an atheist cannot logically make that claim. In order to state that there is no proof for God's existence, the atheist would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God's existence. But, since he cannot know all things, he cannot logically state there is no proof for God's existence. At best, an atheist can only state that of all the alleged proofs he has seen thus far, none have worked. He could even say that he believes there are no proofs for God's existence. But then, this means that there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there and that he simply has not yet encountered one. Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would the atheist be able to accept it given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for him to accept a proof for God's existence; he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's existence and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.

975

If God is unchanging, why does the world change if it reveals God?

If God is unchanging, why does the world change if it reveals God? The answer to the question is found in understanding the difference between the nature of God and the nature of the world. God's nature does not change. He is always the same, always consistent, always true, etc. The world, on the other hand, is separate from God. It is His creation and it does not share in His nature. Since it is different and separate from God, it is not logically necessary that the world be unchanging. Nevertheless, the Bible states that God is known in creation to some degree: Romans 1:19-20 says, "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." When the Bible says that God's attributes can be known, it is dealing with the quality and characteristics of God. No created thing can properly represent God. All that is created bears, to some degree, the fingerprints of God. But each created thing does not sufficiently represent the creator. Therefore, the creation, the world, does not accurately reflect the nature of God which is unchangeable. The attributes of God can, to a degree, be seen in creation. For example, we can see from space (height, width, and depth), time (past, present, and future), and matter (solid, liquid, gas), that God is triune since each of the three properties of the universe is comprised of three parts. We can deduce that God has an aspect to His nature that is three in one since we see it reflected in nature. We can also see that God is a God of order since the world has order. We can see that God is wise since that order provides sustenance for the created order. We can see the incredible knowledge of God in the creation of the variety and complexity of the different animals. We can see that the world did not come into existence by itself and we can look at the beauty of a sunset and realize that God has a quality of beauty to Himself. It is these kinds of things that help us to see the attributes of God in creation. There will be some who will argue that the world is full of killing, suffering, earthquakes, famine, etc. If the world demonstrates attributes of God, then is it not fair to say that God likes suffering since it is in the world? But, God did not create the world this way. He created it good. There was no suffering in the world when God created it. But, with the fall, with the entrance of sin in the world, suffering was also introduced and the creation moans to be delivered from its present bondage. Romans 8:20-22, "For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now."

976

Only atheism offers a predictable universe

The following objection was presented on the Atheism discussion board on CARM as an "evidence" for atheism. It is as follows: "To my mind, the best evidence for atheism is the predictability of the universe. Atheism (or perhaps I should say naturalism) posits that there exists nothing capable of circumventing the laws by which the universe runs. Theism, on the other hand, says that there is an omnipotent being who, by definition as omnipotent, could cause the universe to run in any manner he/she/it chooses. Any "laws" we might think we observe are merely the coincidental result of God's choice to make things happen that way when we're looking. Atheism thus makes a specific prediction that theism does not. It says that everything within the universe must always follow natural law, since there is no being who could make it otherwise. Theism has no equivalent prediction. I will break the argument down into its parts and deal with it accordingly. The argument is reproduced with comments in an outline form. 1. Premise: "Atheism (or perhaps I should say naturalism) posits that there exists nothing capable of circumventing the laws by which the universe runs." A. Response: Naturalism is a logical conclusion for atheists. It maintains that all things in the universe are the products of natural laws, behave according to natural laws, and that these laws cannot be violated. Premise: "Theism, on the other hand, says that there is an omnipotent being who, by definition as omnipotent, could cause the universe to run in any manner he/she/it chooses." A. Response: This is a subjective statement with an erring premise. There is no ultimate definition of the actions of God as defined in theism in general. But, the Christian God is absolute and knows all the laws of the universe, since He incorporated them into the universe as He created it. This would mean that He knows all laws in the universe and can perform actions which would appear to violate other laws -- only they do not. The Laws in the universe are a reflection of the absoluteness of the nature of God. Premise: "Any 'laws' we might think we observe are merely the coincidental result of God's choice to make things happen that way when we're looking." A. Response: The laws would not be arbitrary (coincidental). If God exists and He has a nature, then what He created (laws and all) would be made in a way that is consistent with His nature. He would not created in a manner insconsistent with Himself because this would be self-contradictory "The Christian God is eternal and unchangeable (as the Christian believes according to the Bible). Therefore, the laws in the universe would be consistent and absolute and also result in predictability. This is why the existence of physical laws in the universe is just as easily and logically explained by the Christian as the atheist. Premise: "Atheism thus makes a specific prediction that theism does not." A. Response: On the contrary as demonstrated above. The Christian has every right to claim the predictability of the universe based upon the absoluteness of God's nature. Instead of randomness that atheism would suggest since the universe and life are the product of chance, Christian theism supports absoluteness and consistency based upon the absoluteness of God's nature.

2.

3.

4.

977

5.

6.

Premise: "It says that everything within the universe must always follow natural law, since there is no being who could make it otherwise." A. Response: And what natural laws must God follow? If he creates the universe as a reflection of His natural absoluteness, then it is logical that the attributes of absoluteness in physics, etc., also reflect His nature. If miracles occur at the hand of God, then they occur in a system of laws consistent with His nature. What we observe as supernatural is in reality natural to God and consistent with His abilities and attributes. The extent of natural law can and does exist beyond the scope of human understanding. Take quantum physics as an example; there are things we just do not understand. Furthermore, if God exists and He created the universe with all that is in it, then why not admit that there will be laws that may never be fully understood by people? There is no logical reason that requires that if God exists that His abilities and knowledge of the laws of the universe (which created) cannot and do not extend beyond the scope of human grasp. This would mean that the "supernatural" is simply natural to God and miraculous to us. Premise: "Theism has no equivalent prediction." A. Response: Yes it does. Christian theism states that since God is absolute and created the universe, it will demonstrate the absolute nature of laws. It further states that the supernatural, the miraculous, are consistent with God's nature and since God is beyond us, God's behavior will also often appear beyond us.

This objection is not a proof for God's non-existence and it does not offer a theory of natural law predictability that Christian theism cannot. Therefore, it is not a proof for atheism.

978

All of reality and God's existence

The following logical argument against God's existence was offered on the CARM atheism discussion board. I have reproduced it and shown where the argument is invalid. 1. 2. 3. 4. "Reality" is denotative of all of that which exists. Entity X is postulated to exist outside of reality. Statement 2 reduces to: entity X is postulated to exist outside of all that which exists. Statement 3 is a logical contradiction (semantically) and hence cannot meaningfully correspond to anything. 5. Therefore, any entity attributed with such an "existence" cannot logically exist (since it is defined not to exist by placing it outside of reality). I will break the argument down into its parts and deal with it accordingly. The argument is reproduced with comments in an outline form. 1. 2. Premise: "Reality" is denotative of all that exists." A. Response: The atheist is simply stating a definition for what reality is. Premise: "Entity X is postulated to exist outside of reality." A. Response: This is an illogical statement since it contradicts Premise 1. If reality is all that exists, then by definition, if God exists, God is part of that reality. He can then not simp ly manufacture another premise in contradiction to the first and continue as if there is no contradiction. Furthermore, the attempt to do so also commits the fallacy of equivocation where the meaning of "Reality" is altered during the discussion. In Premise one reality is all that exists. In Premise two, reality is not all that exists. If a logical argument is then to follow, it cannot contradict the premises which go before it lest the argument be disproved. In this case, Premise 2 contradicts premise one. Therefore, premise 2 is illogical and the premises or conclusion based upon a self contradictory set of premises is most probably incorrect. Premise: "Statement 2 reduces to: entity X is postulated to exist outside of all that which exists." A. Response: Again, postulating that entity X exists outside of all that exists is self contradictory. Premise: Statement 3 is a logical contradiction (semantically) and hence cannot meaningfully correspond to anything. A. Response: Correct. If it is a logical contradiction, then it is illogical. The illogic is in the statement of the argument in premise two which contradicts premise one. Merely stating that premise two is as it is, does not mean that it is, especially when it contradicts the previous premise. Premise: Therefore, any entity attributed with such an "existence" cannot logically exist (since it is defined not to exist by placing it outside of reality). A. Response: This is correct. And since God, by definition, would be part of reality since reality is all that exists, then this argument is invalid and has not disproved the existence of God.

3.

4.

5.

The problem with the argument above is that it is self contradictory. Therefore, the proof that there is no God is invalid.

979

If God exists, then...

Following are four attempted proofs for why God does not exist taken from the CARM atheism discussion board. I have reproduced to them and addressed each one. First If God exists He would make himself clearly known to me. He has not made Himself clearly known to me. Therefore God does not exist. 1. Premise: If God exists He would make himself clearly known to me. A. Response: It is not logically necessary that if God exists He must make Himself known to any individual. There is no "must" or "ought" or "would" to it as required by an atheist. If God exists He can do what He wants whether it is to remain undetected or detected to anyone. Premise: He has not ma de Himself clearly known to me. A. Response: This may or may not be the case. It may be that such a person has indeed encountered a revelation of God. But, if the person has a presuppositional base that excludes the existence of God, then such evidence of God would be discarded and missed. Premise: Therefore God does not exist. A. Response: Since premise one and two are not logically necessary and true, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

2.

3.

Second If God exists, then literalistic fundamental Christianity would integrate seamlessly with all natural science. Literalistic, fundamental Christianity does not integrate seamlessly with all natural science. Therefore God does not exist. 1. Premise: If God exists, then literalistic fundamental Christianity would integrate seamlessly with all natural science. A. Response: This is a subjective statement and subjective statements do not make logical proofs. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts scientific fact. Evolution of species from inorganic material is not a scientific fact. It is a theory. Science agrees with the Bible. Premise: Literalistic, fundamental Christianity does not integrate seamlessly with all natural science. A. Response: This is another subjective statement since it is an over generalized statement. Furthermore it assumes that the Bible and Science contradict in most, if not all areas. This is not true. Premise: Therefore God does not exist. A. Response: Since premise one and two are subjective statements, there is no logical reason to require the conclusion and it is still possible that God exists.

2.

3.

980

Third If God exists there would be convincing proofs of His existence. There are no convincing proofs of His existence. Therefore God does not exist. 1. Premise: If God exists there would be convincing proofs of His existence. A. Response: This is not a logical necessity. To say that there would be convincing proofs of His existence is an unfounded statement. If God exists, He may or may not choose to provide sufficient proof for His existence. The Bible teaches us that God works through people and history and that there is evidence for His existence. But, people dispose of the evidence due to the hardness of their hearts, i.e., their presuppositio ns that negate God's existence. It may also be that there are convincing proofs of His existence but people choose to ignore them or explain them away or are not aware of them. Finally, the premise admits the possibility of proofs of God's existence. But since all proofs cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that there are proofs that exist that are not known. Premise: There are no convincing proofs of His existence. A. Response: This is an opinion since the word "convincing" is included. For some, there is convincing proof of God's existence. That is why this is a subjective statement, an opinion. Because it is subjective it is not a proof. Premise: Therefore God does not exist. A. Response: Therefore, because of the subjective nature of the alleged proof, this attempt does not disprove God's existence. Fourth If God exists in the real world there would be a coherent definition of Him. There is no coherent definition of God. Therefore God does not exist outside the human mind. 1. Premise: If God exists in the real world there would be a coherent definition of Him. A. Response: "coherent definition" is not defined. Therefore, it is not possible to sufficient respond to the statement since there is not enough information with which to draw logical conclusions. Many things exist in the world which are not defined because they have not yet been discovered. They do not suddenly exist because they are then discovered and defined. Therefore, existence is independent of definition and whether or not God is defined properly does not mean He does or does not exist. Premise: There is no coherent definition of God. A. Response: Depending on what is meant by "coherent definition of God" this statement may or may not be true. But since no meaning is given to the statement, logically necessary conclusions cannot be drawn. Furthermore, to say there is no "coherent definition of God" may be presumptuous since the person cannot know all things to know whether or not there is a coherent definition of God. In other words, he cannot say there is no "coherent definition of God" because he does not know all definitions of God. Premise: Therefore God does not exist outside the human mind. A. Response: The conclusion does not follow from the premise since a thing defined does not make it real or not real and also because all definitions of God are not known by the critic so as to make a logical assertion.

2.

3.

2.

3.

981

Any entity that is not the source of all power within reality is not God

The following logical offering as an attempt to demonstrate that there is no God is taken from the CARM atheism discussion board. I have reproduced it here. Following is an analysis. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. If God exists God must be omnipotent. (If not he is not God) If God is omnipotent then: A. God is omnipotent because he willed that he would be omnipotent or B. he is omnipotent without having willed himself omnipotent. A cannot be true because God could not will himself omnipotent prior to being omnipotent. If A cannot be true then A is not true. If A is not true then God is not the source of his own omnipotence. Any entity that is not the source of all potency within reality is not God. Therefore no entity can fulfill the requirements for being a God. If no entity can fulfill the requirements for being a God, then there is no God.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Premise: If God exists God must be omnipotent. (If not he is not God) A. Response: This is reasonable. However, omnipotence does not mean that God can do anything. Omnipotence means that God can do anything that is consistent with His nature. God could not violate His own essence and nature. Some would then say that God is not omnipotent. So be it. But, by what logic can anyone claim that a creature or object can behave in a manner contrary to its own nature? If this can be established, then omnipotence can be defined as being able to do anything including violating one's own nature (behaving in a manner contrary to the nature and abilities and restrictions of its own nature). If this cannot be logically established, then omnipotence must be the ability to do anything that is consistent with one's nature, attributes, and essence. We see this reflected in the Bible when it says, for example, that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). This is a logical necessity since to lie would be a self contradiction and if God is true, then He cannot be self contradictory. Premise: If God is omnipotent then: A. Premise: God is omnipotent because He willed that he would be omnipotent or i. Response: Omnipotence would be an attribute of God. An attribute of God is a natural part of God's being. Therefore, God would not will omnipotence in that He was not omnipotent and then decided He would be omnipotent. This would be a change in His nature and violates the biblical doctrine of God's immutability -- that He changes not (Psalm 90:2; Heb. 13:8). B. Premise: he is omnipotent without having willed himself omnipotent. i. Response: This would be the more logical statement. Premise: A cannot be true because God could not will himself omnipotent prior to being omnipotent. A. Response: Correct. Premise: If A cannot be true then A is not true. A. Response: This is logically correct since if A cannot be true then it is not true.

982

5.

6.

7. 8.

Premise: If A is not true then God is not the source of his own omnipotence. A. Response: The problem here is that Premise 2A does not apply to the conclusion of Premise 5. The negation of 2A is simply that God did not will to become omnipotent because He already was omnipotent since omnipotence is part of His nature. To will something means to make a decision and act upon it. In this case it would imply that God willed to change His nature (by becoming omnipotent when He wasn't) which would pose the logical problem of God becoming something He was not in violation of His previous nature. How does something not omnipotent become omnipotent? Where would it get its "all power" from, something greater than itself? If so, this would mean that God was not God since there is an omnipotent source greater than God. So, Premise 5 cannot be true. Second, since God is, by definition, already omnipotent, then He is the source of His own omnipotence and this further contradicts Premise 5. But, He is not the source in that He became something He was not or originated something in Himself that was previously nonexistent. This would mean that God changed and would violate the definition of God (at least the Christian one). He is the source in that it exists within His own nature. As God is, His omnipotence is. Third, since 2A is not correct, and 2B is correct, the argument should have addressed this possibility in contrast to 2A since it raised it. It did, after all, offer two possibilities and did not negate the second. Instead, it ignored 2B as a logical alternative, thereby demonstrating that it the argument is insufficient. Premise: Any entity that is not the source of all potency within reality is not God. A. Response: Since Premise 5 has been shown to be faulty, Premise 6 is not a logical necessity. Premise: Therefore no entity can fulfill the requirements for being a God. A. Response: Since Premise 6 has been shown to be faulty, Premise 7 is not a logical necessity. Premise: If no entity can fulfill the requirements for being a God, then there is no God. A. Response: Since Premise 7 has been shown to be faulty, Premise 8 is not a logical necessity.

Logic is good for finding errors in thinking. The error in this argument rests in Premise 5. Therefore, the concluding argument is not logically necessary and this does not suffice as a proof that God does not exist.

983

If everything needs a creator, then who or what created God ?

This question is logically problematic. If everything needs a creator, than no matter what exists, it must have been created. Furthermore, to be created means that someone or something had to create it. But then, who created the creator and so on? Logically, this would mean there would be an infinite regression of creators and we would never be able to find the first, uncaused cause since, by definition (the questions says that "everything needs a creator") there wouldn't be any uncaused cause. This would mean that the sequence of creations is eternal. But, if it exists that there is an eternal regression of creators, then who created the infinite regression of creators? Remember, the question presupposes that all things need a creator -- even the eternal sequence of creators -- which becomes logically absurd. Furthermore, if there is an eternal regression of creators that are eternal, then the question is not answered. In fact, it cannot be answered since it weakness is that "all things need a creator." Of course, this only begs the question in that how did the process begin? Therefore, the question only raises the same problem it asks and it is a question that, by its own design, cannot be answered. Therefore, it is invalid. The question is better phrased as a statement: "Everything that has come into existence, was brought into existence by something else." This is a more logical statement and is not wrought with the difficulties of the initial question. In the revised statement "Everything that has come into existence," implies that the thing that "has come into existence" did not already exist. If it did not already exist but then came into existence, then something had to bring it into existence because something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence (a logical absolute). This pushes the regression of creators back to what we would call the theoretical "uncaused cause" since there cannot be an infinite regression of creators as discussed above and since in infinite number of creators would mean there was an infinite number of creations and created things including things that cannot be destroyed since they would constitute things that exist. If that is so, then the universe would have had an infinite number of created things in it and it would be full. But it is not full. Therefore, there has not been an infinite regression of creations. By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the uncaused cause (Psalm 90:2). He was always in existence and He is the one who created space, time, and matter. This means that the Christian God is the uncaused cause and is the ultimate creator. This eliminates the infinite regression problem. But some may ask, "But who created God?" But the answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.

984

How can something that cannot be described be said to exist?

Whether or not something exists does not depend on whether or not it can be described. If something exists, it exists independently of someone's ability to describe it. That is the nature of existence; that is, things exist whether or not someone knows it exists, let alone accurately describe its existence. Furthermore, something that exists is not limited in existence by the inability of someone to accurately describe its existence. For example, there are galaxies and phenomenon within galaxies that have not yet been discovered. But this does not mean that they do not exist since we cannot describe knowledgeably, sufficiently, or accurately. We know that things exist which are difficult to adequately describe. A rainbow is another good example. A verbal description of a rainbow cannot compare to actually seeing one. By default, the description is inadequate as compared to the reality of eyewitness encounter. But, that does not mean that rainbows do not exist because we cannot adequately describe them with words. As far as God is concerned. God can be described, though not perfectly. He can be sufficiently described so that we can gain an understanding of His nature, greatness, and differences from ourselves. Though we will always fall short when trying to describe an infinite being, we can still say enough about Him to convey who and what He is so that the concept of God can be communicated. We can say that He is infinite, gracious, loving, all knowing, all-powerful, all present, holy, pure, righteous, that he is not flesh and bones, the only uncaused and infinitely eternal being in existence, etc. Though we may not be able to perfectly describe Him we can describe Him by listing His attributes and qualities. Attributes and qualities reflect the nature of the thing described. Therefore, we can describe God and our insufficiency to adequately describe Him in certain areas does not diminish His existence nor mean that He does not exist. It simply means that He is great.

985

Why do you believe in Jesus but not Santa Claus?

Sometimes atheists will ask why Christians believe in Jesus and not Santa Claus. Some atheists say that you cannot prove Jesus existed anymore than you can prove Santa Claus exists. Of course, this is not accurate for several reasons. First of all, Jesus is presented as a historical figure by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings. Santa Claus is simply presented as a fictional character. Second, Jesus is presented as a real person who claimed to be divine and who performed miracles. These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses and have been transmitted to us reliably; the New Testament docume nts are 99.5% textually pure. Santa Claus is intentionally and knowing presented as a fictional character who lives at the North Pole. Third, the intention of the gospel writers was to convey the physical reality of Jesus to responsible adults where the accounts of Santa are intended to entertain the wild imaginations of children. This is why the vast majority of healthy, mentally competent adults do not believe in a real person known as Santa who can travel through air being pulled by several flying reindeer, who can carry in his sled enough presents for all the good children in the entire world, and who can descend and ascend through chimneys even though he is quite overweight.1 7 6 Fourth, the writings concerning Jesus exhibit a historical, cultural, religious, and political context with verifiable names, events, and places being an integral part of the record of that context and reality. Santa Claus stories do not contain any such integral contextualization except to state that there is a north pole and that there are cities and countries where Santa visits at night. Fifth, the facts are that parents are the ones who buy, wrap, and deliver presents to children and we know of no documented occurrences where Santa Claus has been caught breaking and entering, tripping home alarm systems, caught on film, vanishing up a chimney, and riding a sleigh through the air pulled by flying reindeer. This latter point is worth commenting on since we additionally have no evidence at all that reindeer can fly which further adds to the irrationality of the Santa Claus story. Additionally, if a large sleigh (sufficient to carry millions of toys) approached the Washing D.C. area (surely there are at least some good children there), we would expect to hear of military fighter jets being scrambled to intercept the intruder. No records of this have yet surfaced. Sixth, given that the gospel accounts were written by individuals who knew Jesus personally (or were under the guidance of those who knew Him), that the gospels are historically accurate, superbly transmitted to us through the copying method, we can then assume at the very least, that Jesus was an actual historical person. But, we have no hard evidence to establish the validity of Santa Claus. We have found no reindeer tracts on the roofs of snow covered homes strewn about millions of homes on Christmas Eve. There are no video accounts of Santa roaming throughout peoples' homes. We know of no flying reindeer, and no one has yet established how Santa can live at the North Pole for hundreds of years without being detected -- particularly in this technologically advanced culture. Add to that the lack of Santa Disciples going about the world, risking their lives, being ridiculed by religious and political adversaries, writing inspirational text, performing miracles, etc., and you really don't have much evidence at all that Santa exists except in the mind of children. Finally, it really comes down to whether or not either one can be reasonably supported to exist. Very few people deny the historic reality of Jesus and though millions of children affirm the existence of Santa, we know well that the minds of children are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality -- particularly when the parents they are trusting tell them that Santa is real. For an atheist to reject Jesus' existence based on arguments found against Santa Claus demonstrates the inability for the atheist to distinguish between historical verifiable documents and known constructed children's' stories. Jesus was an actual historical figure. Santa, of course, is not.

176

Granted there are probably some adults why may believe in Santa Claus as a reality, but I suspect they would be mental patients or some other such people not fully in touch with reality.

986

Why believe in Christianity over all other religions?

Critics often ask why Christianity is any better than any other religion in the world. After all, of all the religions that exist how can it be that only Christianity is true? If God exists, why can't God use different religions? Don't all paths lead to God? These kids of questions are asked all the time of Christians and unfortunately the answers aren't always very good ones particularly when dealing with people who have a relativistic truth base and don't believe in absolutes. Therefore, in an attempt to demonstrate why Christianity is true and all other religious systems are false, I've prepared the follow list of reasons for Christianity's superiority. There are such things as absolute truths If truth is relative, then the statement that truth is relative is an absolute truth and would be self defeating statement by proving that truth is not relative. But, if truth is absolute, then the statement "truth is absolute" is true and not self defeating. It is true that truth exists. It is true that truth will not contradict itself as we have just seen. In fact, it is absolutely true that you are reading this paper. If we can see that there is such a thing as truth in the world, then we could also see that there can be spiritual truth as well. It is not absurd to believe in spiritual absolutes anymore than physical or logical absolutes. Even the statement that all religions lead to God is a statement held to be a spiritual absolute by many people. This simply demonstrates that people do believe in spiritual truth. Why? Because truth exists. However, not all that is believed to be true actually is true. Therefore, all belief systems cannot be true since they often contradict each other in profound ways. Religions contradict each other; therefore, they cannot all be true. Mormonism teaches that there are many gods in existence and that you can become a god. Christianity teaches that there is only one God and you cannot become a god. Islam teaches that Jesus is not God in flesh where Christianity does. Jesus cannot be both God and not God at the same time. Some religions teach that we reincarnate while others do not. Some teach there is a hell and others do not. They cannot all be true. If they cannot all be true, it cannot be true that all religions lead to God. Furthermore, it means that some religions are, at the very least, false in their claims to reveal the true God (or gods). Remember, truth does not contradict itself. If God exists, He will not institute mutually exclusive and contradictory belief systems in an attempt to get people to believe in Him. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there can be an absolute spiritual truth and that not all systems can be true irregardless of whether or not they claim to be true. There must be more than a mere claim. Fulfilled Prophecy concerning Jesus Though there are other religions that have prophecies in them, none are 100% accurate as is the Bible and none of them point to someone like Jesus who made incredible claims and performed incredible deeds. The Old Testament was written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Yet, the Old Testament prophesied many things about Jesus. This is undoubtedly evidence of divine influence upon the Bible. Please consider some of the many prophecies of Jesus in the following chart.

987

Prophecy Born of a virgin Born at Bethlehem He would be preceded by a Messenger Rejected by His own people Betrayed by a close friend His side pierced Crucifixion Resurrection of Christ

Old Testament Prophecy Isaiah 7:14 Micah 5:2 Isaiah 40:3 Isaiah 53:3 Isaiah 41:9 Zech. 12:10 Psalm 22:1, Psalm 22:11-18 Psalm 16:10

New Testament Fulfillment Matt. 1:18,25 Matt. 2:1 Matt. 3:1-2 John 7:5; 7:48 John 13:26-30 John 19:34 Luke 23:33; John 19:23-24 Acts 13:34-37

Fulfillment of prophecy can have different explanations. Some state that the NT was written and altered to make it look like Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy (but there is no evidence of that). Others state that the prophecies are so vague that they don't count (but many of the prophecies are not vague at all). Of course, it is possible that God inspired the writers and Jesus, who is God in flesh, fulfilled these prophecies as a further demonstration of the validity of Christianity. The Claims and Deeds of Christ Christianity claims to be authored by God. Of course, merely making such a claim does not make it true. Anyone can make claims. but, backing up those claims is entirely different. Jesus used the Divine Name for Himself (John 8:58), the same Divine Na me used by God when Moses asked God what His name was in (Exodus 3:14). Jesus said that He could do whatever He saw God the Father do (John 5:19), and He claimed to be one with the God the Father (John 10:30; 10:38). Likewise, the disciples also called Him God (John 1:1,14; John 10:27; Col. 2:9). By default, if Jesus is God in flesh, then whatever He said and did would be true. Since Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one can find God without Him (John 14:6), this all becomes incredibly important. Again, making a claim is one thing. Backing it up is another. Did Jesus also back up His words with His deeds? Yes, He did. Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus changed water into wine (John 2:6-10). cast out demons (Matt. 8:28-32; 15:22-28). healed lepers (Matt. 8:3; Luke 17:14). healed diseases (Matt. 4:23,24; Luke 6:17-19) healed the paralytic (Mark 2:3-12). raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44). restored sight to the blind (Matt. 9:27-30; John 9:1-7). restored cured deafness (Mark 7:32-35). fed the multitude (Matt. 14:15-21; Matt. 15:32-38). walked on water (Matt. 8:26-27). calmed a storm with a command (Matt. 8:22-27; Mark 4:39). rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27). appeared to disciples after resurrection (John 20:19).

The eyewitnesses recorded the miracles of Jesus and the gospels have been reliably transmitted to us. Therefore, we can believe what Jesus said about Himself because Jesus performed many convincing miracles in front of people who testified and wrote about what they saw Him do.

988

Christ's resurrection Within Christianity, the resurrection is vitally important. Without the resurrection, our faith is useless (1 Cor. 15:14). It was the resurrection that changed the lives of the disciples. After Jesus was crucified, the disciples ran and hid. But when they saw the risen Lord, they knew that all that Jesus had said and done proved that He was indeed God in flesh, the Savior. No other religious leader has died in full view of trained executioners, had a guarded tom and b, then risen three days later to appear to many many people. This resurrection is proof of who Jesus is and that He did accomplish what He set out to do: provide redemption for mankind. Buddha did not rise from the dead. Muhammad did not rise from the dead. Confucius did not rise from the dead. Krishna did not rise from the dead, etc. Only Jesus has physically risen from the dead, walked on water, claimed to be God, and raised others from the dead. He has conquered death. Why trust anyone else? Why trust anyone who can be held by physical death when we have a Messiah who is greater than death itself? Conclusion Why should anyone trust in Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, or anything else? It is because there are absolute truths, because only in Christianity is there accurate fulfilled prophecies of a coming Messiah. Only in Christianity do we have the extremely accurate transmission of the eyewitness documents (gospels) so we can trust what was originally written. Only in Christianity do we have the person of Christ who claimed to be God, performed many miracles to prove His claim of divinity, who died and rose from the dead, and who said that He alone was the way the truth and the life. All this adds to the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity above all other religions -- all based on the person of Jesus. If follows that if it is all true about what Jesus said and did, then all other religions are false because Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). It could not be that Jesus is the only way and truth and other religions also be the truth. Either Jesus is true and all other religions are false or other religions are true and Jesus is false. There are no other options. I choose to follow the risen Lord.

989

Entropy and Causality used as a proof for God's existence

Definition: The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function. 1. The universe is not infinitely old because it has not run down. A. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a where all usable energy is gone. B. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning. Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size. A. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite am ount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size. All events have causes. A. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old. i. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not. ii. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe. A. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence. i. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself. B. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe. i. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit. ii. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe. C. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite. i. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist. This uncaused cause is supernatural. A. By supernatural I mean it is completely 'other' than the universe is not natural to it. i. This would make the uncaused cause supernatural. ii. This uncaused cause is God.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The Bible teaches that God is infinite in time and scope and is wholly other than the universe of which He created. God is defined as being infinite in size, duration, and power. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.

990

Atheism, Evolution, and Purpose

This outline attempts to show that the evolutionary theory, based on naturalistic principles, leads to purposelessness. Purpose is indicative of a purpose giver, a designer. I propose that God gives us purpose. Also, with this outline, I am trying to show that the best the naturalist position can offer is an illusion of purpose. Premise - from an Atheistic Perspective. 1. 2. The universe exists. The universe has principles and laws inherent in its properties of matter, energy flow, chemical reaction, etc. A. Any derivative principles based upon the laws must be consistent with the inherent laws. These inherent, natural laws cannot be violated. A. Any apparent violation of these laws is only a display of our lack of understanding of all the laws and is consistent with more complex inherent laws. Life is the product of these inherent natural laws of the universe. A. That is, due to the properties of matter and energy, life necessarily arose since we exist. Life can only develop in harmony with the natural laws in the universe. Life is limited to and governed by these inherent principles since life is a product of the inherent laws and cannot violate them. Therefore, A. Human existence, thoughts, feelings, etc., are merely the end result of the inherent universal laws and principles of matter, energy flow, chemical reaction, etc. that has resulted in life.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Question: From an atheistic point of view, what purpose does Mankind have for existence? 8. Since the laws of the universe are immutable and cannot be violated, any reason given by an atheist for claiming purpose in existence can be properly attributed to be the result of chemical reactions in his/her brain leading him to say he has purpose. A. The atheist, therefore, is nothing more than the product of your environment and naturals laws. i. He is guided and lead by these Laws and react, plot, hope, and will only in agreement with these Laws. ii. Any purpose thus offered is still nothing more than the product of natural Laws of matter, chemistry, and energy flow. In other words, the atheist is nothing more than the result of naturals laws inherent in the natural universe. B. If the atheist admits that his mind is the derivative product of these natural Laws, but that his mind and will have "risen above" these laws and that he is now able to escape the limitations of the natural laws and give himself purpose... i. Then it can still be asserted that his reasoning is nothing more than the result of chemical reactions in his brain causing him to say and believe this. ii. Then he has violated principle 5 above which is. a. Life can only develop in harmony with the natural laws in the universe. C. If the atheist states that the natural laws are not exhaustively known and that they can produce truly "free-will" creatures, i. Then he is making his point based upon what we do not know about the natural laws and stating that since we do not know what they can do, therefore, I am free to not be bound by the natural laws. ii. Then it is, essentially, an argument from silence. D. Therefore, from the atheist perspective, he is not independent, autonomous, nor does he possess a free will.

991

Conclusion 9. Therefore, the Concept of "Having a Purpose" becomes meaningless because A. The atheist has no purpose beyond the programming inherent in himself. i. Therefore, he has no independence and no free will. B. If he claims he is thinking in harmony with the limitations imposed by Natural Laws and that the sum of his evolution is greater than those individual Natural Laws, then he has again violated principle 5 above. i. Principle 5: Life can only develop in harmony with the inherent laws in the universe. a. If life only develops in harmony with the laws then it is restricted to those laws and cannot exceed them. C. Also, it can still be said that the atheist claim of independence is nothing more than the chemical reactions in his brain. If the atheist says he has purpose not derived from or that is beyond the mere derivation of life from the original, inherent natural Laws, then.... A. This implies the existence of the supernatural. i. If the supernatural exists, then it is certainly possible that God exists. B. The atheist is denying the principles from which evolution is derived. i. This would mean that evolution is not true, and/or If the atheist acknowledges that his mind, will, hopes, desires, etc., are nothing more than the product of the natural universe, then... A. He has no self-determined purpose. B. He has no will other than that which is governed by the natural laws and programmed within him. C. He serves nothing more than natural laws. Therefore, the atheist has no freely chosen, self intended purpose for existence. If there is a God, then I have purpose, since I have a will and my purpose is given to me by God. A. Since I claim to have a purpose, not derived from natural Laws, it follows that I claim there is a God. i. Since, to claim purpose outside the natural is to conclude that purpose is derived from something beyond the natural. Since I determine I have a purpose and I deny the limitations of the boundaries set by Natural Laws, it is reasonable to assume that I believe in God and that there is a God. A. Otherwise, we are merely bags of chemicals reacting to stimuli. I believe man is more than that.

10.

11.

12. 13.

14.

992

The Christian Worldview, the Atheist Worldview, and Logic.

Can the atheistic worldview present a logical reason why its worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic? I think not. But, the Christian world view can. The Christian worldview states that God is the author of truth, logic, physical laws, etc. Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles). Is this logically defensible? I present this outline in hopes of clarifying the issue and presenting, what I consider, an insurmountable problem of the atheistic worldview. I hesitate to state that this is a proof that God exists, but I think that it is evidence of the Absolute Nature of God. This argument is adapted from the Transcendental Argument championed by Greg Bahnsen. 1. How does a Christian account for the laws of logic? A. The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth. B. Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God. i. God did not create the laws of logic. They were not brought into existence since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too. C. Man, being made in Gods image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them. D. Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the Laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them. How does the atheist account for the laws of logic? A. If the Atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote." B. The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory. C. If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe. i. We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions. a. For example, we do not see in nature that something is both itself and not itself at the same time. i. Why? Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot. ii. Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought. b. Or, where do we observe in nature that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist? i. You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist. You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all and how can any laws of logic be applied to or derived from observing nothing at all? ii. The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind and they do not describe physical behavior of things since behavior is action and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth. a. In other words, laws of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things since they reside completely in the mind. b. We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.

2.

993

D.

3.

If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations. E. If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with. F. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything. Atheists will use logic to try and disprove Gods existence, but in so doing they are assuming absolute laws of logic and borrowing from the Christian worldview. A. The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God who is Himself absolute. B. But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God. i. So, we ask, "How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy and motion?" ii. In other words, "How can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?" Conclusion

The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God. A. God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator. B. God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature. C. Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute. D. The are absolutes because there is an absolute God. The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.

994

An answer to a refutation of the Transcendental Argument

The Transcendental Argument is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science presuppose the Christian world view; that it must be that God's absolute nature is the source of logic, morals, and the laws of science. Some argue that the transcendental argument is insufficient and flawed. One such argument comes from Michael Martin at Infidels.org a website with has obvious anti-Christian overtones. Following are excerpts from Mr. Martin's paper on that site titled "The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God." Mr. Martin's paper is worth a read, but, in my opinion, it is flawed. He said, "Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG [transcendental argument for God], God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary -- it is contingent on God..." If God exists, then God has attributes such as thoughts, character, essence, nature, etc. His attributes would be perfect since He would be, by default, the standard of perfection, the omniscient, omnipotent creator.. His thoughts would necessarily be consistent within Himself: perfect. God is by nature is non-self-contradictory since a self-contradictory thing cannot exist. Logic, then, would not be a created thing, but an attribute of God's perfect existence and nature as it relates to His thought processes. Since God exists eternally in all places, logic cannot have been created, but is, so to speak, eternal as well. In other words, the existence of logic based upon God's existence is indeed a necessary thing since it would be a "part" of God's own natural thought processes. It would then be something innate, natural, and ontologically necessary because God exists and not contingent on anything but God. Therefore, logic would not be a creation of God, but a concomitant necessary truth in existence because God exists. "And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of non-contradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false. As I stated above, logic is a necessary, uncreated, and non-contingent necessity given God's absolute, perfect, and eternal existence. Logic would not be changeable because God is not changeable. This explains why logical truths are always true. They are absolute and transcendent by nature because God is absolute and transcendent by nature. Logic is non-self-contradictory, because God is non-self-contradictory. "Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation -- one that does not presuppose God. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false." We do not know all the laws of the universe. God does, since He brought the universe into existence. What we would consider supernatural may simply be the working of natural laws on a level that only God understands. Mr. Martin's assertion is not necessitate a violation of natural laws; rather, a violation of the extent of natural laws as they are known now.

995

"Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG [transcendental argument for God] is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG." Mr. Martin uses the phrase "objective morality." That phrase in itself is worthy of a long discussion. Nevertheless, I see no reason to state that moral obligation being dependent upon the will of God is incompatible with objective morality. Furthermore, God's will is not arbitrary. It is consistent with His own nature and purpose which is absolute by definition of an omniscient God. In other words, and God of omniscience eternally knows all things and his eternal known would always have been known. Therefore, it could not be arbitrary. Furthermore, to state that God and His will are arbitrary is to state that God can be self-contradictory which is illogical. Mr. Martin has failed to see this. Mr. Martin further fails to see the philosophical difference between the Islam and Mormonism. In Islam, Allah is capricious. In Mormonism, God is changeable and not absolute. The God of Christianity is eternally immutable. There is a large difference between the Christian God and the ones of the others he m entioned. "There are, of course, ways to avoid the conclusions of TANG [Transendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God]. One way is to reject logic, science and objective morality. Another is to maintain belief in God but argue that logic, science and morality are not dependent on God's existence. However, the first way is self-defeating since Christian apologists use logic to defend their position and the second way presumes that TAG is invalid since it assumes that logic, science, and morality do not assume God's existence. Finally, one can object to particular aspects of TANG, for example, the claim that there is no rational way to reconcile different interpretations of the Bible. However, this tack would involve a detailed defense of TAG -something that has yet to be provided." Mr. Martin is stating that it is the theist who would need to reject logic. But since Mr. Martins TANG has logical weaknesses, it would seem that it is he who would need to reject logic in order to retain his atheist position.

996

An answer to another response to the Transcendental Argument

The following paper is my rebuttal to an attempted rebuttal by an atheist of my paper called The Christian Worldview, the Atheist Worldview, and Logic located at http://www.carm.org/atheism/logic.htm. The parts of the original paper that the atheist has quoted are in small caps. The atheist comments are in black. My response is in blue. The atheist goes by the nick name of "ohwow" on the CARM discussion boards where his original post was made on Saturday, January 25th, 2003. ---------------Original paper: "CAN THE ATHEISTIC WORLDVIEW PRESENT A LOGICAL REASON WHY ITS WORLDVIEW CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE ABSTRACT LAWS OF LOGIC ?" Atheist comment: First, you are asking us to provide a reason based on logic, so you are asking us to beg the question that logical absolutes exist. Response to comment: No, this is not begging the question. Begging the question means you assume the thing to be true that you are attempting to prove. I am not asking for a proof that logical absolutes exist and I am not trying to prove their existence. I am asking atheists to provide an explanation for their existence -- because they already exist. This atheist, by default, agrees to this since he is trying to use logic to refute my paper. Therefore, he assumes the existence of logical absolutes. If there were no absolutes in logic, then logic would be relative. If logic were relative then no argument can neither be won or lost, or proven or disproved since it would all be relative anyway. But, in order to prove or disapprove a premise, there must be logical absolutes by which error can be discovered. My statement does not qualify as a logical fallacy since there is nothing that logically prevents someone to use logic in an attempt to discuss logic or attempt to account for the existence of logic. This atheist is, therefore, in error in his premise that I have committed the logical fallacy of "begging the question." Furthermore, if his premise is in error and he builds upon this error, his conclusions will most probably also be in error. For example: Can you give a rational reason why rationality exists? If your answer is itself rational , (based on rationality) your entire answer is then based on the prior assumption that rationality does exist, which equals "question begging". Again, this is not begging the question. The problem is not with using logic to account for the existence of logic since using that which exists does not invalidate the discussion of the thing that exists. There is no 'begging the question' fallacy in here. He has misapplied what the fallacy is. Second, if "account for logical absolutes", means "tell us WHY they exist", well, If you really are asking "WHY do logical absolutes exist", your question itself assumes logical absolutes "came from" some source. You need to be careful when asking "why x exists", because that kind of question assumes x must derive from something outside itself. We would all presume that YOU originate from a source outside yourself, therefore we sense no problem within the question "how do we account for Matt Slick?" Therefore, if you ask similarly "how do we account for logical absolutes?" you are presuming that they do indeed come from a source outside themselves, so your question itself is loaded in a way that atheists cannot answer it directly, just like "have you stopped beating your wife" can't be answered directly by someone who never beat his wife. Therefore rephrase your question to atheists so it isn't loaded. Note, I did not say "tell us WHY they exist." I asked how an atheist accounts for their existence. There is a difference, even if it is subtle. Atheists and Christians both know that logical absolutes exists since we both use them. I am simply asking atheists to give a rational reason for their existence in the context of their atheism.

997

Furthermore, the question is not asked in such a way that atheists cannot answer it. But, if this atheist admits that it is something he cannot answer, then he helps to validate the premise of the paper that atheists cannot account for them where the Christian can. "T HE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW STATES THAT GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF TRUTH, LOGIC , PHYSICAL LAWS, ETC ." You never demonstrate that god DID create logic, you just "state" that god authored such. First of all, I did not ask HOW God would create such a thing as logic. Second, the paper is not intended to be a demonstration that God created logic. Third, the paper asks the question of the atheist in the context of the atheist worldview, how the atheist could account for the existence of logical absolutes. Further, I demonstrate that within the Christian worldview we are able to account for the existence of logical absolutes. Fourth, the fact that this atheist is having difficulty answering to charge of the paper is a demonstration that his worldview is not capable of answering the question at hand which helps to validate the premise of the paper. Fifth, I do not hold the position that God "created" logic. I believe I can logically defend the premise (later in this paper) that logical absolutes are a reflection of the mind of God. He did not invent them. In other words, there was no time when they did not exist and then God decided to bring them into existence. It is God who is eternal by nature, who is the author of "absoluteness" by the very nature of His eternal and absolute existence. Therefore, within this perspective God would not have created logic. It would have already existed because it is a reflection of His eternal mind. "ATHEISM MAINTAINS THAT PHYSICAL LAWS ARE PROPERTIES OF MATTER, AND THAT TRUTH AND LOGIC ARE RELATIVE CONVENTIONS (AGREED UPON PRINCIPLES). IS THIS LOGICALLY DEFENSIBLE?" If matter and energy are NOT essential to logic, you should be able to prove that logic can exist apart from them. Suppose all matter and energy in the universe disappear, where then would 'logic' be found? In the spot where the Big Dipper was? Clearly logic cannot make sense unless matter and energy exist first, which allow us to provide examples to prove logical laws. What logical law does NOT apply to realities of matter and energy, and can be demonstrated as such without appealing to things constituted of matter or energy? One of the points of the original paper is that the nature of logical absolutes is not physical, but conceptual. This is an ontological [deals with the nature of something] difference between the nature of the physical universe and conceptual realities. What I perceive to exist in my mind does not mean that it exists in the physical universe. If I perceive that I am actually larger in mass than the sun, my perception has no bearing upon the reality or lack of reality of it. This atheist simply states that matter and energy are essential to logic yet he does not demonstrate how they are. When he asks "Suppose all matter and energy in the universe disappear, where then would logic be found?", he fails to discuss the nature or essence of logic and absolutes which is so necessary in this discussion. He mentions the "physical" universe, but does not mention the "conceptual" nature of logic. He ignores the latter and attempts to contrast it with the former without developing a sufficient discussion of the nature of each or how they relate. This is important because the nature of something reveals its characteristics. If the nature of something is that it is not physical and energy, then for him to assume that it is dependent upon the physical universe would not necessarily be logic al. Additionally, he asks questions without providing answers. When I asked the atheist to demonstrate or give a logical reason for the existence of "logical absolutes", I did not stop there. I went on to provide a solution that could account for their existence. This solution is easily explainable in a Christian presuppositional system, but not so easily explainable in an atheistic one. Another problem, if you are asking atheists to account for "why" logic exists, you should not trumpet too loudly your victory if the atheist says "I don't know". There will be one atheist in the crowd who says "can you tell us WHY god exists?", and then they will put the trumpet to their lips, ready to blast as soon as you say "I can't answer that." The point of the paper is not to trumpet a victory. The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate that the atheistic system cannot account for logical absolutes where a Christian one can. Of course, the Christian assumption is that God is the "source" of logical absolutes.

998

"HOW DOES A CHRISTIAN ACCOUNT FOR THE LAWS OF LOGIC ? T HE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW STATES THAT GOD IS ABSOLUTE AND THE STANDARD OF TRUTH. T HEREFORE, THE ABSOLUTE LAWS OF LOGIC EXIST BECAUS E THEY REFLECT THE NATURE OF AN ABSOLUTE GOD . GOD DID NOT CREATE THE LAWS OF LOGIC . T HEY WERE NOT BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE
SINCE THEY REFLECT GOD 'S THINKING . SINCE GOD IS ETERNAL, THE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE TOO."

That's all nice, but the conclusions of your last two sentences merely derive from your gratuitous assumptions immediately above them. So this is no argument at all. On the contrary. I have a reason to be able to account for the existence of logical absolutes where atheists do not. And because they do not, they are forced (at least this seems to be) to try and undermine my logic. This is a valid tactic, but he does not accomplish it. He mentions "gratuitous assumptions." Yes, I do assume God exists - but not without logical reason (discussed elsewhere on carm). Given that I can make assumptions, even as he does in certain areas of his life, what is to prevent me from drawing logical conclusions based upon those assumptions? Again, the atheist has not demonstrated that my conclusions are in error. At best, all he can do is attack my presupposition of God's existence. Of course I do not introduce the existence of God until later in the paper when, in my opinion, I have demonstrated that atheism cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes. It is then that I introduce the notion of God's existence to account for the existence of logical absolutes. Whether or not the atheist like this introduction bears no weight in the argument. The point is that as a Christian I have a logical means of accounting for their existence where, it would seem, the atheist does not. "T HEREFORE , THE CHRISTIAN CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE LAWS OF LOGIC BY ACKNOWLEDGING THEY ORIGINATE FROM GOD AND THAT MAN IS ONLY DISCOVERING THEM." So? I can account for black holes in space by "acknowledging" that the tooth-fairy created them, but "acknowledging" an unsupported assertion doesn't support the assertion. I do not nor have I ever defended the existence of the tooth fairy. What is interesting to me is that atheists will often throw in known fairy tales as an attempt to logically disprove God's existence. But this is an ill logical thing for them to do since a known fairy tale is a false analogy to the question of whether or not God exists. Merely claiming that God is a fairy tale is not make it so anymore than claiming that God exists makes it so. Instead, evidence and rationality should be examined. But then, we are back in full circle as we discover that our presuppositions will govern how evidence and rationality are examined. Given that the atheist presupposition is that there is no God (generally speaking), in order for him to be consistent with his presuppositions, he must interpret all evidence and rationality in a manner consistent with his atheism. I assert that this is a biased and restricting process that hamstrings the atheist's intellectual ability to properly weigh the evidence since the option of God as an explanation is automatically rejected. Whether or not this atheist considers the existence of logical absolutes, his inability to account for their existence, and the Christian's ability to account for them as a valid argument would depend upon two things: the validity of the argument and the presuppositions involved. By default, the atheist could not logically allow me the rational system I proposed to account for logical absolutes. If he did, this would mean that atheism is weakened. But since he must defend his position, he must find anyway he can to invalidate my argument -- which is why he erringly tried at the beginning to accuse me of committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question." "HOW DOES THE ATHEIST ACCOUNT FOR THE LAWS OF LOGIC ?" If that means "can the atheist account for WHY logical absolutes exist", then that is the same as saying "where did the laws of logic come from", clearly begging the question that they must have come from somewhere, when it is not yet proven they had to. This atheist continues to misapply the logical fallacy of "begging the question" which I explained above. Nevertheless, logical absolutes exist. When he says it has not been proven that they had to come from somewhere, then please offer something else. Perhaps he would like to assert that they never came from anywhere, or that they are eternal by nature, or that they brought themselves into existence? But each has its problem. If these conceptual realities are eternal by nature, then I can make a case that these eternal conceptual realities are from God who is, by definition, eternal. Remember, the nature of logical absolutes is conceptual; that is, they exist in the mind. They cannot be measured, weighed, frozen, etc. If they exist in the mind and if they are always true everywhere (transcending space and time), I assert that it is a logical requirement that there is an eternal mind is "housing" them. If on the other

999

hand, the atheist assumes that they brought themselves into existence, then he violates the logical absolute that "something that does not exists cannot bring itself into existence. If he did this, he would be illogical. Same thing if an atheist says "where did god come from?" The question itself assumes that god originated from something outside himself, before having proved she needed to "begin to exist". There is nothing wrong with asking the question "Where did god come from?" We Christians simply state did God did not "come from" anywhere; He had no beginning because He is the creator of space and time and our question about God's beginning deals with time. Therefore, since God is the creator of time, he cannot be measured by it since it does not encompass Him. We Christians reflect with the Bible says God always existing. Atheists do not like this explanation for obvious reasons. The truth is that I myself believe that matter and energy are essential to logic, and logic has thus existed as long as they have. I am sure that it is truth that this atheist believes what he does. It is a nice faith based explanation for logical absolutes. But, he has offered nothing of substance to account for the existence of logical absolutes. He has not provided a reason why logical absolutes are dependent upon, or products of, matter and energy. Remember, the nature of logical absolutes is that they are conceptual. They "exist" in the mind since the use of logic is a mental process. Logical processes of thought, which is what logic is - a process - occur in rational minds, not in inanimate objects. The process of logical reasoning does not occur in a rock or in heat. A rock and heat simply exist without the capacity of rational thought. Rationality, logic, etc. are by default, processes that involve and necessitate cognition. Physical and energy realities are not and have no conceptual processes. They are simply reflections of the nature of materiality and energy. Therefore, they are not the source of logical absolutes nor can they account for the existence of these logical absolutes. "WE DO NOT OBSERVE THE LAWS OF LOGIC OCCURRING IN MATTER . YOU DON'T WATCH AN OBJECT NOT BRING ITSELF INTO EXISTENCE IF IT DOESN'T EXIST . T HEREFORE, NO LAW OF LOGIC CAN BE OBSERVED BY WATC HING NOTHING ." That which is not logical, must be illogical, since there is no happy medium between logical and illogical, as such, if you don't see logic in matter, then you think matter is illogical by default. To say "that which is not logical, must be illogical" may be an ill logical statement. For example, is the existence of matter itself "not logical"? If it is not logical, how so? If it is illogical, how? Matter simply exists. Stating that it exists is a logical process (which occurs in the mind) since we are identifying something and making a statement about it. So, I propose that your statement is not logically necessary. Baking soda and vinegar are matter, and their combination creates instant carbon dioxide. Does this reaction within matter take place for ILLOGICAL reasons? If not, then we do indeed see logic in matter. Also, to answer your own illustration more directly: Correct, we do not see non-existent objects refusing to bring themselves into existence. However, this is for a very logical reason; objects cannot do anything anyway, if at first they don't exist. So if at first you don't object, exist exist again. The reaction between baking soda and vinegar is not an issue of logic or ill logic. It is simply the natural reaction to the physical properties of each item. What he has done is observed a physical reaction and then asked if it occurs for illogical or ill logical reason. But what logical order to logical reason what you apply to the reality of physical reactions? They are different things. The physical reaction does not violate the law of non-contradiction since it does not even apply. Nor does it apply to the law of identity, or excluded middle. It is simply something that happens and we can observe the reaction. It is not logical or ill logical. It is simply reflective of the nature of the reaction of the substances involved. He has apparently tried to wed a physical reality with the conceptual one as if they are the same. But, observing what happens does not mean that the observer is making it happen or preventing it happen by the application of logic. Furthermore, whether or not the observer agrees or disagrees with the reality of the reaction and attempts to apply a logical reason why the reaction should not occur, does not affect the reality of the reaction since it doesn't effect the reaction. Therefore, the reaction is independent of the issue of logic. It is simply the reaction.

1000

"IF THE ATHEIST APPEALS TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO EXPLAIN THE LAWS OF LOGIC THEN HE IS USING CIRCULA R ARGUMENTATION BECAUSE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS DEPENDENT UPON LOGIC ; THAT IS , REASONED THOUGHT APPLIED TO OBSERVATIONS ." Don't be too hard on logical absolutes that exist without deriving from another source, because you believe in one great big thing that exists, but doesn't derive from anything else. And if we were to imply that this god came from some source by asking "WHY does god exist", you would immediately notice how loaded the question is. I AM NOT SURE WHAT HE MEANS BY "DON'T BE TOO HARD ON LOGICAL ABSOLUTES THAT EXIST ..."? I AM NOT "BEING " HARD ON THEM. LOGICAL ABSOLUTES EXIST . T HE ATHEIST'S INITIAL SENTENCE HERE IS NOT VERY CLEAR. OFTENTIMES, QUESTIONS ARE "LOADED ." BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY CANNOT BE ASKED OR ANSWERED. Atheist: "I cannot account for WHY logic exists." Christian: "then something is wrong with atheism, because logic clearly does exist." Christian: "I cannot account for WHY God exists." Atheist: Then something is wrong with theism, because god clearly does exist." You see then that inability to explain WHY something exists, doesn't mean the worldview containing that disability is necessarily wrong. I find it necessary again to correct this atheist. I did not ask the atheist to explain "why" logic exists. I asked that the atheist to give a valid reason to account for their existence given the presupposition of materialism and no God. Given that logical absolutes are by nature conceptual, how does the atheist account for their existence in the universe of nothing but mater and energy? That is question he still has not answered. Also, I noticed that this atheist added words I did not say into the conversation. I did not say that something is wrong with atheism (though I believe it to be true). I said atheism is not able to account for the existence of logical absolutes. This does not necessitate that atheism is a false system as a whole -- unless it can be "proven" that the only way to account for logical absolutes is the existence of God. Nevertheless, atheism's weakness here is demonstrated. If the atheist were to assume that since he cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes and it makes no difference whether or not atheism is true, then is it also not logically consistent that in the your dialogue if a theist cannot account for the "why" of God's existence, that it also does not invalidate theism? Of course not. But remember, we are not specifically arguing God's existence. We are debating the ability of the atheist to account for the existence of logical absolutes. The issue is not properly reflected in this atheists hypothetical dialogue. I have simply proposed that Christian theism can account for the existence of logical absolutes were atheism cannot. Since the accounting for them includes the existence of God, then theism is that much more validated -- and atheism that much more invalidated. "IF LOGIC ITSELF IS US ED TO VALIDATE LOGIC , THEN CIRCULAR REASONING AGAIN IS USED AND THE ATHEIST HAS
STILL FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR EXISTENCE."

By those standards, you cannot make your own point! here's why: If you use god to validate logic, you have begged the question, because his existence wasn't proved first. If you prove his existence first, and then use god to validate logic, let's go back to that proof for god for just a second...was it logical? If it was, logic was assumed existing already right there, to ground the god-proofs. So you couldn't take the next step and use god to justify logic, because in your concern to do things orderly, and prove A)god and then B)prove god justified logic, you have already presupposed logic to be existing at A). You can certainly avoid this inconsistency of yours by making sure that your first step in this argument (proving god exists) is NOT based on logic. But then, nobody around here likes proofs that aren't logical. Since logic is the reason god proofs work (at least as far as you believe), logic cannot wait to be proved after god is proved, because logic is what was already there to help you first prove god. Hence, logic must be presumed to exist before and thus independent of god. You would wish you could have it both ways: "god proves logic, and logic proves god", but this is circular, and wherever you break the circle, logic will win out over god as that which must be assumed first! First of all, after reading his quote of my original statement, I immediately recognized the problem with it and I have removed it from the original paper. The reason is because the statement is not necessarily logical. It did not take the explanation of the atheist to demonstrate that and I should have

1001

caught it the first time. Nevertheless, since it is my desire to improve the quality of my papers, I've removed that "point." Second, using logic to validate logic is indeed a circular reasoning process, but this does not invalidate logic. The point of the statement was the atheist has still failed to account for the existence of logical absolutes. Third, the original statement above is not really a very good statement since it may be that an atheist has indeed used logic to account for its own existence. The question would then be to examine the logic of that claim to see whether or not it is valid. Therefore, my initial statement failed to take this into account and is not a will reasoned statement. Again, after reflecting on it, I have removed it from the original paper. "IF LOGIC IS NOT ABSOLUTE, THEN NO LOGICAL ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD CAN BE RAISED AND THE ATHEIST HAS NOTHING TO WORK WITH." Logic IS absolute, but I've shown it only comes from god if you use unsubstantiated 'acknowledgements' such as Matt Slick does in this article. I do not follow the statement and cannot respond since it seems makes no sense to me. "ATHEISTS WILL USE LOGIC TO TRY AND DISPROVE GOD S EXISTENCE, BUT IN SO DOING THEY ARE ASSUMING ABSOLUTE LAWS OF LOGIC AND BORROWING FROM THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW." Everything you asserted prior to this was either a failed argument to prove logic comes from god or else the bare unsupported "acknowledgement" that logic comes from god. You simply asserted with great confidence that Christianity can account for logic. Assertions don't qualify as evidence. When atheists use logic, they use nothing that you have proven must come from god. First of all, my argument has not failed. The atheist has not refuted it. He did, however, incorrectly begin his analysis with a misapplication of the logical fallacy known as "begging the question." He also misapplied several other points which I have already pointed out. Second, I did not simply assert that Christianity can account for logic without first trying to demonstrate that atheism can't. I tried to establish that the nature of the logical absolutes is they are transcendent, eternal, and not dependent a material or energy. Also, since I stated that they are conceptual by nature and that they are absolute, that it is logical to assume that they are "housed" by an absolute mind since logical thought is a mental process. This is not a leap of logic (or of faith) and he should reflect this analysis in his criticism here instead of taking my comments out of logical context. Third, if assertions do not qualify as evidence, then his earlier statement above "The truth is that I myself believe that matter and energy are essential to logic, and logic has thus existed as long as they have," is no evidence whatsoever for the validity of his position. I would hope that he would stay away from offering his belief system has a justification for why his atheism. Finally, I have not randomly offered my belief system as an explanation for the existence of logical absolutes. I introduced the concept of God only after laying out several other logical statements and then attempting to make a logical conclusion. "T HE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW MAINTAINS THAT THE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE ABSOLUTE BECAUSE THEY COME FROM GOD WHO IS HIMSELF ABSOLUTE. Yup, asserting again without evidence. Is not the logical development in my original paper that logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, not dependent upon consensus of humanity, not based in material or energy, but are in reality the product of a mind, at least an attempt at a rational proposition for their existence? This is not a mere assertion without evidence. Remember, the point of the paper is that logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and their characteristics should reflect their nature. Since the characteristic of logical processes is that they are conceptual by nature, it is perfectly logical to assume that there is a mind involved with their existence. This is not simply an empty assertion. It is a logical conclusion. Therefore, since the logical absolutes are absolute, are always true every where, I am concluding that there is a mind at work that reflects the nature of the absolutes of logic. This is an attempt to offer the evidence of logic thereby substantiation my assertion.

1002

BUT THE ATHEIST WORLD VIEW DOES NOT HAVE AN ABSOLUTE GOD. SO, WE ASK, "HOW CAN ABSOLUTE, CONCEPTUAL, ABSTRACT LAWS BE DERIVED FROM A UNIVERSE OF MATTER , ENERGY AND MOTION?" IN OTHER WORDS , "HOW CAN AN ATHEIST WITH A NATURALISTIC PRESUPPOSITION ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF LOGICAL ABSOLUTES WHEN LOGICAL ABSOLUTES ARE CONCEPTUAL BY NATURE AND NOT PHYSICAL, ENERGY, OR MOTION?" That s a most confused set of phrases. Just because logic works on paper as a concept doesn't mean it is independent of matter, energy or motion. 2+2=4 is mathematical concept as well as a logical concept. Being a concept by nature, does that somehow argue that this equation can be proven true independent of the matter and energy used to demonstrate it? No. If you didnt have matter and energy to work with, you could never prove that logical absolutes exist. You may say god is still there, even if matter and energy are gone and he justifies the existence of logical absolutes. I say, 'but if you get to god before logic, then you didnt get to god USING logic, unless you agree you were thereby using false logic. At this point the atheist opens himself up for an ad hominem attack. I could comment about the set of statements not being confusing to others and then build upon it, but I won't. Nevertheless, he tries to state that the concept 2+2=4 cannot be solved without the existence of matter and energy. This may or may not be correct since we do not know if all cognitive beings in the universe are comprised of matter and energy. Hypothetically, there could be some life forms comprised only of energy with a mind (i.e., God?). If so, the statement 2+2=4 would still be true. But what he does is presuppose the existence of a mind that works in space and time in order to process the statement 2+2=4. By so doing, he inadvertently requires the existence of a mind to work out conceptual formulas thereby validating the earlier premise that logical absolutes are processes of a mind. And yes, I can indeed say that God is before "matter and energy." But what does that mean since we could say God is immaterial. But if He exists shouldn't He then have some form of energy about him? At this point, we get into a philosophical debate which is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Nevertheless, the statement 'but if you get to god before logic, then you didn't get to god USING logic, unless you agree you were thereby using false logic," makes no sense to me -- at which point I am probably opening up myself to an ad hominem attack by the atheist stating that others may understand it with no problem. Perhaps also will not try to build a case on that. "T HE CHRISTIAN THEISTIC WORLDVIEW CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE LAWS OF LOGIC BY STATING THAT THEY COME FROM GOD . Doesnt mean thats where they came from, it means youve suggested an idea, thats it. Yes, I have suggested a way to account for the laws of logic. In my opinion, my analysis is for more logical than yours. GOD IS TRANSCENDENT ; THAT IS , HE IS BEYOND THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE, BEING ITS CREATOR. Another assumption that you worked with but never proved in this entire article of yours. Yes, I admit that this is more or less an assumption. But, the point of my conclusion was that the insertion of the Christian concept of God does account for the existence of logical absolutes in such a way that is consistent with Christian theism which teac hes a transcendent and absolute Mind. GOD HAS ORIGINATED THE LAWS OF LOGIC BECAUSE THEY ARE A REFLECTION OF HIS NATURE. Another assumption you used but never proved. Again, I do admit slipping into a biblical presupposition at this point. I therefore repeat my above statement that the point of my conclusion was that the insertion of the Christian concept of God does account for the existence of logical absolutes in such a way that is consistent with Christian theism which teaches a transcendent and absolute Mind. T HE ATHEISTIC WORLDVIEW CANNOT ACCOUNT FO R THE LAWS OF LOGIC /ABSOLUTES , AND MUST BORROW FROM THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW IN ORDER TO RATIONALLY ARGUE." But if the Christian world view (that god exists) is true, true means logical. And if you have already proven god logically/truly exists, you did it only because your proofs presumed logic themselves. They cannot presume it in their case for god, unless it exists apart from and before god. This atheist may have inadvertently substantiated my case. When he said "...if you have already proven god logically/truly exists, you did it only because your proofs presumed logic themselves," it

1003

seems as though he is saying I accomplished what it was setting up to accomplish. We both presume that logic exists. But, so far, the atheist cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes. We have common ground in that we both believe in and use logical absolutes. But as I said before, what exists exists as a reflection of its own nature and its characteristics reflect that nature. The characteristics of logical absolutes are that they are conceptual by nature and and they are logical process which must, by default, occur in a mind. If it is true that characteristics reflect nature, then we could assume that the nature of the mind that is housing these logical absolutes must also be absolute. Since the logical absolutes are always true everywhere in the universe (transcendence), then the mind that houses them must also be transcendent and absolute. It is the Christian scriptures that teach that there is a transcendent, absolute God with an absolute mind -- not atheism. Therefore, atheism is still not able to account for their existence where Christianity can.

1004

Relativism
Introduction
Relativism makes so many illogical and self contradictory attitudes possible. It is inconsistent, self refuting, and sadly, held by more and more people who deny the existence of absolutes. Youll find that it doesnt take much to refute it. In fact, learning how to refute relativism is a good starting point in learning how to apply logic.

1. 2. 3. 4.

What is relativism? p. 1006 What is ethical relativism and why is it problematic? p. 1008 Is all truth relative? Why or why not? p. 1011 What is truth? p. 1015

1005

What is relativism?
Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. This means that all moral positions, all religious systems, all art forms, all political movements, etc., are truths that are relative to the individual. Under the umbrella of relativism whole groups of perspectives are categorized. In obvious terms, some are: cognitive relativism (truth) - Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of truth is more valid than another one and that there is no objective standard of truth. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute truth. moral/ethical relativism - all morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed. situational relativism - that ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the situation.

Unfortunately, the philosophy of relativism is pervasive in our culture today. With the rejection of God, and Christianity in particular, absolute truth is being abandoned. Our pluralistic society wants to avoid the idea that there really is a right and wrong. This is evidenced in our deteriorating judicial system that has more and more trouble punishing criminals, in our entertainment media which continues to push the envelope of morality and decency, in our schools which teach evolution and "social tolerance", etc. In addition, the plague of moral relativism is encouraging everyone to accept homosexuality, pornography on TV, fornication, and a host of other "sins" that were once considered wrong, but are now being accepted and even promoted in society. It is becoming so pervasive that if you speak out against moral relativism and its "anything goes" philosophy, you're labeled as an intolerant bigot. Of course, this is incredibly hypocritical of those who profess that all points of view are true, yet reject those who profess absolutes in morality. It seems that what is really meant by the moral relativists is that all points of view are true except for the views that teach moral absolutes, or an absolute God, or absolute right and wrong. Some typical expressions that reveal an underlying presupposition of relativism are comments such as "That is your truth, not mine," "It is true for you, but not for me," and "There are no absolute truths." Of course, these statements are illogical, which I demonstrate in the paper "Refuting relativism." Relativism is invading our society, our economy, our schools, and our homes. Society cannot flourish nor survive in an environment where everyone does what is right in his own eyes, where the situation determines actions and if the situation changes, lying or cheating is acceptable -as long as you're not caught. Without a common foundation of truth and absolutes, our culture will become weak and fragmented. I must admit, however, that there is validity to some aspects of relativism. For example, what one society considers right (driving on the left side of the road) another considers wrong. These are customs to which a "right and wrong" are attached, but they are purely relativistic and not universal because they are culturally based. Child rearing principles vary in different societies as do burial practices and wedding ceremonies. These "right and wrong ways" are not cosmically set in stone nor are they derived from some absolute rule of conduct by some unknown god. They are relative and rightly so. But, their relativism is properly asserted as such. It doesn't matter what side of the road we drive in as long as we all do it the same way. Likewise, there are experiences that are valid only for individuals. I might be irritated by a certain sound, where another person will not. In this sense, what is true for me is not necessarily true for someone else. It is not an absolute truth that the identical sound causes irritation to all people. This is one way of showing that certain aspects of relativism are true. But, is it valid to say that because there is a type of personal relativism that we can then apply that principle to all areas of experience and knowledge and say that they too are also relative? No, it is not a valid assumption. First of all, to do so would be an absolute assessment which contradicts relativism. Furthermore, if all the things are relative, then there cannot be anything that is absolutely true between individuals. In other words, if all people deny absolute truth and establish relative truth only from their experiences, then everything is relative to the individual. How then can there be a common ground from which to judge right and wrong or truth? It would seem that there cannot be.

1006

Of course, the issue that is important here is whether or not there are absolute truths. Also, can there be different kinds of absolute truths if indeed there are absolute truths? We might ask if it is always wrong to lie? Or, does 1 + 1 always equal 2? Is it always true that something cannot be both in existence and not in existence at the same time? Is it always true that something cannot bring itself into existence if it first does not exist? If any of these questions can be answered in the affirmative then relativism is refuted -- at least to some degree. More questions arise. If all moral views are equally valid, then do we have the right to punish anyone? Can we ever say that something is wrong? In order to say that something is wrong we must first have a standard by which we weigh right and wrong in order to make a judgment. If that standard of right and wrong is based on relativism, then it is not a standard at all. In relativism, standards of right and wrong are derived from social norms. Since society changes, the norms would change and so would right and wrong. If right and wrong change, then how can anyone be rightly judged for something he did wrong if that wrong might become right in the future? Finally, is it fair to apply logical analysis to relativistic principles? Many relativists say no. But, I do not see why not. If a relativist were to convince me that logic isnt necessary in examining relativism, hed have to convince me using logic, which would be self defeating. If a relativist uses relativism -the subjective view of his own opinions -- to validate his position, he is using circular reasoning; namely, he is using relativism to establish relativism. So, either way, he has lost the argument. To conclude, if relativism is true and all points of view are true, then is my view that relativism is false, true? Does truth contradict itself? No it doesn't.

1007

Ethical relativism
Ethical relativism is the position that there are no moral absolutes, no moral right and wrongs. Instead, right and wrong are based on social norms. Some have heard of the term situational ethics which is a category of ethical relativism. At any rate, ethical relativism would mean that our morals have evolved, that they have changed over time, and that they are not absolute. One advantage of ethical relativism is that it allows for a wide variety of cultures and practices. It also allows people to adapt ethically as the culture, knowledge, and technology change in society. This is good and a valid form of relativism. The disadvantage of ethical relativism is that truth, right and wrong, and justice are all relative. Just because the group of people thinks that something is right does not make so. Slavery is a good example of this. Two hundred years ago in America, slavery was the norm and morally acceptable. Now it is not. Relativism also does not allow for the existence of an absolute set of ethics. Logically, if there are not absolute ethics, then there can be no Divine Absolute Ethics Giver. Requiring an absolute set ethics implies an Absolute Ethics Giver which can easily be extrapolated as being God. This would be opposed to ethical relativism. Therefore, ethical relativism would not support the idea of an absolute God and it would exclude religious systems based upon absolute morals; that is, it would be absolute in its condemnation of absolute ethics. In this, relativism would be inconsistent since it would deny beliefs of absolute values. Furthermore, if ethics have changed overtime there is the problem of self contradiction within the relativistic perspective. 200 years ago slavery was socially acceptable and correct. Now it is not. There has been a change in social ethics in America regarding this issue. The problem is that if slavery becomes acceptable again in the next 200 years, who is to say if it is right or wrong? We would have a contradictory set of right and wrong regarding the same issue. To this I ask the question, does truth contradict itself? Within ethical relativism, right and wrong are not absolute and must be determined in society by a combination of observation, logic, social preferences and patterns, experience, emotions, and "rules" that seem to bring the most benefit. Of course, it goes without saying that a society involved in constant moral conflict would not be able to survive for very long. Morality is the glue that holds a society together. There must be a consensus of right and wrong for a society to function well. Ethical relativism undermines that glue. It seems to be universal among cultures that it is wrong to murder, to steal, and to lie. We see that when individuals practice these counterproductive ethics, they are soon in prison and/or punished. Since ethics are conceptual in nature and there are some ethics that seem to transcend all cultures (be true for all societies) I conclude that there is a transcendent God who has authored these ethics -- but that is another discussion. I do not believe that the best ethical patterns discovered by which societies operate (honesty, fidelity, truth, no theft, no murder, etc.) are the product of our biological makeup or trial and error. As a Christian, I see them as a reflection of Gods very character. They are a discovery of the rules God has established by which people best interact with people because He knows how He has designed them. The 10 commandments are a perfect example of moral absolutes and have yet to be improved upon. They are transcendent; that is, they transcend social norms and are always true. I was once challenged to prove that there were moral absolutes. I took up the challenge with the following argument. I asked the gentleman whether or not there were logical absolutes. For example, I asked if it was a logical absolute that something could exist and also not exist at the same time. He said, no that it was not possible. Another example is that something cannot bring itself into existence. To this he agreed that there were indeed logical absolutes. I then asked him to explain how logical absolutes can exist if there is no God. I questioned him further by asking him to tell me how in a purely physical universe logical absolutes, which are by nature conceptual, can exist. I said, they cannot be measured, put in the test tube, weighed, nor captured; yet, they exist. So, I asked him to please tell me how these conceptual absolute truths can exist in a purely physical universe...without a God. He could not answer me. I then went on to say that these conceptual absolutes logically must exist in the mind of an absolute God because they cannot merely reside in the properties of matter in a purely naturalistic universe. And since the logical absolutes are true everywhere all the time and they are conceptual, it would seem logical that they exist within a transcendent, omnipresent, being. If there is an absolute God with an absolute mind then he is the standard of all things as well as

1008

morals. Therefore, there would be moral absolutes. To this argument the gentleman chuckled, said he had never heard it before, and conceded that it may be possible for moral absolutes to exist. Of course, as a Christian, as one who believes in the authority and inspiration of the Bible, I consider moral absolutes to be very real because they come from God and not because they somehow reside in a naturalistic universe. Ethics are important in society, in the home, and in all interactions. Would you believe me if I started lying to you in this paper? No. You expect me to be fair, honest, logical, and forthright. Can I be that if I believe all ethics are relative? Heck, if I did, I could try and deceive you into getting me to believe what I want you to.

1009

Cognitive relativism
Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of determining truth is more valid than another system and that there is no objective standard of truth to be found or claimed. It would, naturally, deny that there would be a God of absolute truth. It would also deny the belief that rational thought can discover and verify truth. But, cognitive relativism does not deny that there are differences in perspective in different cultures. In fact, it affirms them. Rather, the issue with cognitive relativism is that there is no epistemological (method of knowing something) system that is inherently superior over another. Of course, this seems to be self refuting since it claims that its own principal of relative truth is absolutely true and uses it to determine that cognitive relativism is true. Many believe that this relativism is self-contradictory. But, why has relativism gained a foot-hold in modern society? I think there are several factors contributing to its acceptance. First, the success of science has increasingly promoted the idea that true answers are found within science. Many people believe whatever "scientists" tell them is factual. When science cannot answer something it simply states that the truth will become known later. With this, people have faith in science and the only absolute is that what we know now, may not be true later. Thereby, it can undermine absolute truth. Second, with the broad acceptance of the evolutionary theory, God is pushed more and more out of the picture. Without God as a determiner of what is true and not true, we are left to do and believe "what is right in our own eyes." Third, we are encountering more and more diverse cultures in the world. This tends to make us more comfortable with the idea that there is more than one way to do something, more than one way for a culture to operate, more than one way for something to be true or right. This isn't necessarily wrong, but it does contribute to a denial of absolutes. Fourth, increasingly, the content of film, academia, and literature is moving away from the notion of the absolute and towards relativism. These media help shape our culture. Fifth, an increase in relativistic philosophies particularly those found in the New Age movement which teaches that there is no absolute truth and that each person can create his own reality. Though this movement is part of the relativistic "problem" it is well permeated into society. Sixth, passed philosophers such as Wittgenstein, Khuh, Kant, Marx, and Neitsche, have influenced the thinking of many with their relativistic principles and attacks on absolute truths. The problem I see with cognitive relativism is that it denies the possibility of absolute truth. Furthermore, I believe cognitive relativism is easily refutable with the following example of a logical absolute: Something cannot bring itself into existence. My proposed logical absolute is indeed logical and always true. Lets look at this. For something to bring itself into existence it must first exist. If it first existed then it cannot bring itself into existence because it already is existing. Likewise, if something does not exist then it is not possible for it to bring itself into existence since it isn't there to do anything. This is an absolute truth and it is knowable. Since it is absolutely true, cognitive relativism, which states that all truth is relative, is false.

1010

Refuting relativism
Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self refuting. 1. All truth is relative A. If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false. There are no absolute truths A. The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false. B. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism. What is true for you is not true for me A. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? i. If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. ii. If you say yes, then relativism is false. B. If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then i. I believe something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true? ii. Am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither? a. If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false. This is self-contradictory. b. If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn't true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me. c. If you say it is neither true nor false, then relativism isn't true since it states that all views are equally valid and by not being, at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong. C. If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism false. i. If you admit that it is absolutely true that I believe relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true. D. If I believe in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true - even if it is only for me. i. If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false. No one can know anything for sure A. If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure which is self defeating. That is your reality, not mine A. Is my reality really real? B. If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality? If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time? We all perceive what we want A. How do you know that statement is true? B. If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive? i. If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived? ii. Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

1011

7.

You A. B. C.

8.

9.

may not use logic to refute relativism Why not? Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used? If you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based upon truth. D. If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else. We are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality. A. If our perceptions are contradictory, can either perception be trusted? B. Is truth self contradictory? i. If it were, then it wouldn't be true because it would be self refuting. If something is self refuting, then it isn't true. C. If that is true that we perceive different aspects of the same reality, then do I believe something that is false since I believe that your reality is not true? How then could they be the same reality? D. If you are saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted. i. If I believe something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid. E. If my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true. If both are not true, then one of us (or both) is in error. i. If one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true. Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self-refuting. A. On what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic? i. Is this an arbitrary act? If so, does it justify your position? ii. If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it? B. To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought.

1012

What if relativism were true? An illustration.

Relativism is the position that all points of view are as valid and as any other points of view and that the individual is the measure of what is true for that person. I see a big problem with this. Following is an illustration to demonstrate it. The setting: A thief is casing a jewelry store so he can rob it. He has entered it to check out any visible alarm settings, locks, layout, etc. In the process, he has unexpectedly gotten involved in a discussion with the owner of the jewelry store whose hobby is the study of philosophy and believes that truth and morals are relative. "So," says the owner, "everything is relative. That is why I believe that all morals are not absolute and that right and wrong is up to the individual to determine within the confines of society. But there is no absolute right and wrong." "That is a very interesting perspective," says the thief. "I was brought up believing that there was a God and that there was right and wrong. But I abandoned all of that and I agree with you that there is no absolute right and wrong and that we are free to do what we want." The thief leaves the store and returns that evening and breaks in. He has disabled all the alarms and locks and is in the process of robbing the store. That is when the owner of the store enters through a side door. The thief pulls out a gun. The owner cannot see the man's face because he is wearing a ski mask. "Don't shoot me," says the owner. "Please take whatever you want and leave me alone." "That is exactly what I plan to do," says the thief. "Wait a minute. I know you. You are the man that was in the store earlier today. I recognize your voice." "That is very unfortunate for you," says the thief. "Because now you also know what I look like. And since I do not want to go to jail I am forced to kill you." "You cannot do that," says the owner. "Why not?" "Because it is not right," pleads the desperate m an. "But did you not tell me today that there is no right and wrong?" "Yes, but I have a family, children, that need me, and a wife." "So? I am sure that you are insured and that they will get a lot of money. But since there is no right and wrong it makes no difference whether or not I kill you. And since if I let you live you will turn me in and I will go to prison. Sorry , but that will not do." "But it is a crime against society to kill me. It is wrong because society says so." "As you can see, I don't recognize society's claim to impose morals on me. It's all relative. Remember?" "Please to not shoot me. I beg you. I promise not to tell anyone what you look like. I swear it!" "I do not believe you and I cannot take that chance." "But it is true!" I swear I'll tell no one." "Sorry, but it cannot be true because there is no absolute truth, no right and wrong, no error, remember? If I let you live and then I left, you will break your so-called promise because it is all relative. There is no way I could trust you. Our conversation this morning convinced me that you believe everything is relative. Because of that, I cannot believe you will keep your word. I cannot trust you. "But it is wrong to kill me. It isn't right!" "It is neither right or wrong for me to kill you. Since truth is relative to the individual, if I kill you, that is my truth. And, it is obviously true that if I let you live I will go to prison. Sorry, but you have killed yourself." "No. Please do not shoot me. I beg you." "Begging makes no difference." .... Bang....

1013

If relativism is true, then was it wrong to pull the trigger? Perhaps someone might say that it is wrong to take another life needlessly. But why is that wrong, if there is no standard of right or wrong? Others have said that it is a crime against society. But, so what? If what is true for you is simply true, then what is wrong with killing someone to protect yourself after you have robbed him? If is true for you that to protect yourself you must kill, then who cares what society says? Why is anyone obligated to conform to social norms? Doing so is a personal decision. Though not all relativists will behave in an unethical manner, I see re lativism as a contributor to overall anarchy. Why? Because it is a justification to do whatever you want.

1014

What is truth?

"What is truth?" is a very simple question. Of course, answering it isn't so simple. We can offer definitions like "Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality." But this basic definition is not complete because its definition is open to interpretation and a wide variety of applications. What is reality? What is fact? What is actuality? How does perception affect truth? We could offer answers for each of these questions, but then we could again ask similar questions of those answers. I am reminded of the paradox of throwing a ball against a wall. It must get half way there, and then half way of the remaining distance, and then half of that distance, and so on. But, an infinite number of halves in this scenario never constitutes a whole. Therefore, it would seem that the ball would never reach the wall if we applied the conceptual truths of halves. The ball-against-the-wall scenario simply illustrates that defining and redefining things as we try to approach a goal actually prevents us from getting to that goal. This is what philosophy does sometimes as it seeks to examine truth. It sometimes clouds issues so much, that nothing can be known for sure. But, even though it is true that an infinite number of halves (1/2 of "a" + 1/2 of the remainder + 1/2 of the remainder of that, etc.) does not equal a whole, we can "prove" that it does by simply throwing a ball at a wall and watch it bounce off. Actually, the "1/2" equation above does not equal a whole -- mathematically. The problem is not in the truth, but in its application as is often the case with philosophical verbal gymnastics. "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ," (Col. 2:8). In order for truth to be defined properly, it would have to be a factually and logically correct statement. In other words, it would have to be true. But, perhaps we could look further look at truth be determining what it is not. Truth is not error. Truth is not self-contradictory. Truth is not deception. Of course, it could be true that someone is being deceptive, but the deception itself isn't truth. In relativism, all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. If this were true, then it would seem that this is the only truth relativism would have to offer. But, the problem is that in reality, relativism isn't true for the following basic reason. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that it is not self contradictory. Again, what is truth? If there is such a thing as truth, then we should be able to find it. If truth cannot be known, then it probably doesn't exist. But, it does exist. For example, we know that it is true that you are reading this. Is there such a thing as something that is always true all the time? Yes, there is. For example, "Something cannot bring itself into existence." This is an absolutely true statement. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it would have to exist in order to be able to perform an action. But if it already existed, then it isn't possible to bring itself into existence since it already exists. Likewise, it if does not exist then it has no ability to perform any creative action since it doesn't exist in the first place. Therefore, "Something cannot bring itself into existence" is an absolute truth. The preceding example is a truth found in logic. But, there are truths that are not logical by nature. It is true that I love my wife. This isn't logically provable via theorems and formulas and logic paradigms, but it is, nevertheless, true. Therefore, we can say that truth conforms and affirms reality and/or logic.

1015

Is this what relativism does? Does relativism confirm to reality and logic? To be honest, it does to some degree. Relativistically speaking, there is no absolute right or wrong regarding which side of your head you should part your hair, if you part it at all. To this we must concede relative "truths" that are different for different people. But, these are relativistic by nature. Examples of relativistic truths are, 1) people drive on the right side of the street in America and the left in England; 2) I prefer to watch science fiction over musicals; 3) snow is better than rain, etc. These things are relative to culture, individuals, preferences, etc., and rightfully so. If we are to ever hope to determine if there is such a thing as truth apart from cultural and personal preferences, we must acknowledge that we are then aiming to discover something greater than ourselves, something that transcends culture and individual inclinations. To do this is to look beyond ourselves and outside of ourselves. In essence, it means that we are looking for God. God would be truth, the absolute and true essence of being and reality who is the author of all truth. If you are interested in truth beyond yourself, then you must look to God. "I am the truth" For the Christian, the ultimate expression of truth is found in the Bible, in Jesus who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6). Of course, most philosophers and skeptics will dismiss His claim, but for the Christian, He is the mainstay of hope, sec urity, and guidance. Jesus, who walked on water, claimed to be divine, and rose from the dead, said that He was the truth and the originator of truth. If Jesus is wrong, then we should ignore Him. But, if He is right, then it is true that we should listen to Him. The eyewitnesses wrote what they saw. They were with Him. They watched Him perform many miracles, heal the sick, calm a storm with a command, and even rise from the dead. Either you believe or dismiss these claims. If you dismiss them, that is your prerogative. But, if you accept them, then you are faced with decisions to make about Jesus. What will you believe about Him? What will you decide about Him? Is He true? Is what He said true? Truth conforms to reality. Jesus performed many miracles and rose from the dead.

1016

Islam
Introduction

Islam is a world religion. Is it a religion of peace? What does it teach? Christians need to study Islam. It isnt going away. Also, it denies all the essential doctrines of Christianity and it is growing with the goal of taking over the world.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

What does the word "Quran" mean? p. 1020 What century was Muhammad born? p. 1022 What is the Hegira? p. 1023 What is the Qur'an? p. 1025 What are some of the doctrines of Islam? p. 1032 What are the five pillars of Islam? p. 1033 Does Islam teach salvation by works? p. 1043 Who has performed the greatest act of love, Yahweh or Allah? p. 1051 What does "Jihad" mean? p. 1053 Is the Trinity illogical? Why or why not? pp. 1057-1058 Why is it necessary for God to die for our sins? p. 1064 What are some of the contradictions in the Qur'an? p. 1066 What is the Hadith? p. 1071 What are some of the more interesting quotes from the Hadith? pp. 1072-1077 What are some of the more interesting quotes from the Hadith about Jesus? pp. 1080-1081 What are some of the more interesting quotes from the Hadith about Jihad? pp. 1082-1083 What are some of the more interesting quotes from the Hadith about Satan pp. 1086-1088

1017

The Gospel for Muslims

The Gospel of Jesus is Good News. That is what "gospel" means in Greek. It is the good news because Jesus has removed the requirements of keeping the Law in order to obtain salvation and that through Jesus, we can obtain eternal life. Jesus made it possible for people to receive the free and complete gift of salvation by faith. Our father Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6). It was his faith in God that made Abraham righteous before God, not keeping the law, not keeping the commandments. The Law of God is perfect because God is perfect. The Law is a reflection of the character of God. It is wrong to lie because lying is against God's character. It is wrong to steal because stealing is against God's character. That is why the Law tells us what is wrong. God is not arbitrary and neither is His Law. Though the Law is good and perfect, no man can keep it perfectly. No person can keep the Law. Jesus taught us that to even look on a woman with lust in your heart is to commit adultery with her (Matt. 5:27-28). You see, the Law of God is not simply to govern actions. It is for our hearts and attitudes. Purity of heart is what God wants from us. He wants purity of heart down to the deepest part of our being. Why? Because God's heart is the Purest and Most Holy of all. And since the Law was spoken by Him and came from Him, the Law is Perfect and Holy. That is the level of perfection you must have when trying to keep the Law. However, we are not able to keep the Law. We sin. We fail. The Law says do not lie, but shows us where we lie -- in our very hearts. It says do not commit adultery, but shows us where we commit adultery -- in our hearts. The Law of God is perfect. We are not. God is perfect and Holy. We are not. We are not able to keep the Law of God because we are finite, limited, and affected by sin. How can anyone ever hope to please God through keeping the Law? How can anyone ever hope to please God and attain heaven by doing good deeds? It is not ourselves that we must please, but a Holy and Pure God. The Good News The Good News is that you do not have to try and keep the Law of God to please Him. You do not have to try and raise yourself to the level of God's Perfection by trying to keep His Holy and Perfect Law. You cannot do that. If you thought you could, then your heart is full of pride. What you can not do, Jesus did do. He kept all the Law perfectly (1 Pet. 2:22). Jesus said that "Greater love has no man than this, that he lay his life down for his friend," (John 15:13). Jesus laid his life down for his friends. Jesus performed the greatest act of love in the universe. He died for our sins. He paid the penalty of breaking the Law, which is death. If this were not so, there would be no damnation. Jesus took our sins and died on the cross in our place (1 Pet. 2:24). This great act of love is unsurpassed in all the world. It means that you can, like Abraham (Gen. 15:6), be righteous by faith. All you need is faith in Jesus. Are you tired of trying to keep all the Laws in Islam as you strive to do more good deeds than bad deeds in the hope that on the Day of Judgment your good deeds will outweigh your bad? Because you earn in large part your salvation, you cannot know whether or not you will be saved. If you are tired of trying to be perfect, of trying to obtain Paradise through your works, then you need Jesus. Jesus said, "If any of you are heavy laden, come to me, and I will give you rest," (Matt. 11:28). Jesus forgave sins in Luke 5:20 and 7:48-49. He walked on water (Matt. 14:25). He rose from the dead (Matt. 28:6). Have you done more than He in keeping the Law or performing miracles? Has even the Prophet Muhammad done more than Jesus? The Good News is that you, like Abraham, can be made righteous by faith. Do you want the righteousness that is by faith? Or, do you want to earn Paradise through your deeds? Can you earn it? Have you done it so far? Have you been doing enough?

Jesus said:

1018

that that that that that

He gives eternal life, (John 10:28-30). He received all authority in heaven and earth, (Matt. 28:18). He was the Way the Truth and The Life, (John 14:6). He will resurrect people on the Last Day, (John 6:40, 44, 54). the Holy Spirit bears witness of Him, (John 15:26).

Do you want to try and please God through keeping the Law of Allah or by the grace of Christ? Is the greatest act of love to ask you to earn heaven through good deeds or is it to be a sacrifice in order to give to you what you cannot attain yourself? In which is the greatest act of love? If you want the eternal life that Jesus can give you, then trust what He did on the cross and do not rely on your own works to please God. Trust Jesus by faith. It is not Muhammad who forgives sins. Jesus does that (Luke 5:20; 7:48-49). Jesus said, "Believe in God. Believe also in me," (John 14:1). Like Abraham, be righteous in God's eyes . . by faith.

1019

What is Islam?
Islam (1.2 billion adherents) is one of the major world religions that, along with Christianity (1.9 billion adherents) and Judaism (14 million adherents), teaches monotheism which is the doctrine that there is only one God in all existence. Like Christianity and Judaism, Islam traces its roots back to the patriarch Abraham (Gen. 12). The word "Islam" means "surrender" or "submission"1 7 7 and it comes from the root word "salam" which means "peace." A Muslim (or Moslem - which means one who surrenders to God) is an adherent of Islam, a religion with precise theological doctrines about God, judgment, heaven, hell, angels, prophets, salvation, etc. The Arabic word for god is "allah" which has become a kind of name of God in Islam. Islam teaches that Allah is the one and only deity in all existence (Qur'an 5:73; 112:1-4). He is supreme, all knowing (40:20), ever-present, different from all of creation (3:191), and in complete control of all things. According to Islam, Allah created the universe in six days (2:29; 25:61-62) and all that is in it continues to exist by his permission and will. Allah is non-Trinitarian (5:73), absolute, and eternal. The Koran (or Quran, which means "the reading" in Arabic) is the sacred book of Islam and is broken up into 114 chapters called Suras which cover the subjects of ethics, history, law, and theology. It is highly revered by Muslims as the direct, literal word of God. The Qur'an (also spelled Quran and Koran) was delivered by the angel Gabriel (also known as the Holy Spirit) to Muhammad over a 23 year period after Muhammad's initial encounter with Gabriel in a cave when he was 40 years old. Muslims consider Muhammad (full name of Muhammad Ibn Abdullah) to be the final prophet of God to the world. Muhammad was born in 570? AD in Mecca and died in 632 AD. Second only to the Islamic belief in the unity/oneness of God is the supremacy of Muhammad as Allah's prophet. But, Islam acknowledges that several prophets preceded Muhammad. The major ones are Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus. These prophets gave revelations from God which were written as scriptures; mainly, the Old and New Testaments. These predecessors to Muhammad are considered great prophets who spoke for God to specific people and whose message was meant for that time. Jesus, then, was simply one of many prophets according to Islam. Therefore, they deny the Christian doctrine of the deity of Jesus, the need for His atoning sacrifice (4:157-158), the Trinity (5:73), and much more. According to Islam, no sacrifice is needed to be forgiven, only faith in Allah, sincere repentance, and obedience to Islamic law (3:135; 7:8-9; 21:47; 49:14; 66:8-9). In fact, in Islam, the greatest of sins, called shirk, is to attribute "partners" to God. In other words, to say that God is a Trinity of persons is an unforgivable sin to a Muslim. In addition to the Qur'an is the Hadith. It is another source of authority in Islam, though it is secondary to the Qur'an. The Hadith are the sayings and deeds of Muhammad as recorded by his companions. They are oral traditions and are considered authoritative and instructive as commentaries and applications of Qur'anic principles. The Hadith has additional principles not found in the Qur'an. The Hadith are the inspired truths of God transmitted to us in the style and words of Muhammad where the Koran is the exact words of God which is supposed to be protected from corruption by Allah. In Islam, all Muslims are united by the common faith irrespective of class, location, race, or gender. Therefore, they have a special bond of unity and equality. The primary "truth" of Islam is found in the first pillar of Islam known as the shahda: "There is no true God except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Islamic theology also teaches that angels were created from light, that jinn are another race of beings, created from fire, who are invisible yet all around us, that there is an eternal judgment to Paradise for the good and hell for the bad, that Jesus was never crucified, that drinking alcohol is forbidden as is gambling, etc. Within the first two centuries after its inception in Arabia, Islam spread very quickly, often aided by sword (jihad1 7 8 ), into North Africa, up through Europe to Spain, and east to India. Presently, about 1 billion people are Muslim world wide with adherents on every continent and nation. It is the world's fastest growing religion and second in size only to Christianity. Like most ancient religions, there are sects. Islam is no different. The major sects in Islam are the Sunnites and the Shiites. The Sunnites are the largest group and comprise about 90% of all Muslims.
177 178

The One (True) God; To Him do we submit" (Qur'an 2:133). Jihad means "striving." Fighting against one's own sinful self. Also, a physical fight for the truth of Islam, not allowing anyone to steal the ability to worship. It also means "holy war."

1020

The Shiites, though smaller in number, are significant in Islamic history and presently occupy the lands of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi-Arabia, Yemen, and Persian Gulf states. The most important place of worship for the Muslim is the Mosque which is always pointed towards Mecca, the birthplace of Muhammad which is located in Saudi Arabia. All Muslims must face Mecca during their times of prayer because in Mecca is the Ka'aba, a cube structure allegedly built by Abraham which contains a sacred stone. When a Muslim is in Mecca, he or she faces the Ka'aba. Many Muslims hope for shari'ah the complete rule of Islamic law in the world. To this end, Muslims are seeking more converts, attacking other religious systems both by the sword and by word, moving into every nation, and seeking political power wherever they can achieve it. Islam is a growing reality.

1021

Muhammad
Few people in all of history ever have an influence so far reaching that the course of nations are changed. Muhammad is just such a person. For most of the world, Muhammad was an Arab who lived in the Middle East in the 7th century and is the founder of Islam. For Muslims, Muhammad is the final prophet of Allah who supercedes all other prophets and who alone delivered the final and perfect word of God. Whichever your position, Muhammad is an important figure in human history. Muhammad (full name is Muhammad Ibne Abdullah) was born in 570(?) in Mecca which is now located in Saudi Arabia. Mecca was then the cultural and religious center of Arabia. The area had no central government and was full semi-warring tribes with numerous, competing, polytheistic religions. At the heart of Mecca was the Ka'aba (cube in Arabic), a shrine about 60 feet, by 60 feet, by 60 feet, containing hundreds of idols, and known as the House of Allah. Allah was recognized as the supreme deity, but was worshipped along with other deities. The Ka'aba was believed to have been built by Abraham and his son Ishmael on the same spot as the first shrine to God built by Adam. On the eastern corner of the Ka'aba is the Black stone called in Arabic, Hajar al Aswad. The Black Stone is probably a meteorite. Muhammad is born Muhammad was born to his mother Amina, into the Quraish, the then ruling tribe of Mecca. Up to the age of eight, he was raised by his grandfather Abdul Muttalib because Abdallah, his father, died in Yathrib a few weeks before Muhammad was born. Amina, his mother, died when he was six. After the death of his grandfather, his uncle Abu Talib then assumed responsibility for raising Muhammad. Abu Talib was a businessman involved in trade so it is likely that Muhammad went with him on business trips and encountered both Jews, 280 miles to the north in Madina, and Christians also to the north and to the south in Nejran. History tells us that when he was 12 he accompanied his uncle on a trading caravan to Syria. His encounters with Jews and Christians seem to be reflected in the Qur'an in passages that refer to "The People of the Book" (3:64, 71, 187; 5:59). The term "People of the Book" is a reference to Jews and Christians who had received God's word through the prophets before Muhammad. At 25 years old, Muhammad was hired to manage the business of a wealthy widow named Khadija who was 15 years older than he. He went to Syria and traded there successfully. Apparently this impressed Khadija. She ended up proposing to Muhammad later and in 595 they were ma rried. They had two sons, who died in infancy, and four daughters: Zaynab, Ruqaiyah, Fatima and Umm Kulthum. Muhammad and Khakija were married for 25 years until Khadija died at the age of 65 during the month of Ramadan, well after the start of Islam. Around 35 Muhammad assumed the habit of going outside of Mecca to Mt. Hira for meditation and contemplation. There was a cave there and he often went there for solitude. It was during one of these times of meditation that Muhammad said an angelic being appeared to him, calling him. This disturbed Muhammad (Qur'an 81:19-29) and he told his wife Khadija that he thought he had been visited by an evil Jinn. Jinn are supposed to be living beings like people, but not angels, who were created from fire and are invisible, yet dwell on the earth. A short time later, in the year 610 (believed to be the 26th of Ramadan), while in a cave on Mt. Hirah, Muhammad said that the angel Gabriel appeared to him and commanded him to recite (96:1-19). This recitation became the Qur'an. In these encounters with the angel Gabriel, sometimes he would see the angel, other times he would only hear him, and at others he only heard the sound of a bell through which the words of the angel came. Muhammad could neither read nor write so he was instructed to memorize the words given to him by Gabriel. This complete recitation which Muhammad received over a 23 year period, ending in 632, the year of his death, is known as the Qur'an. Initially, Muhammad doubted that he was being called by Allah to be a prophet. Others, including his wife and a cousin, counseled him by saying that Allah would only be truthful to him and would not allow him to be deceived. Muhammad became convinced and even wrote in the Qur'an, "Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe," (2:97).

Islam takes root

1022

It became the mission of Muhammad to proclaim the truth of Islam, given to him by Allah, through the angel Gabriel. Muhammad called the people of his area to repent from their idol worship, to do good, and to serve the one and true God, Allah. He taught that man is God's slave and it is his duty to submit to God and obey him. He said that the Day of Judgment was coming and that a man's works will be weighed on that day. Those whose good deeds out weigh their bad may, by Allah's grace, be saved and enter Paradise which is full of sensual pleasures. The unsaved go to hell. His first converts were his wife, Khadija, his cousin Ali, and his adopted son Zaid ibn Haritha. Soon afterwards, Abu Bakr also believed. In his first three years of proclaiming Islam, he had 40 converts. Though his continued preaching brought only a few converts, it did bring much opposition. The ruling tribe, the Quraish, tried to get Muhammad to stop his preaching by appealing to his uncle, Abu Talib. But, Muhammad adamantly refused to stop proclaiming the message he had received. Because Abu Talib was very influential in the Quraish, Muhammad's life was protected and he was able to continue his preaching which angered many people. The Quraish began to persecute the Muslims by beating them and boycotting their businesses. During public prayers, Muhammad was accosted and mocked. His followers were likewise treated poorly. But, Muhammad remained steadfast. Because of the persecution, the Muslims moved to Abyssinia, Ethiopia today, and was protected by the Christian ruler there. After a time, he returned to Madina and continued his preaching. More converts joined his ranks and more idolaters sought to defeat him. This is because the message of Islam was socio-political. Islam covers belief, society, behavior, ethics, etc. This monotheistic belief system threatened the lucrative business that grew around the pilgrimages to the Ka'aba that so many Arabs enjoyed. The ruling tribe, the Quraish, soon found that within their reign a small band of believers, a small "country" unto themselves, was rising up. The ruling party became more and more concerned and threatened by the Muslims and their pressure increased against Muhammad. In the year 620 Muhammad lost his beloved uncle Abu Talib (who never became a Muslim) and his wife Khadija. "After a few months Muhammad sought comfort by marrying the widow of one of the believers named Sawdah. He also later married Ayisha, the seven-year old daughter of his friend Abu Bakr, who he took into his home three years later."1 7 9 According to Muslim historians, Muhammad has 12 wives when he died. Hegira 622 is a significant date for Muslims. It is known as the year of the Hijra, or Migration from Mecca to Yathrib (which later became Medina) where they established their first real Islamic community. The Muslim calendar begins its history from July 16, 622 the first day of the lunar year in which the Hegira took place. In Medina, he preached about Allah and monotheism and urged all people to return to the true faith of Abraham. At that time in Medina, he would pray facing Jerusalem, as did the Jews who were very populace in that city. He preached about repentance, one God, and forgiveness of sins. His first sermon in Medina was on a Friday. Therefore, Islamic congregational worship occurs on Fridays. Gradually, however, the Jews began to disapprove of him and his movement. He confronted them and told them they had misread the Scriptures. This estranged the Jews in the region and finally one day while praying, he suddenly changed direction and faced Mecca. He said the Ka'aba, in Mecca, was the true place of worship since it was built by Abraham. To this day, all Muslims are to face Mecca when praying.

After two years in Medina, the Muslims were not fairing too well financially and that, combined with mild persecution, prompted a revelation to come to Muhammad permitting him to raid passing
179

Miller, William M., A Christian's Response to Islam, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1976. page 23.

1023

caravans. This he did and the Muslim financial problems were solved. Soon afterward, there was then a significant battle at Badr where Muhammad, with 350 men, defeated an army of 1,000 men. This boost gave confidence to the Muslims, encouraged more converts, and made the Quraish even more uneasy. In the fifth year of the Hegira, the Quraish tried to destroy the Muslims but failed. By now the Muslims were too strong so the Quraish never again tried to defeat them. Muhammad then set his sights on Mecca. At one point in 628, Muhammad took 10,000 men and entered Mecca unchallenged. The leader of the Quraish converted to Islam. From there, Muhammad's movement gained further momentum. In 631 two tribes joined Muhammad. They were the Hijaz and Najd. More and more important people began to convert to Islam including Umar and Hamza, two powerful people in the region. From this time on, many battles ensured. In 625 there was the Battle of Uhud. In 627, the Battle of the Trench. In 628 Muhammad signs a treaty with Quraish. There is the Battle of Hunsin. In 630 Muhammad had conquered Mecca and he destroys all the idols in Mecca. In 632, Muhammad delivers his last sermon, later falls ill, and dies in the presence of his favorite wife, Aisha, and her father, Abu-Bakr. He was buried in Medina in his own house. His father in law, Abu-Bakr, becomes Caliph, the religious leader of Islam.

1024

The Qur'an
The Qur'an (Koran, Quran) is the Holy Book of Islam and the religions most sacred writing. Muslims consider it the actual word of Allah and not the word of Muhammad to whom it was given. Muslim tradition states that the angel Gabriel visited Muhammad and gave him the words directly from Allah. These words were Allah's words of wisdom, truth, and commandments to His creation. The Qur'an (which means recitation) was revealed in the Arabic dialect used by the Quraish tribe of Mecca of that time. This dialect became the formal Arabic of the Islamic nations due to the distribution of Qur'anic scriptures throughout the Islamic empire. In the Arabic the Qur'an is poetic in style with rhymes, meter, and shifts in line lengths. Those who speak the language say it is a beautiful work. The Qur'an deals mainly with what and how Allah wants m ankind to believe and do in Man's moral struggle. Its primary theme is that of complete submission to the will of Allah. However, it also, it teaches . . . there is only one sovereign God (3:191; 5:73; 112:1-4). there will be an end of the world and judgment day (3:30; 35:33-37). those who are not Muslims will go to hell (3:13; 19:49). that those whose good deeds exceed their bad will obtain paradise (3:135; 7:8-9; 21:47). social and ethical behavior for Islamic society.

In the year 610 (believed to be the 26th of Ramadan), while in a cave on Mt. Hirah, which is now called Mount Jabal Nur, Muhammad said that the angel Gabriel appeared to him and commanded him to recite (96:1-19). From that point on, Muhammad received revelations up to the time of his death, 23 years later in 632. In these encounters with the angel Gabriel, sometimes Muhammad would see the angel, other times he would only hear him, and at others he only heard the sound of a bell through which the words of the angel came. Since Muhammad could not read or write, his companions wrote down what he said. These recitations were copied onto a variety of materials: papyrus, flat stones, palm leaves, shoulder blades and ribs of animals, pieces of leather and wooden boards. 1 8 0 Additionally, these sayings were also being memorized by Mohammad's followers. In fact, to this day, great emphasis is placed upon memorizing the entire Qur'an and there are many thousands of Muslims who have committed it to memory. The work is roughly the same size as the New Testament. Apparently, there was no attempt made to collect all of the sayings given by Muhammad during his lifetime. After all, Mohammad was continuing to give ' recitations' on a somewhat regular basis. But, after he died in 632, Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father in law, became the caliph (religious leader of the Muslims) and there was a small effort to collect the fragments of Qur'anic sayings into a common place. But, it wasn't until the fourth leader of Islam, Caliph Uthman, that the whole Qur'an was finally assembled, approved, and disseminated throughout the Muslim world. The Koran also contains many biblical figures (Abraham, David, Moses, and Jesus) as well as nonbiblical figures. However, some of the accounts of biblical characters are different than the Bible. The Koran is divided into 114 chapters, called Surahs. The word surah means "row". Today the Koran is arranged with the longer surahs first and the shorter ones after. The whole thing is divided into 30 approximately equal lengths. "Islamic law prohibits the touching of the physical Arabic Qur'an (and formal, but not casual, recitation) unless the person he is in a state of purity which corresponds to the greater of Ablution... it is a priest group Chin that every Moslem must commit at least 12 vs. or lines of the Qur'an to memory."1 8 1 The revelations are identified has having been revealed either in Mecca or Medina. Generally, those revealed in Mecca are the earlier ones and are more poetic and deal with apocalyptic themes. The Medina revelations deal more with the law of Allah. Many have noted that the arrangement of the Qur'an is not chronological or thematic. The subjects tend to be disjointed and shifting. This is due in part to the directions of Mohammad to put certain savings in different places in the Surahs. Muslims are aware of this and considered as to be the divine order in the Koran.
180

Watt, W. Montgomery, Islamic Surveys: Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, 1970, page 40. 181 (Glasse, Cyril, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. San Francisco, 1989. p. 220)

1025

Chronology of early Islam

Notice how closely Islam's inception is associated with war. From 623 to 777, a span of 154 years, there are 83 military conflicts involving the Muslims...and that is just what I have recorded here. Is Islam a religion of peace? Muslims tell me it is. But....

570 577 580 583 595 595 598 600 603 604 605 605 610 613 615 619 620 622 623 623 623 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 625 625 625 625 626 626 626 627 627 627 627 627 627 628 630

Birth of Muhammad in Mecca into the tribe of Quraish. Muhammad's mother dies Death of Abdul Muttalib, Muhammad's grandfather. First journey to Syria with a trading Caravan Muhammad marries Khadijah a rich widow several years older than him. Second journey to Syra His son, Qasim, is born His daughter, Zainab, is born His daughter, Um-e-Kalthum, is born His daughter, Ruqayya, is born Placement of Black Stone in Ka'aba. His daughter, Fatima, is born Mohammed, in a cave on Mt. Hira, hears the angel Gabriel tell him that Allah is the only true God. Muhammad's first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts. Muslims persecuted by the Quraish. Marries Sau'da and Aisha Institution of five daily prayers Muhammad emigrates from Mecca to Medina, which was then called Yathrib, gets more converts. Battle of Waddan Battle of Safwan Battle of Dul-'Ashir Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement. Zakat becomes mandatory Battle of Badr Battle of Bani Salim Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr Battle of Bani Qainuqa' Battle of Sawiq Battle of Ghatfan Battle of Bahran Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims are killed. Battle of Humra-ul-Asad Battle of Banu Nudair Battle of Dhatur- Riqa Battle of Badru-Ukhra Battle of Dumatul-Jandal Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah Battle of the Trench Battle of Ahzab Battle of Bani Quraiza Battle of Bani Lahyan Battle of Ghaiba Battle of Khaibar Muhammad signs treaty with Qura ish. Muhammad conquers Mecca.

1026

630 630 632 632 633 633 633 633 633 633 634 634 634 634 634 634 635 635 635 635 636 636 636 637 638 638 638 639 641 642 643 644 644 644 647 644 648 651 654 656 658 659 661 662 666 677 687 691 700 700 702 711 711 713

Battle of Hunsin. Battle of Tabuk Muhammad dies. Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law, along with Umar, begins a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia. Battle at Oman Battle at Hadramaut. Battle of Kazima Battle of Walaja Battle of Ulleis Battle of Anbar Battle of Basra, Battle of Damascus Battle of Ajnadin. Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph. Battle of Namaraq Battle of Saqatia. Battle of Bridge. Battle of Buwaib. Conquest of Damascus. Battle of Fahl. Battle of Yermuk. Battle of Qadsiyia. Conquest of Madain. Battle of Jalula. Battle of Yarmouk. The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem. Conquest of Jazirah. Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt. Battle of Nihawand Battle of Rayy in Persia Conquest of Azarbaijan Conquest of Fars Conquest of Kharan. Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph. Conquest of the island of Cypress Uman dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman. Campaign against the Byzantines. Naval battle against the Byzantines. Islam spreads into North Africa Uthman is murdered. Ali becomes Caliph. Battle of Nahrawan. Conquest of Egypt Ali is murdered. Egypt falls to Islam rule. Sicily is attacked by Muslims Siege of Constantinople Battle of Kufa Battle of Deir ul Jaliq Sufism takes root as a sect of Islam Military campaigns in North Africa Battle of Deir ul Jamira Muslims invade Gibraltar Conquest of Spain Conquest of Multan

716 - Invasion of Constantinople

1027

732 740 741 744 746 748 749 749 750 772 777

Battle Battle Battle Battle Battle Battle Battle Battle Battle Battle Battle

of Tours in France. of the Nobles. of Bagdoura in North Africa of Ain al Jurr. of Rupar Thutha of Rayy. of lsfahan of Nihawand of Zab of Janbi in North Africa of Saragossa in Spain

References: Miller, William M., A Christian's Response to Islam, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1976. Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Books, 1999. Glasse, Cyril, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. San Francisco, 1989. Morey, Robert, The Islamic Invasion, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene Oregon, 1992. Early Islam Chronology Islam Chronology

1028

Divisions within Islam

Because of Islam's great growth geographically in the first two centuries of its inception, there needed to be a larger set of Islamic laws capable of handling the different needs of Muslims throughout the Empire. The Qur'an and the Hadith were not detailed enough to provide all the answers. Therefore, in the 8th century A.D., there arose a school of legal experts who interpreted and applied Islamic principles to different situations throughout the Empire. However, different scholars disagreed with these experts in various areas. This led to a variety of legal schools of thought within Islam. These different schools became different sects within Islam. The largest of the sects is the Sunni which comprises about 90% of all Muslims. The next two largest are the Shi'i and Sufi. After these, there are numerous splinter groups which are often named after the individual scholars who began them: Hanifa, after Abu Hanifa; Maliki, after Malik ibn Anas; Shafi'i, after Muhammad ibn Idris alShafi'i; Zaydi, after Zayd ibn Ali; the Nusayri, Ismaili, Murji'ah, etc. Sunni Muslims Sunni Muslims These are followers of the Hanifa, Shafi, Hanibal and Malik schools. They constitute a 90% majority of the believers, and are considered to be main stream traditionalists. Because they are comfortable pursuing their faith within secular societies, they have been able to adapt to a variety of national cultures, while following their three sources of law: the Qur'an, Hadith and consensus of Muslims. The Sunni emphasize the power and sovereignty of Allah and his right to do whatever he wants with his creation. A strict predeterminism is taught. Its rulership is through the Caliphate, the office of Muslim ruler who is considered the successor to Muhammad. This successor is not through hereditary lineage. Shi'ite Muslims The Shi'ites (also known as the Ja'firi school) split with the Sunni over the issue of the successor to Muhammad. This split occured after the assassination of the fourth caliph in 661. Shi'ites believe that the successor to Muhammad should have been Ali, his son in law, and that subsequent successors should have been through his lineage through his wife Fatima. Shi'ism is broken into three main sects: the Twelve-Imam; Persia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Syria), the Zaydis (Yemen), and the Ismailis (India, Iran, Syria, and East Africa). Each group, of course, has differences of doctrine. "Shi'ite theology includes a doctrine known as the five supports: these are Divine Unity (tawhid), prophecy (nubuwwah), resurrection of the soul and body at the Judgment (ma'ad), the Imamate1 8 2 (imamah), and justice ('adl). The first three are found in Sunni Islam, albeit with some differences of emphasis; the Imamate, however , is the essence of Shi'ism, and the last, justice, is an inheritance from the Mu'tazilites, or rationalists, whose system is in many ways perpetuated in Shi'ite theology..."1 The Imamate, fom the word "Imam", in the Shi'ite traditions is the political and religious leader of the Shi'ite sect. This person possesses great power and influence. According to Shi'ite doctrine, the Imam must be a biological successor of Ali. The Imam is also sinless and infallible on all matters of Islamic doctrine and will intercede for Muslims in the afterlife. The Shi'i and the Sunni differ in some interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith and even have a different canon of Hadith and the Sunni.

182

Glasse, Cyril, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. San Francisco, 1989, page 368.

1029

Sufi Muslims The Sufi are a mystical tradition where the followers seek inner mystical knowledge of God. This sect "officially" developed around the 10th century and has since fragmented into different orders: Ahmadiyya, Qadariyya, Tijaniyya, etc. Of course, the Sufi believe their roots can be traced back to the inception of Islam in the early 7th century. The Sufi mystic must follow a path of deprivation and meditation. There are various forms of abstinence and poverty. Worldly things are renounced and a complete trust in God's will is taught. The goal is to attain to a higher knowledge and experience of Allah. The mystical focus meant that the Qur'an could be interpreted in different ways and so Sufism taught that the Qur'an had mystical meanings hidden within its pages. Out of this mysticism a type of pantheism developed among some Sufi believers. Pantheism is the teaching that God and the universe are one. Of course, the orthodox Muslims, called the Sunni, reject this idea since they claim that Allah is the creator of the universe and distinct from it. In part, Sufism arose as a reaction to the growing Islamic materialism that had developed in the Empire at that time. Islam had achieved great power and geographical scope and with it, the material gain was great. Conclusion As you can see, Islam is not the united religious system it claims to be. There are divisions among its ranks and even those divisions have divisions. But what is interesting is that the Qur'an tells the Muslims to have no such divisions. "The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah - the [sic] which we have sent by inspiration to thee - and that which we enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than Allah, hard is the (way) to which thou callest them..." (42:13) If this is the case, then the Muslim must admit that the divisions within Islam are sinful. But, such is the nature of humanity, to divide and set ourselves against one another.

1030

What are the doctrines of Islam?

Note: All references are to the Koran where applicable. God A. There is only one God (5:73; 112:1-4). B. God is called Allah by Muslims (5:73) C. Allah sees all things (40:20), is present everywhere (2:115; 7:7). D. Allah is the sole creator and sustainer of the universe (3:191). E. Allah is not a Trinity, but is one (5:73). F. Allah is all-knowing (2:268; 10:61) and all powerful (6:61-62). G. Allah created the heaven and earth (2:29; 6:1, 73; 25:61-62; 36:81; 46:33). Salvation and Judgment A. Allah will judge all people on the Day of Judgment (3:30; 35:33-37; 99:6-8). B. If your good deeds exceed your bad deeds, and you believe in Allah, and sincerely repent of sins, you may go to heaven (3:135; 7:8-9; 21:47; 49:14; 66:8-9). C. There is an eternal hell for those who are not Muslims, not practicing and of the truth faith (3:77). D. Hell is a place of unlimited capacity (50:30) eternal torment (2:39; 14:17; 25:65; 39:26), fire (9:63; 11:16; 25:11-12; 104:6-7), with boiling water (38:55-58; 55:43-44), where skin is burned and renewed (4:56), for unbelievers (3:13; 19:49) and Jinn (11:119), with faces covered with fire (14:49-50). E. There is a tree in hell, named Tree of Zaqqum, from which bad fruit is given and the damned are forced to eat (37:62-67; 44:43-48; 56:52-55). F. Heaven (Paradise), a Garden (79:41) of bliss and fruit (69:21-24), has rivers (3:198), with maidens pure and holy (4:57), and carpets and cushions, (88:8-16). G. There will be a physical resurrection of all people (19:93-95) on the day of judgment (3:77; 15:25; 16:38; 42:29). H. Judgment is based on a person's sincere repentance (66:8-9) and righteous deeds (5:9; 24:26; 45:21-22; 64:7). Other A. There is an afterlife (2:154;75:12). B. There are such things as angels, created by Allah, that are created from light. Angels are obedient slaves incapable of refusing to do Allahs will. The angel Gabriel brought the revelation of the Koran to Muhammad (2:97). C. The Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel (2:97; 16:102). D. Jinn are unseen beings, created (51:56) from fire (15:27; 55:15), but are not angels. They have communities. There are good and bad Jinn. E. The Devil, called Iblis, (2:34) is a bad Jinn. F. Jesus was a great prophet but not the son of God (9:30), is not divine (5:17, 75), was not crucified (4:157). G. Muhammad is Allahs greatest and last prophet and his message supercedes all other past prophets including Jesus. H. The Koran is Allahs word. He literally spoke it to Gabriel who gave it to Muhammad. I. There are other holy writings but they are superceded by the Koran. i. Torah - the First Five books of Moses ii. Injeel - the message that Jesus gave, written down, but no longer exists. The writings have been altered by scholars. Whatever agrees with the Koran is true. iii. Zaboor - the Psalms J. Pre-ordainment (Qadar) is the teaching that all things, good and bad, are preordained to occur. K. Fasting is to be observed during the month of Ramadan (2:185). L. Drinking alcohol is forbidden (2:219; 4;43; 5:93-94; 16:67) M. Gambling is forbidden (2:219; 5:90-94). N. Man is made from the dust of the earth (23:12). O. There is no last minute repentance (4:18).

1031

The Five Pillars of Islam

The Five Pillars of Islam are core beliefs that shape Muslim thought, deed, and society. A Muslim who fulfills the Five Pillars of Islam, remains in the faith of Islam, and sincerely repents of his sins, will make it to Jannah (paradise). If he performs the Five Pillars but does not remain in the faith, he will not be saved. 1. Shahada A. The Shahada is the Islamic proclamation that "There is no true God except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." B. This is the confession that Allah is the one and only true God, that Allah alone is worthy of worship, that Allah alone is the sovereign lord who does what he wills with whoever he wills. It means that all his rules and laws found in the Koran are to be followed. It means that the Christian doctrine of God as a Trinity is false as are all other belief systems including pantheism. C. Muhammad is the true and greatest prophet of Allah and recognition of Muhammad as the Prophet of God is required. It was through Muhammad that Allah conveyed the last and final revelation. Prayer (Salat) A. Prayer involves confession of sins which begins with the purification of the body and ends with the purification of the soul. Prayer is performed five times a day. The first prayer is at dawn and the last at sunset. Fasting (Saum) A. The month of Ramadan is the month of fasting in Islam. It is an act of worship where the faithful follower denies his own needs and seeks Allah. Usually, this fasting entails no drinking, eating during, or sexual relations during the daylight hours for the entire month of Ramadan. Alms-giving or charity (Zakat) A. Charity given to the poor. It benefits the poor and it helps the giver by moving him towards more holiness and submission to Alla h. Alms-giving is considered a form of worship to God. Pilgrimage (Hajj) A. This is the pilgrimage to Mecca. All Muslims, if they are able, are to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. It involves financial sacrifice and is an act of worship. Muslims must make the pilgrimage the first half of the last month of the lunar year

2.

3.

4.

5.

1032

True faith in Islam

The pillars of the faith of Islam can be compared to the concept of a Statement of Faith, or Articles of faith. These are Islamic concepts of essentials of the faith. 1. Allah A. Allah is the supreme being of all. He is uncreated, the creator of all, without beginning or end. He is completely sufficient to himself and needs no other. He does not have offspring nor a spouse. He knows all things, is everywhere, and is all powerful. He hears all prayers. Everything that occurs, does so by his permission. His Angels A. Angels reside in the unseen world and carry out the commands of Allah. They cannot sin. Muhammad stated that it was the angel Gabriel that brought the message of the Koran to him. His Messengers A. People who have been sent from Allah to a particular group of people for the purpose of giving to them the message revealed by Allah. Some of them are Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and, of course, Muhammad. Islam teaches that all messengers previous to Muhammad were sent to limited people groups where Muhammad was sent to all people. His Books A. Islam recognizes many sacred scriptures that have been given by Allah throughout history. However, Muslims claim that only the Quran is trustworthy and that the other scriptures have been compromised because we do not posses their original manuscripts. They assert that the accounts of the Bible were written down hundreds of years later and cannot be considered inerrant, and they were written in ancient languages which have been lost. Therefore, exact translations are not possible. Nevertheless, the scriptures recognized in Islam are: i. The Koran - The Koran (Qur'an) is the inspired word of Allah given to people through the Prophet Muhammad and it supercedes all other scriptures before it including. It alone is inerrant and trustworthy as a revelation for today. It is unchanged from the beginning. ii. The Torah -the first five books of Moses. iii. The Injil - the gospel message of Jesus in the New Testament iv. The Psalms - the sacred writings given to David. The Last Day A. There is a future day in which this world and its governments and systems will come to end and all people will face judgment based upon their deeds. Muslims go to paradise and nonMuslims go to hell. Divine Preordainments good or bad A. In Islam, Allah is completely control of all things and ordains all things that occur.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

1033

Islamic Terms
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Adhan - The call to prayer. Ahmad - Another name for Muhammad. Allah - The Arabic word for "god." It is often used as a name for God in Islam. Badr - The place of the first significant battle between and the pagans of the Quraish. It is located in Saudi Arabia. Caliph - A Muslim ruler. Dajjal - Antichrist. Dawah - The proliferation of Islamic teachings through word and deed. Din - Obedience to the revelation of Allah's Qur'an (Koran). It involves total submission. Fatwa - Legal verdict given based on the Qur'an (Koran) and the Sunnah which are the recorded sayings and deeds of Muhammad. Fiqh - Religious law. Hadith - The sayings and deeds of the prophet Muhammad recorded by his followers. Considered authoritative and perfect. A saying is called a Sunnah. Hajar - The Black Stone set into the corner of the Ka'aba in Mecca. Tradition states it fell from heaven. Hajj - The pilgrimage to Mecca which takes place in the last month of the Islamic calendar. One of the five pillars of Islam. Hawijah - The sixth level of hell which is the place for Christians. Hegirah - Muhammad's immigration to Medina. It begins the Muslim calendar. Hijrah - Moving from a land where a Muslim cannot practice his faith to a land where he can. Ibadah - All the words and deeds with which Allah is pleased. These deeds could be prayer and charity. Iblis - Satan, a fallen Jinn. Imam - The political head of an Islamic state. Injil - The inspired sayings of Jesus. The message of Jesus. Islam - Submission, the religion of all the prophets of Allah culminating in Muhammad. Jannah - The heavenly garden, Paradise. The place of the faithful in the afterlife. Jihad - Striving. Fighting against one's own sinful self. Also, a physical fight for the truth of Islam, not allowing anyone to steal the ability to worship. It also can mean "holy war." Jinn - Supernatural, invisible beings race of beings, below angels. They were made from fire and are capable of looking like humans or animals. Some may dwell in rocks, trees, etc, and may possess black dogs, and black cats. There are good and bad Jinn and all will be judged on Judgment Day. Ka'aba - A cube shaped building in Mecca containing a stone laid there by Abraham and Ishmael. All Muslims face this cube when praying. Koran - Also spelled Qur'an. The holy book of Islam given to Muhammad by Allah through the Archangel Gabriel. Koran literally means "the recital." It is the final revelation of Allah given to the prophet Muhammad. It has 114 surahs, or chapters. Kufr - Disbelief Khutbah - A sermon given in a Mosque, usually on Friday. Maksiat - Sinful act Masjid - A center for Muslim activity. It is like a local mosque. Mecca - The Holy City of Islam. It is the birthplace of Muhammad. Medina - The city, then called Yathrib, that Muhammad fled to after announcing Islam. Mosque - A Muslim house of worship. Muhajir - Immigrant, one who leaves his home town to join a Muslim community. Muhammad - the final messenger/prophet of God whose message abrogated all previous revelations. He received the Koran through the angel Gabriel over a 23 year period. Muhammad ibn Abd Allah - the full name of Muhammad. Muslim - Someone who holds to the religion of Islam. Nas - The multitude of people who are not dedicated to Allah and sway to and fro to various teachings. Nasara - A word used in the Koran to designate those who are Christians.

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

1034

40. 41.

42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

P.B.U.H. - A shortened designation for "Peace be upon him" which is placed in writing or said after the word "Muhammad" is used. Paradise - Another word for heaven. A garden (79:41) of bliss and fruit (69:21-24), has rivers (3:198), with maidens pure and holy (4:57), and carpets and cushions, (88:8-16). It is the hope of all Muslims. Qadar - Preordainment is the teaching that all things, good and bad, are preordained to occur. Qatl - Murder Qibla - The direction which Muslims turn for daily prayers, towards Mecca. Quraish - An ancient Arab tribe to which Muhammad once belonged. Rakat (rak'ah) - One complete cycle of sacred words and gestures during the ritual prayer. Ramadhan - The ninth month of the Islamic calendar which is the month of the fast. Salat - Prayers Sawm - Fasting Shi'ites - A sect of Islam that teaches that leaders should be political rulers. Shirk - Associating another god with Allah. Associating anything with Allah that is not true and revealed in the Koran. Sirq - Theft Sufi - A sect of Islam. It is very mystical and teaches strong self denial with the hope of union with God. Sunnah - The life, practices, and sayings of Muhammad recorded as examples of perfect conduct in society, religion, action, etc. They contain the Hadith. Sunnis - One of the sects of Islam Surah - A chapter of the Koran. Taghut - Everything that is worshipped or followed other than Allah. Taiyib - Pure, clean, wholesome. Taqwah - Proper fear and veneration of Allah. A divine spark that enables the person to understand God. Tauhid - Monotheism in Islam is the teaching that there is only one God who alone is worthy of worship. Tauhid-ar- Rububiyah - Declaring that God is one, the sovereign who performs all his will. Tauhid-al-Uluhiyah - Declaring that God is the only one worthy of worship. Ummah - A religious community, usually referring to an Islamic one. Umrah - A Minor form of pilgrimage to Mecca. Wa Alaikum Assalam - The Arabic way of saying "peace be upon him." Zaboor - The Psalms Zakat - The third pillar of Islam. Alms giving, charity that is given to the poor. Zinah - Fornication and adultery.

These words were collected from numerous websites and books on Islam listed in the Bibliography and are words used in English writings by Muslims.

1035

Methods Muslims use to attack Christianity

When dealing with Muslims it is wise to understand some of the approaches used by them to discredit Christianity. Much could be written on each of the following subjects with numerous examples. But, instead, I will simply expound on the areas common among Muslim approaches and point out what to watch for. No. 1 Attack the validity of the Bible

This is expected. If the Muslim can undermine the strength and integrity of God's word, then it would be much easier for him to win arguments, confound the Christian, and make converts of those who don't know the truth and power of the Bible. This is what the devil did in the Garden of Eden. Satan said, "You truly will not die," (Gen. 3:4). I am not calling Muslims satanic. I am simply pointing out that that is how deception begins, by bringing doubt upon God's word, and that this is exactly what Muslims do. They try and get people to doubt the Bible and then tell you how great Islam is. Various methods are used here to accomplish this: Stating that the Bible has numerous contradictions A. Of course, I cannot go through all the alleged Bible contradictions here. But my observation has been that the majority of "biblical contradictions" raised by Muslims are nothing more than examples of their lack of understanding of biblical theology and context. Always read the context of verses. Don't let a Muslim simply state that there are contradictions and leave it at that. Ask him to give you one. If you cannot answer it, do research and get back to him. Sure, there are some tough areas of scripture, but there are no contradictions in God's word. 1 8 3 Criticizing the lack of original manuscripts A. The point here is that because we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible, we cannot really know what the originals said and, therefore, the Bible could have been corrupted. They then compare the Bible to the Koran and state that the Koran is the guaranteed, preserved, direct word of Allah given by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Of course, what they fail to mention is i. The Bible documents are well attested as being reliable and accurate. (See the book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.) ii. Regarding the Koran, Muhammad couldn't read or write, so he recited the Koran to people who then wrote it down. There is no evidence at all that the Koran was written down in its entirety in Muhammad's lifetime and compiled as a unit. So how could he have verified its truth? iii. Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Muslim Uthman ordered all sets of the Koran manuscripts to be destroyed except the codex of Zaid. Why? Is it because Zaid's copy was better? If so, how do we know? Did differences in the copies arise so quickly that discrepancies were evident and Uthman recognized the need for a standardized copy lest Islam suffer division? It raises doubt on the Koran's supposed incorruptibility. iv. Muslims claim that Allah said the Koran would be preserved. But, the mere claim is not enough. It is using the Koran to substantiate the Koran which is circular reasoning.

183

There is an exception due to a textual copyist error. In 2 Chr. 36:9, it states that "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king," and 2 Kings 24:8, states that "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king..." This is not an error in the original manuscripts. Most likely, one of the small horizontal strokes used in recording numbers during the time of Chronicles writing was either smudged out or faded. (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason Archer, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI., 1982, page 215.)

1036

Claiming that the Bible is false because it contradicts the Koran. A. This is simply begging the question. That means that one assumes the validity of the thing that he is trying to prove. The Muslim assumes the validity of the Koran and because it contradicts the Bible, therefore the Bible is wrong. Well, the Christian can just as easily state that the Koran is wrong because it contradicts the Bible. But the Muslims would not accept that. Therefore, why should we accept their argument? No. 2 Attempt to set Paul against Jesus

Muslims often make the claim that Paul never met Jesus and was not a disciple or apostle of Jesus. Of course, this is not true. Paul encountered Jesus on the rode to Damascus in Acts 9, after Jesus' resurrection. Jesus spoke to him and commissioned him. So, Paul met Jesus. Also, Peter, who was a disciple of Jesus, authenticated Paul's writings by calling them scripture in 2 Pet. 3:15-16. If they are inspired, then they cannot contradict Jesus' words. In addition, many Muslims claim that Jesus never claimed to be God and that Paul is the one who wrote that Jesus was God. First of all, if they admit that Paul wrote that Jesus was God, then remind them of 2 Pet. 3:15-16 where Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture. Nevertheless, they sometimes assert that Paul hijacked Christianity and took it over and made Jesus into something He was not. This claim is false. Perhaps the primary area where Muslims think Paul and Jesus contradict is in the area of who Jesus is. Paul states that Jesus is God in flesh: Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form." Muslims assert that no where in the Gospels did Jesus claim to be God. Therefore, they claim, Paul's words are not true and the Bible is not trustworthy. This attack by Muslims is an attack based out of opinion. Jesus did claim to be God In John 8:5659, it says, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." 57The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."184 Why did the Pharisees want to kill Jesus? They explain their reason in John 10:33 when they say, "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God," (KJV). Whether or not the Muslim will accept this, let alone agree that this is correct, matters little because his presupposition will not allow him to accept, now matter what. Nevertheless, the text clearly states that the Pharisees understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. Also, consider John 5:18 where the Apostle John says, "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God," (KJV). In this verse Jesus healed on the Sabbath and the Pharisees thought He was breaking the Sabbath law. John the Apostle also states that when Jesus claimed that God was His Father, that it was "making himself equal with God." The Muslim will always find a way to argue out of these texts. But, two facts remain. First, Jesus claimed to be God. Second, the Pharisees denied that Jesus was God and the Muslims agree with them. There are other areas that the Muslims will say are where Jesus and Paul do not agree, but when they bring it up, always ask for an example. Each time I've done this, I've discovered that the Muslim did not have a sufficient understanding of what the text is saying. Remember, always read the context. No. 3 Misrepresentation of Christian doctrine

Sadly, this is a very commo n error of the Muslims. The single greatest instance of this is in the doctrine of the Trinity. Muslims so often attack a false understanding of the Trinity by stating that it is three gods. That is not the correct Christian definition of the Trinity doctrine. Christianity does not teach there are three gods. It never has and it never will. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is only one God who exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinitarianism is

184

Note: in Exodus 3:14 God says, "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you," (KJV).

1037

monotheistic . If a Muslim continues to proclaim that the Trinity is three gods, then I simply stop discussing the issue with him because he is not willing to accept what the definition is and it isn't possible to have a meaningful dialogue. Another Christian doctrine they fail to understand is the Hypostatic Union. This is the teaching that Jesus is one person with two natures. He is both God and man as is declared in Col. 2:9, "For in Him [Jesus] dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Because Jesus was also a man, we have verses such as John 14:28 where Jesus says "the Father is greater than I." Muslims will say that if Jesus is God, how could He be greater than Himself? Of course, they fail to understand the Trinity (three persons) and they fail to understand that Jesus, as a man (Phil. 2:5-8), cooperated with the limitations of being a man and was in a lower position than the Father (Heb. 2:9) for a while. Sometimes Muslims refuse to accept Christian explanations for things because it doesn't fit their agenda nor their preconceived ideas of what they think Christianity is. Oddly enough, Christians often contribute to this problem by offering inadequate and sometimes erring explanations of Christian doctrine. Thus, many Muslims are led into error regarding what Christianity really teaches. Christians need to know their doctrine, and Muslims need to understand the proper explanations for those doctrines. No. 4 Misinterpreting various Scripture passages

A very good example of misrepresentation of biblical passages can be found in a dialogue I had with a Muslim regarding John 1:1, 14. These verses say, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." Verse 14 says "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." The Muslim I was speaking to reasoned thus: If the word is God then we can insert the word "god" into the verse each time it says "word." Therefore, we would have it say 'In the beginning was the God and the God was with God and God was God.' As you can see, this makes no sense. Therefore, when you go to verse 14 where it says the word became flesh, it cannot mean that God became flesh, because John 1:1 makes no sense." As you can see, this kind of logic is very bad. First of all, John 1:1 does not say what he said it does. It does not speak in contradictory terms the way he tried to make it sound. Instead, it uses both the word "word" and the word "god" in the sentence. I told him that he needed to go with what the text does say and not with what it does not say. In other words, he reconstructed it in such a way as to purposely not make sense and then he attacked that. Another verse, or verses, that they misinterpret is when Jesus says that He is the Son of God. To the Muslim, this means that God literally had a wife and produced a literal son. Of course, this is not what is meant by the biblical account. Sonship is in relation to the Fatherhood of God in a spiritual and metaphoric sense. After all, Jesus says that God is spirit (John 4;24). Of course, God would not have a body of flesh and bones with which to procreate children. What the Muslims are guilty of doing is imposing Islamic understandings upon biblical texts and then complaining about the biblical texts in light of how they interpret them. This is not how one should go about "refuting the opposition." Rather, the Muslim should seek to understand the biblical/cultural context and deal with the issue from that perspective not a fabricated one as this example shows. No. 5 Failing to differentiate between Protestant and Catholic doctrines

Sadly, Christianity is not in complete unity in all things which is why we have denominations. I am dismayed at the fragmentation within Christianity and think it is a poor witness to the world. But, the fact is that differences of opinions among Christians do occur. In fact, we are allowed to have differences of opinion according to God's word found in Rom. 14: 1-13. True Christians are all united in the essentials of the faith and are often divided on the non-essentials. This does not mean we are not all Christians, but that we have differences of opinions on some things. However, in the 1500s, there was a major split in the Catholic Church. It was called the Reformation. As a Protestant, I believe the Reformation was necessary because the Catholic Church had adopted some dangerous and erroneous doctrines that extend far beyond mere differences of opinion; namely, prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc. Muslims often fail to differentiate between Catholicism and Protestantism in their arguments. I've

1038

heard and read where Muslims attack, for example, the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist where the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are claimed by the Catholics to actually become the body and blood of Christ during the communion service. Of course, we Protestants strongly disagree with this. But this disagreement is rarely, if ever, brought up when attacking Christian doctrine. So, when Muslims say "Christians believe ...", be careful that they do not make too broad a generalization as they continue their attack. No. 6 Claim their logic is correct and Christian logic is incorrect

Many Muslims have told me that what I am saying about God, Salvation, the Bible, etc., isn't logical. Now, perhaps some things I say are not logical. But, I've not heard any convincing arguments yet demonstrating what is and is not logical regarding Christian doctrine. Usually, the Muslim will simply say that Jesus having two natures is not logical or that the Trinity being three persons doesn't make sense. But saying so doesn't make it so. There is nothing illogical about a part of God being able to become a person and add human nature to Himself. It may not be the easiest thing in the world to understand, but it is not illogical. Neither does saying that the Trinity is three persons is illogical make it so. Surely anyone would agree that when we encounter God and His self revelation there will be things that are difficult to understand. The Trinity certainly falls under that category. But, the Trinity doctrine is not against logic. It would be illogical to say that one God is three gods, or that one person is three persons. But that is not what Christianity teaches. I've found that when dialoguing with Muslims and when reading their material against Christianity, that their claim to know real logic is really an extension of their Muslim thought and not a mastery of logic at all. No. 7 Switching topics when challenged

Sometimes when discussing subjects that Muslims find difficult to answer, they will quickly change the subject. Very often this change involves attacking the Bible. Other times they will testify that they know Islam is true or they will simply say that you do not known what you are talking about. But when they change the subject you must be patient. Lovingly bring them back to the subject at hand. I have had to do this many times when discussing Islam with Muslims. This is a small but very important point. Too many Christians fall into the trap of allowing themselves to be diverted from the subject at hand. Do not let a Muslim simply ignore a question and start a new subject when it gets tough. Likewise, Christians should not simply change the subject when it gets difficult for them either. Instead, if you do not know the answer to a question, simply admit it. Go to some research and then get back with them. Always remember to be gracious. You will not win the Muslim to the Lord with cruelty and rudeness. And remember that we are in the spiritual battle. Love and truth in the name of Jesus is more powerful than any perfect answer. When dialoguing with Muslims, please remember to be respectful and patient. But, check everything they say and listen to them. They do not have the market cornered on truth, even though they think they do.

1039

Comparison grid between Christianity and Islamic doctrine

Term Christianity Christians will be with the Lord in heaven (Phil. 1:21-24), in our resurrected bodies (1 Cor. 15:50-58). Non-Christians will be cast into hell forever (Matt. 25:46). Created beings, non-human, some of which, fell into sin and became evil. They are very powerful. The unfallen angels carry out the will of God. Islam There is an afterlife (75:12) experienced as either an ideal life of Paradise (29:64), for faithful Muslims or Hell for those who are not. Created beings without free will that serve God. Angels were created from light.

Afterlife

Angels

The sacrifice of Christ on the cross (1 There is no atonement work in Islam other Pet. 2:24) whereby His blood becomes than a sincere confession of sin and the sacrifice that turns away the wrath repentance by the sinner. Atonement of God (1 John 2:2) from the sinner when the sinner receives (John 1:12), by faith (Rom. 5:1), the work of Christ on the cross. Bible The inspired and inerrant word of God in the original manuscripts (2 Tim. 3:16). Respected word of the prophets but the Bible has been corrupted through the centuries and is only correct in so far as it agrees with the Koran.

The place where Jesus atoned for the Jesus did not die on the cross. Instead, sins of the world. It is only through God allowed Judas to look like Jesus and he Crucifixion this sacrifice that anyone can be saved was crucified instead. from the wrath of God (1 Pet. 2:24). Devil A fallen Angel who opposes God in all ways. He also seeks to destroy humanity (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:13-15). God is a trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not three gods in one god, nor is it one person who took three forms. Trinitarianism is strictly monotheistic . There is no other God in existence. The place where God dwells. Heaven is the eventual home of the Christians who are saved by God's grace. It is heaven because it is where God is and Christians will enjoy eternal Fellowship with Him. A place of torment in fire out of the presence of God. There is no escape from Hell (Matt. 25:46). Iblis, a fallen jinn. Jinn are not angels nor men, but created beings with free wills. Jinn were created from fire, (2:268; 114:16). God is known as Allah. Allah is one person, a strict unity. There is no other God in existence. He is the creator of the universe (3:191), sovereign over all (6:61-62).

God

Heaven (Paradise)

Paradise to Muslims, a place of unimaginable bliss (32:17), a garden with trees and food (13:35;15:45-48) where the desires of faithful Muslims are met, (3:133; 9:38; 13:35; 39:34; 43:71; 53:13-15). Hell is a place of eternal punishment and torment (14:17; 25:65; 39:26), in fire (104:6-7) for those who are not Muslims (3:131) as well as those who were and whose works and faith were not sufficient (14:17; 25:65; 104:6-7).

Hell

1040

Holy Spirit

Third person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is fully God in nature.

The arch-angel Gabriel who delivered the words of the Koran to Muhammad.

Jesus

Second person of the Trinity. He is the A very great prophet, second only to word who became flesh (John 1:1, Muhammad. Jesus is not the son of God 14). He is both God and man (Col. (9:30) and certainly is not divine (5:17, 2:9). 75)) and he was not crucified (4:157). Occurs on the day of resurrection (John 12;48) where God will judge all people. Christians go to heaven. All others to hell (Matt. 25:46). Occurs on the day of resurrection where God will judge all people. Muslims go to paradise (3:142, 183-185, 198). All others to hell (3:196-197). Judgment is based on a person's deeds (5:9; 42:26; 8:29).

Judgment Day

Koran, The

The work of Muhammad. It is not The final revelation of God to all of inspired, nor is it scripture. There is no mankind given through the archangel verification for its accurate Gabriel to Muhammad over a 23 year transmission from the originals. period. It is without error and guarded from error by Allah. Made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). This does not mean that God has a body, but that man is made like God in abilities (reason, faith, love, etc.). Not made in the image of God (42:11). Man is made out of the dust of the earth (23:12) and Allah breathed life into man (32:9; 15:29).

Man

A non-inspired man born in 570 in The last and greatest of all prophets of Muhammad Mecca who started the Islamic religion. Allah whose Qur'an is the greatest of all inspired books. This is a term used to describe the There is no original sin. All people are effect of Adam's sin on his descendants sinless until they rebel against God. They (Rom. 5:12-23). Specifically, it is our do not have sinful natures. inheritance of a sinful nature from Original Sin Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Bodily resurrection of all people, nonBodily resurrection, some to heaven, some Christians to damnation and Christians to hell (3:77; 15:25;75:36-40; 22:6). Resurrection are resurrected to eternal life (1 Cor. 15:50-58). A free gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9) to the person who trusts in Christ and His sacrifice on the cross. He is our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). No works are sufficient in any way to merit salvation since our works are all unacceptable to God (Isaiah 64:6). Forgiveness of sins is obtained by Allah's grace without a mediator. The Muslim must believe Allah exists, believe in the fundamental doctrines of Islam, believe that Muhammad is his prophet, and follow the commands of Allah given in the Koran.

Salvation

Son of God

A term used to designate that Jesus is A literal son of God. Therefore, Jesus divine though he is not the literal son cannot be the son of Allah. of God in a physical sense (John 5:18). "In the beginning was the word and Allah's command of existence which the word was with God and the word resulted in Jesus being formed in the womb was God...and the word became flesh of Mary. and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1, 14).

Word, The

1041

Does Islam teach salvation by works?

Generally speaking, there are only two methods of salvation in all the religions of the world: grace and works. Christianity is a religion of salvation by grace alone: "For by grace through faith you have been saved, not of works..." (Eph. 2:8-9). All other systems rely totally or in part on the works of the believer to merit salvation. Mormons, for example, say that you are saved by grace through faith after all you can do. In Roman Catholicism, God's grace is infused into a believer that enables him to do good works by which he is judged for salvation. In Islam, forgiveness is based on a combination of Allah's grace and the Muslim's works. On the Day of Judgment, if a Muslim's good works outweigh his bad ones, and if Allah so wills it, he may be forgiven of all his sins and then enter into Paradise. Therefore, Islam is a religion of salvation by works because it combines man's works with Allah's grace. Consider the following verses from the Qur'an. (All quotes from the Qur'an are from this version unless otherwise specified.) 1. "To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward" (Surah 5:9). 2. "And He answers those who believe and do good deeds, and gives them more out of His grace; and (as for) the unbelievers, they shall have a severe punishment," (42:26, online, trans. by M.H. Shakir). 3. "O you who believe! If you are careful of (your duty to) Allah, He will grant you a distinction and do away with your evils and forgive you; and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace," (8:29, online, trans. by M.H. Shakir). Of course, the Muslims will tell us the Qur'an teaches that Allah is gracious to them and that they do not earn their forgiveness. I acknowledge this. The Qur'an says, ". . . Allah is the Lord of grace unbounded," (8:29), and also, ". . . But Allah will choose for his special mercy whom he will - for Allah is lord of grace abounding," (2:105). But, as you can see from the quotes 1, 2, and 3 above, Allah's forgiveness is tied to the Muslim's works. Therefore, I ask the question, how is it really grace if it is by also by works? Isn't grace the unmerited favor from God? It would seem the Islamic system of salvation is more a reward than grace. For further confirmation that Allah's grace is dependent upon the deeds of faithful Muslims, here are more quotes from the Qur'an: 4. "O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and speak the right word, He will put your deeds into a right state for you, and forgive you your faults; and whoever obeys Allah and His Apostle, he indeed achieves a mighty success," (33:70-71, online, trans. by M.H. Shakir). 5. ". . . But if ye obey Allah and his messenger, he will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Mmerciful," (49:14). "If you obey GOD and His messenger, He will not put any of your works to waste. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (49:14). Notice how the Qur'an teaches forgiveness based upon Allah's grace and man's works. Can any Muslim be assured of his salvation before his God? No. 1 8 5 Numerous Muslims have told me that they do not know if they will make it to heaven because they do not know if their good deeds outweigh their bad ones. Unlike Christianity where we have assurance of salvation (1 John 5:13), there is no assurance in Islam because it rests in part on the obedience and good works of Muslims. Unlike Christianity where salvation is an unearned, free gift from God (Rom. 4:3; Eph. 2:89), the Muslim can at best only hope he has performed enough good works to outweigh his bad ones and that Allah so wills to forgive him.

185

There are many Muslims who believe that if a Muslim dies in battle defending Allah, that he is guaranteed to go to heaven.

1042

Another requirement for forgiveness for the Muslim is sincerity when repenting of sins. 6. "O ye who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! It may be that your Lord will remit from you your evil deeds and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their light will run before them and on their right hands; they will say: Our Lord! Perfect our light for us, and forgive us! Lo! Thou art Able to do all things," (66:8-9). 7. "God accepts the repentance of those who have sinned in ignorance and who realizing the ugliness of their deed swiftly turn toward Him in repentance" (3:16). I am not saying that we should not be sincere when repenting of our sins. But, the problem with sincerity is that it can easily become a form of pride. After all, if a person says he is truly sincere enough to be forgiven of his sins, then isn't he appealing to something within himself, a finite sinner, as part of the basis of receiving forgiveness from a holy and infinite God? Is that not presumptive and prideful to do? Furthermore, the issue of sincerity is a subjective thing. How do you know you are being sincere enough? Is it because the Muslims simply believes he is? It seems to me that at best, the Muslim can only hope he is sincere enough. But how can he really know for sure. Instead, the Bible says that the heart is desperately wicked and deceitful and cannot be trusted (Jer. 17:9). In Christianity, we appeal to the work of Christ on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) completely and totally and in nothing in ourselves as a basis for forgiveness, because no good thing dwells within us (Rom. 7:18); that is, apart from Christ. We sincerely believe in Christ, but we never claim that forgiveness is in anyway merited or gained because of our sincerity or our works. Rather, our forgiveness is based on faith and trust in God in what He has done for us in Christ. Salvation in Christianity is God centered. In Islam, forgiveness of sins is man-centered in that it is dependent upon man's sincerity and man's works in combination with Allah's forgiveness. Both Christianity and Islam teach that we must have faith in God. But in Christianity, this faith in God is enough to save us (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:89). In Islam, faith in God it is not. In Islam, the Muslim's works will be weighed on the Day of Judgment and it will then be decided who is saved and who is not -- based upon whether the person was a Muslim, whether or not they were sincere in repentance, and whether or not they performed enough good works to out weigh the bad ones. Please consider the following verses from the Qur'an about how a Muslim's deeds are weighed in the balance on Judgment Day to see if he might be saved or not. 8. "Then those whose balance (of good deeds ) is heavy, they will be successful. But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls; in hell will they abide," (23:102-103). 9. "And We set a just balance for the Day of Resurrection so that no soul is wronged in aught. Though it be of the weight of a grain of mustard seed, We bring it. And We suffice for reckoners," (21:47). 10. "They are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of Judgment, give them any weight," online Qur'an, 18:105 Is the Islamic system of salvation really enough to save Muslims? They will say that it is. But, as a Christian, I cannot see how anyone in Islam can have security and honest expectation of obtaining Paradise. How can anyone who must be completely sincere in repentance and be required to perform more good works than bad, ever hope to make it to heaven? The problem with being saved by God's grace and human works is that human works are never sufficient to please God. God is infinite and holy. How can we finite sinners ever hope to please God by our deeds?

1043

Muslims need the gospel Instead of relying in any way on our own works, the gospel of Jesus teaches us we do not have to do that. The gospel of Jesus is that He died for our sins and rose again from the dead (1 Cor. 15:14). He fulfilled all the Law so we don't have to (Rom. 8:3-4). He took our place and received the punishment due our sins (2 Cor. 5:21). Because we are sinners and because we cannot please an infinitely Holy God on our own, because we can never fulfill the Law of God perfectly, and because God's eyes are too pure to look upon evil (Hab. 1:13), salvation must be by total grace (Eph. 2:8). Salvation must be the work of God, not of man (Gal. 2:21). 1 John 5:13 says, "These things were written so you may know you have eternal life..." Can the Muslim say he knows he has eternal life? He cannot. I know I do as a Christian precisely because it is not of my works. So, why would a Muslim want me to give up my assurance and free gift of salvation found in Jesus for the Islamic system of works that, at best, only provides the possibility of salvation if I have been sincere enough and if I have done enough good works?

1044

Questions for Muslims

Dear Muslim, I do not post these questions as a "proof" that Islam is false. I do not believe that is possible with a simple list of questions. Nevertheless, they are here to encourage discussion that the truth may be known. 1. The Qur'an says "To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward" (Surah 5:9). A. Question: Are you doing enough good deeds to receive salvation on the Day of Judgment? B. Question: Are you doing all you can or are you relaxing in your dedication to Allah? The Qur'an says, "O ye who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! It may be that your Lord will remit from you your evil deeds and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their light will run before them and on their right hands; they will say: Our Lord! Perfect our light for us, and forgive us! Lo! Thou art Able to do all things," (66:8-9). Notice how it says if you are sincere you may receive forgiveness. A. Question: How do you know you are sincere enough to be forgiven of Allah? B. Question: Does it give you peace to know that even if you are very sincere that at best, you may receive forgiveness? C. Question: If you say that you know you are sincere enough in your repentance before Allah, how do you know you are not deceiving yourself? D. Question: Is your heart really good enough to muster enough sincerity before a Holy and Righteous God? E. Question: If you say yes, I honestly and humbly ask you, "Are you being prideful?" F. Question: If you say you are not being prideful, then are you boasting in your sincerity? In Christianity, Jesus is God in flesh who paid for our sins on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). Because of that, we Christians are secure in Him and do not have to worry about doing enough good works to please God since we are saved by grace through faith in Him, (Eph. 2:8-9). A. Question: Why should we Christians give up our guarantee of salvation in Jesus for the requirements of your Qur'anic law when you yourselves don't even know if you have done enough good deeds to be saved on the Day of Judgment? The Bible says that God is love (1 John 4:16) and that He loves all people (Matt. 5:43-48; John 3:16). The Qur'an never says that "God is love." In fact, the Qur'an says that Allah does not love unbelievers (2:98; 3:32). A. Question: If Allah does not love unbelievers, can you say that Allah is love, especially if the Qur'an does not say it? B. Question: If you say yes, that Allah is love, then why does he only love the Muslims and not all people? C. Question: If you say Allah is love, is he more loving that the God of the Bible who loves all people? In the Bible, Jesus said in John 15:13, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." In Christianity, the greatest act of love is performed by God Himself -since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9). Jesus is the one who fulfilled His own words on this. He laid His life down for us. A. Question: What is the greatest act of love performed by Allah? B. Question: If what Jesus said is true, then hasn't someone besides Allah has performed the greatest act of love? C. Question: Why do you, as a Muslim, want me to give up such a great love performed by God Himself (from a Christian perspective) for your belief in Allah who only loves people if they are Muslims?

2.

3.

4.

5.

1045

6.

Islam teaches that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel. In the Bible, the Holy Spirit lives in the Christians. A. Question: If the angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit, how can he dwell in us? (Note: According to the Nestle Aland Greek New Testame nt Textual Apparatus, there are no textual variations any of the following biblical references. They are recorded and transmitted to us accurately.) i. "Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you," (2 Tim. 1:14, NASB). ii. "Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" (1 Cor. 3:16, NASB).

1046

More questions for Muslims

Dear Muslim, I do not post these questions as a "proof" that Islam is false. I do not believe that is possible with a simple list of questions. Nevertheless, they are here to encourage discussion that the truth may be known. 1. The Qur'an states that you shall marry only up to four women: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or threee, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or that which your right hands possess..." (4:3). A. If the Qur'an is eternal, having been written on the table in heaven, then the four wife limit was an eternal decree. B. Question: Why did Muhammad have 12 wives if the Qur'an says to have only four? Khadija, sawda, Aesah (8 years old), Omm Salama, Hafsa, Zaynab (originally the wife of Muhammad's adopted son), Jowayriya, Omm Habiba, Safiya, Maymuna, Fatima, Hend, Asma (of Saba), Zaynab, Habla, Asma? The Qur'an says that Allah created the heavens and earth in six days. "Your Guardian Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days..." (7:54) See also, 10:3. A. 41:9 - "Say: Is it that ye deny him who created the earth in two days..." i. Question: Which should we believe, the Bible or the Qur'an? The Bible says God created the earth in one day (Gen. 1,2). B. 41:10 - "He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measured therein its sustenance in four days..." i. Question: Does 41:10 included the 2 days of 41:9 above? If so, why does 41:9 say God created the earth in two days, but 41:10 says that God measured its sustenance in four days? They are different occurrences. C. 41:11 - "Then he turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: he said to it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly..." D. 41:12 - "So he completed them as seven firmaments in two days, and he assigned to heaven its duty and command..." E. Question: the two days of 41:9 plus the four days of 41:10 and the 2 days of 41:12 equals eight days of creation, not six. Why is that? It is a commonly held belief among Muslims that Muhammad was sinless. A. If Muhammad was sinless, then why does the Qur'an state: "Patiently, then, persevere: for the promise of Allah is true: and ask forgiveness for thy fault, and celebrate the praises of they Lord in the evening and the morning." (40:55). i. Pickthall translates 40:55 thus: "Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin, and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours." B. The Hadith says, "I heard Allah's Apostle saying." By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day." Volume 8, Book 75, Number 319, Narrated Abu Huraira: C. Question: If it is the common belief that Muhammad was sinless, was do the Qur'an and Hadith contradict that notion? Which is correct? The Qur'an says to have no divisions within Islam. "The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah - the [sic] which we have sent by inspiration to thee - and that which we enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than Allah, hard is the (way) to which thou callest them..." (42:13). A. Question: If Islam is the truth, which of the divisions within it is the "most" true? B. Question: Is Islam in a state of sin since there are divisions within its ranks? The Qur'an says, "And dispute ye not with the People of the Book [Jews and Christians and the Bible], except in the best way, unless it be with those of them who do wrong but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you," (29:46). A. Question: Isn't the Qur'an here saying that the Muslim is to believe what the Bible says?

2.

3.

4.

5.

1047

Differences between the Bible and the Qur'an

Bible Monotheistic, Trinitarian, (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6-8; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14) Jesus is God in flesh (Col. 2:9) Jesus was crucified (1 Pet. 2:24). Jesus rose from the dead (John 2:19-20). Jesus was the Son of God (Mark 1:1). Holy Spirit, 3rd person in the Godhead. He will bear witness of Jesus (John 14:26; 15:26). Salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:89). The Devil is a fallen angel (Isaiah 14:12-15). Man is fallen, a sinner (Rom. 3:23). Disciples were Christians (Acts 11:26). Worship on Sabbath (Exodus 20) then later on Sunday (Rom. 14:5-6; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2). Miracles, numerous are recorded. Makes numerous prophecies

Qur'an Monotheistic (5:73; 112:1-4), denies the Trinity (5:73). Jesus is not God, (5:17, 75) Jesus was not Crucified, (4:157). Jesus did not rise from the dead. Jesus was not the Son of God ( 9:30) The Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel (2:97; 16:102). Salvation by sincerity and works (3:135; 7:8-9; 21:47; 49:14; 66:8-9). The Devil, Satan, is not a fallen angel, but a fallen Jinn (2:34; 7:12; 15:27; 55:15). Man is basically good. Disciples declare themselves Muslims, (5:111). Worship on Friday (62:9). No Miracles recorded. Makes no prophecies.

1048

The Qu'ran says the Bible is not corrupt

The Muslims repeatedly claim that the Bible has been corrupted and that the Qu'ran is the only trustworthy scripture in existence. This is why Muslims often attack the Bible. But this cannot be according to the Quran. The Quran 1 8 6 says that the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the gospel were all given by God. TORAH - "We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers," (Sura 2:87). PSALMS - "We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (4:163). GOSPEL - "It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3). Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).

We see that the Qu'ran states that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel were all given by God. With this we Christians heartily agree. But, the Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted and full of contradictions. If that is so, then it would seem they do not believe the Qu'ran since the Qu'ran says that the Word of God cannot be altered: "Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34). "The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all," (6:115). "For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity," (10:64).

When Muhammad (570 - 632) was alive, he claimed to receive the revelation of the Qu'ran from Allah. This means that at that time, the Bible which was in existence could not have been corrupted because the Qu'ran states that God's word cannot be corrupted. The question I have for the Muslims is "When and where was the Bible corrupted, since the Qu'ran says that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel are from Allah and Allah's words cannot be changed?"

186

The Quranic quotes used in this paper can be found online at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/.

1049

Who has performed the greatest act of love? Yahweh or Allah

In Islam, what is the greatest act of love Allah has ever accomplished? I asked this question of several Muslims and I got similar answers: he forgave us of our sins; he gave us families and provisions; he showed us mercy; he gave us the Qur'an. The answers didn't vary much beyond these responses. I found them lacking. Most Muslims believe that the Bible is not trustworthy, that it has been corrupted, that the Injeel (gospel) of Jesus has been lost, and the Qur'an restores God's truth to mankind. But, that is another subject to be debated. In John 15:13 Jesus said, Greater love has no man than this, that he lay his life down for his friend. I have the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament with the textual apparatus is included in it. The textual apparatus is the complete listing (per verse) of any textual variants that occur in any of the ancient New Testament manuscripts. Therefore, it is a very easy thing to go to John 15:13 and look at the textual evidence to see if there are any manuscripts at all, anywhere that have any variation on that verse. There are none. In other words, there is not a single manuscript of the more than 25,000 manuscripts of the NT that have any derivation on that verse. Every single one of them says the exact same thing. I will, therefore, conclude that it is an authentic and reliable saying of Jesus. Again, Jesus said, Greater love has no man than this, that he lay his life down for his friend. According to Jesus, the greatest act of love is to sacrifice ones life for another. This means that giving ones life for another is a greater act of love than providing food for him, giving him a family, being nice to him, or honest, or helpful, or whatever. Self-sacrifice, to the point of death, is the very greatest act of love. Has Allah performed the greatest act of love? The answer is no. Allah has not sacrificed himself at all. Allah has not died for another. Allah has not loved us to the point of death. In Christianity, Jesus, who is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), laid His life down for us. Jesus performed the greatest act of love. If Islam is true... If Islam is true and Allah is the true God, then Jesus, a creation (according to Islam) has performed a greater act of love than Allah (according to the Bible). A mere man has outdone Allah in love and sacrifice. But, of course, Islam denies that Jesus ever died. They then say that Jesus has not done the greatest act of love. Their denial does not change the fact that Jesus died on the cross as is amply attested to by the eyewitnesses who wrote the gospel. Besides, whether or not the Muslim believes Jesus died on the cross does not change the fact that Jesus told us what the greatest act of love was -and Allah has not done it. Yet, according to Christianity He has. Since Muslims want Christians to adopt Islam, they are asking us Christian to give up our Lord who has performed the greatest act of love on our behalf. Why would we want to do that? If Christianity is true, then God has performed the greatest act of love. If Islam is true, then God hasn't. Which "god," then is more loving, the one who speaks of love, or the one who acts out love? I have found no where in the Qur'an where it says that Allah is love. The Qur'an says that Allah loves people, but it never says that Allah is love. By contrast, the Bible clearly tells us that God is love. "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him," (1 John 4:16).

1050

Who does God love? Does God love all? In Islam, the answer is no. In Christianity, the answer is yes. Consider the following verses from the Qur'an. "Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith," (2:98, Trans. Yusuf Ali) "Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers," 3:32, Trans. Shakir).

Consider the following verses from the Bible "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life," (John 3:16). "You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you 45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? 47 "And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:43-48).

We can easily see the huge difference between the God of Islam and the God of the Bible. In Islam, God does not love all people. In the Bible, God does love all people. In Islam, Allah did not die for the sins of those who were not his. In the Bible, God did do that. In Islam, Allah has not performed the greatest act of love. In the Bible, God did exactly that. My question to the Muslims is, "What makes you think that I want to give up my Lord who loves me so much that He would die for me, and did, for a god who has not and cannot perform the greatest act of love?

1051

Jihad : holy struggle or holy war?

Among most Westerners, the term "Jihad" ("struggle" in Arabic) often brings up images of Muslim terrorists killing people who disagree with them. Jihad is an emotionally charged word that is heralded by the Western news media in descriptions of Middle East activities. People need not wait long to hear the term used during nightly news and see the affects of present day Islamic struggles in vivid pictures of destruction beamed to our televisions. But is this a fair assessment of the Muslim community as a whole? Jihad has been interpreted by Muslims in different ways. The Muslim sect of the Kharijites has elevated Jihad to one of the Five Pillars of Islam -- making it Six Pillars. This kind of belief is seen in the extremist Muslim groups we call terrorists. They use the concept of Jihad as a justification for killing anyone who isn't a Muslim. However, most Muslims disagree with this extremist position of some Muslims and advocate peace. These Muslims view Jihad as a spiritual struggle against evil in a metaphorical sense. 1 8 7 For the most part, there is the Greater and Lesser Jihad. The Greater Jihad is the internal spiritual struggle of the Muslim toward submission to Allah. The Lesser Jihad is Holy War against non-Muslims based on principle of belief. It is this latter that has caused the most concern among Westerners. Is that concern warranted? Many think so. Islamic scholar Jamal Badawi, chairman of the Islamic Information Foundation in Halifax, insists that a jihad is `permitted only in self-defense or against tyranny and oppression--not as a tool to promote Islam.'' But, experts added, the ancient Islamic empires were built as much by force as by persuasion. Islam's founder, Mohammed, frequently used force, or the threat of it, to unify the nomadic tribes of the Arabian peninsula. The caliphs, who succeeded Mohammed as leaders of the Arab world, successfully took up arms against the Christian Byzantine Empire in Egypt and the Holy Land. By the end of the ninth century, Arabian armies had extended Islamic power from Spain to the borders of India. 1 8 8 Anyone who has studied Islamic history must surely notice how frequently the Muslims were involved in battle after battle. Within 200 years after its inception, Islam had spread through a huge geographical area and many converts were made by the sword. What does the Qur'an say about Jihad? The Qur'an is the single most important authority in all of Islam. It is the scripture given from Allah through the angel Gabriel. Does the Qur'an teach Jihad? Absolutely yes. As you will see in the following quotes from the Qur'an, Holy War is definitely taught and encouraged. 1. "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure," (Surah 61:4). 2. "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits...191And slay them wherever ye catch them. and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter; But fight them not at the sacred Mosque unless they (first) fight you there; But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. 192 But if they cease, Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 193And fight them on until there is no more persecution. And the religion becomes Allah's. But if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (The Qur'an, Surah 2:190-193). 3. "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in
187

Sukhvinder Stubbs, The New Stateman, LTD, "The hooded hordes of prejudice: to typecast all Muslims as fanatical militants is unfair and offensive," Feb 28, 1997 188 James Deacon and Diane Brady, "The will to fight--and die," Maclean's, 2/11/91, Vol. 104 Issue 6, p 39.

1052

the least. For Allah hath power over all things. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things," (Surah 9:38-39). 4. See also Surah 4:74-76; 61:10-12. What does the Hadith say about Jihad? The Hadith are the recorded sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad. It is second in authority only to the Qur'an and is often used to clarify things not specified in the Qur'an. What did Muhammad say about Jihad as recorded in the Hadith? 5. "The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35, Narrated Abu Huraira 6. "Allah's Apostle said, "A pious slave gets a double reward." Abu Huraira added: By Him in Whose Hands my soul is but for Jihad (i.e. holy battles), Hajj, and m duty to serve my mother, y I would have loved to die as a slave. Volume 3, Book 46, Number 724: Narrated Abu Huraira 7. "Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out." Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555: Narrated Abu Huraira. Obviously Muhammad taught that Holy War was an acceptable and good thing to do. To clarify, he even stated that if a Muslim were to die in battle, fighting for the cause of Allah, that he would be guaranteed to go to Paradise. Why is this important? Why is understanding the Islamic position of Jihad important? Simple. People act according to their beliefs. If a large group of people believes that war against "unbelievers" is a holy thing, that it is a thing sanctioned from God, then those who are not Muslims should be concerned. Of course, at this point, most Muslims might accuse me of being sensationalistic and pointing to only a few extremists and out-of-context verses to make Islam look bad. First, let me say that by far the majority of Muslims I have encountered here in the United States have been polite and peace loving. Second, in other parts of the world, Jihad is taken to extremes not simply by terrorists, but by Islamic led governments. In Egypt, a Muslim country, Christians have been persecuted heavily for their faith and only recently are things beginning to change.1 8 9 "Roman Catholic Bishop John Joseph of Pakistan shot himself to death on May 6 to highlight the case of Ayub Massih, a Christian sentenced to death for supposedly making blasphemous re marks against the Prophet Muhammad and thus against Islam. In a letter sent to a local newspaper just before his death, the bishop stated that he hoped his suicide would galvanize his fellow bishops and others to work for the repeal of sections 295 B and Cot the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which make any blasphemy against Islam a serious crime and blasphemy against Muhammad punishable by death."1 9 0 "Farag Foda, an Egyptian intellectual who expressed scorn for the Islamist program, was shot and murdered. And Naguib Mahfouz, the elderly and much-celebrated Nobel Prize laureate for literature,
189

Saad Michael Saad, The Christian Century, "A Christian appeal to Islam. Treatment of Copts in Egypt," by Feb 23, 2000. 190 Cris E. Toffolo, The Christian Century, "Christians in Pakistan confront charges of blasphemy," July 29, 1998.

1053

was seriously injured in Cairo when an assailant knifed him in the neck, presumably in revenge for an allegorical novel written decades earlier."1 9 1 "Hundreds of thousands of Muslims assembled in Jakarta and declared a holy war against Indonesian Christians shortly after dawn Friday to avenge the deaths of Muslims in religious clashes in the Maluku Islands (the Spice Islands). Assembled in central Jakarta, the Muslims shouted "Jihad (Holy War)! Jihad!" Most of those gathered wore white robes and white bandannas marked with quotes from the Koran about the "Holy War." It is time for us to do a jihad against Christians," said Husen alHabsyi, a former political prisoner, who was jailed for masterminding an explosion in the Borobudur Buddhist Temple in the early 1980s. 1 9 2 This Christmas season, Pastor Rod Parsley is taking a lead in an effort to help free the tens of thousands of Sudanese women and children held in captivity in the Sudan, many of which are Christians. This great effort will help stem the horrific tide of genocide and enslavement of Christians in the African nation. Bridge of Hope, the missions outreach of Breakthrough is located in Columbus, Ohio...The Government of Sudan, a fundamentalist regime that represents only 10% of the population in Sudan, has declared a holy war (jihad) against Christians and animists in their own country. Since 1985, this reign of terror is responsible for the murder of over 2 million Sudanese ... and over 4 million have been displaced. The Government of Sudan will not stop short of total annihilation of all Christians and all others that do not believe in this totalitarian regime...During Government sponsored raids in peaceful villages, men are killed; village elders are hacked with machetes and left for dead; the village is burned and devastated; and women and children are captured as slaves. Slaves are subjected by their masters to systematic physical and psychological torture, including gang rape, beatings, death threats, genital mutilation and forcible conversion to Islam. 1 9 3 Anyone can make any group look bad through selective quotes. Each religious group has elements of its history it wish it could ignore. The Muslims could cite the Crusades or the Inquisition as examples of "Christian behavior." In response, the Crusades, right or wrong, were a retaliation against the Islamic Jihad that was sweeping through Europe. The Inquisition, on the other hand, is a perfect example of what happens when a religious group (the Roman Catholic Church) gets in power and tries to root out heretics and blasphemers. Islam is no different. The Islamic run country of Pakistan (No. 9 above) has anti blasphemy laws where the punishment for speaking blasphemy against Muhammad and the Qur'an is death. Islamic run Sudan has already killed, and still is killing, millions of people, mainly Christians, in its own country in addition to making many of them slaves. (No. 12 above). It is these kinds of facts that cannot be ignored and should not be ignored. Muslim and Christian alike should be very concerned. I do not know if other Muslim countries are condemning the actions of these Islamic nations that so easily violate human rights. I do not know if Muslims outside of those countries are even aware of the problems going on within their theologically diverse ranks of other nations. But, when a Holy Book like the Qur'an advocates Holy War, when the very sayings and deeds of their beloved Prophet Muhammad advocate Jihad, and when we see some Islamic nations killing non Muslims -- because they are not Muslims, how can we not be worried about what they would do if they had control of the world....as is their goal. Here in the States, Muslims enjoy freedom of religion and expression. Such freedoms for Christians are basically non existent in many Islamic nations. Is that right?

191 192

Daniel Pipes, The American Jewish Community, "How Dare You Defame Islam,". Nov, 1999. Asian Political News, Jan 10, 2000 193 (PR Newswire, "Breakthrough Bridge of Hope Missions to Partner With Christian Solidarity International to Free Slaves in Sudan." Issue: Nov 30, 2000.

1054

Is the Trinity possible?

Muslims deny the Trinity doctrine of one God in three persons. They are so strict in their monotheism that no plurality within God can possibly exist. Many of them erringly assert that the Trinity is really a deceptive doctrine of three gods. Of course, it is not, but that does not stop them from claiming it is not rational. Muslims often appeal to logic as a verification for their theological systems. They claim that Islam is true and Christianity false, that the Trinity simply doesn't make sense. In spite of their claims, the doctrine of the Trinity is not illogical at all. In fact, most people believe in trinities without even knowing it. As a painter reveals part of himself, his style, what he is, etc., in his painting, so too, God has revealed part of Himself, His style, and what He is in His creation. Creation reflects, to a large degree, the qualities of God Himself. Let's take a look. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The universe is ordered; therefore, we know that God is a God of order. The universe operates on laws; therefore, God is a God of law. The universe has a beginning; therefore, God is the creator. In mathematics, there is an infinity of numbers. In the universe there is an infinity of distance; Therefore, God the creator of the universe, is infinite. Absolute truths exist in creation, (i.e., something can not be both itself and not itself at the same time); therefore, God is absolute truth. The universe is comprised of three primary aspects: Spac e, Time, and Matter. A. Space is comprised of height, width, and depth - a trinity - but each aspect is by nature space. B. Time is comprised of past, present, and future - a trinity - but each aspect is by nature time. C. Matter is comprised of solid, liquid, and gas - a trinity - but each aspect is by nature matter. Therefore, we can conclude from looking at the universe, and God as its creator, that it is possible for God to have a trinitarian aspect to His nature since we see it in nature. If it is fair to say that God may indeed be trinitarian in some aspect of His nature, A. then God could easily be trinitarian in nature and still be the one and only God. B. God could easily be a plurality and all aspects of this plurality, being of God, would be divine by nature. Since God is self-aware, has a will, can speak, etc., then it follows that the plural aspects of God could share, in some way, those same qualities. A. If this is possible, then why cannot part of God, since God is a plurality, become a man and add human nature to itself?

7. 8.

9.

We can see that there are trinities in nature. So, why can't God be a trinity as well and creation simply be a reflection, in part, of His greatness? It is certainly possible. If the Trinity were illogical, then the possibility would not exist. There is no logical reason why the trinity can not be a reality. It is up to the Muslim to demonstrate a logical contradiction regarding the doctrine of one God in three persons. Simply stating it isn't logical or that it isn't possible proves nothing at all. The Bible has declared that God is indeed a Trinity and that Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9; etc.). Christians have a living redeemer. Christians have God as their savior.

1055

The Trinity makes no sense. It isn't logical .

Muslims often state that the Trinity doctrine lacks both common sense and logic. Additionally, they sometimes accuse the Christians of being polytheists by saying that the Trinity teaches three gods. Other times they state that it is illogical for three gods to be one god and for that reason, the Trinity can't be true. Their objections need to be addressed. But, before we do, we need to understand what the Trinity is and what it is not. The doctrine of the Trinity1 is that there is one God who exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is not the same as the other person; that is, the Father is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit. Each is fully God in nature. Each person is not a god in itself. Instead, the totality of all three persons comprises the one God. There are not three gods, but one. We believe there are no partners with God because we believe there is only one God in all existence. At first, some may look at this teaching and be confused by it. How can God be three persons in one God? This is a good question because it is a bit difficult to grasp. But, that is what we would expect isn't it, when we encounter God? Would we not expect to find some things about God's Infinite nature a bit beyond our comprehension? This is not unreasonable. However, we must not make the mistake of saying something as ridiculous as, "It doesn't make sense. Therefore it is true." Following is a small chart that helps clarify how the doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at through the Bible. TRINITY FATHER Called God Creator Indwells Everywhere All knowing Phil. 1:2 Isaiah 64:8; 44:24 2 Cor. 6:16 1 Kings 8:27 1 John 3:20 SON John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9 John 1:3; Col. 1:15-17 Col. 1:27 Matt. 28:20 John 16:30; 21:17 HOLY SPIRIT Acts 5:3-4 Job 33:4; 26:13 John 14:7 Psalm 139:7-10 1 Cor. 2:10-11

The above chart is representative and not complete but it shows that there is scriptural support for the doctrine. Following is another way of illustrating the Trinity. The Trinities in Nature People already believe in trinities. They just don't know they do. Here is how. Basically, the universe consists of three elements: Time, Space, and Matter. Each of these is comprised of three 'components.' Time Space Matter Past Height Solid Present Width Liquid Future Depth Gas

1056

TIME

SPACE

MATTER

As the Trinitarian doctrine maintains, each of the persons of the Godhead is distinct, yet they are all each, by nature, God. The same idea can be presented in the above examples. With time, for example, the past is not the same as the present, which is not the same as the future. Each is simultaneous (according to some time theorists). Yet, they are not three 'times,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: time. With space, height is distinct from width, which is not the same as depth, which is is not the same as height. Yet, they are not three 'spaces,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: space. With matter, solid is not the same as liquid, which is not the same as gas, which is not the same as solid. Yet, they are not three 'matters,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: matter. Note that there are three sets of threes. In other words, there is a trinity of trinities. If we were to look at the universe and notice these qualities within it, is it really so difficult to imagine that God can be a Trinity of persons? Furthermore, is it fair to say that this "trinity of trinities" are the fingerprints of God upon His creation? I think so. "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse," (Rom. 1:20). Of course, there are always people who will say that this is ridiculous. Perhaps it is. But if it is it is up to them to demonstrate why it cannot be true. If we see the analogy of the Trinity within the nature, why is it so difficult to believe that God could be the Trinity as well? Demonstrate that it is illogical One of the questions I ask the anti-Trinitarians is "Can you please show me how the Trinity is illogical?". Usually, they respond with something like, "It just doesn't make sense," or "It simply can't be." But making such statements doesn't prove or disprove anything. The question is, "How is it illogical?" I have yet to hear a logical explanation. It isn't against logic for God to be three persons. It may be difficult to understand, and some may not like it, but it isn't illogical. For it to be illogical, there must be some rule of logic that is violated that makes it impossible for God to exist as a Trinity. For example, to say that one god is really three gods is illogical because the quantity of one is not the same quantity as three and since they (one and three) are mutually exclusive as to quantity in this situation, to say one god is three gods is illogical. But that isn't what the Trinity is anyway, so this can't be used to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical. Furthermore, there is no logical reason why God cannot be three persons. Trinitarianism is monotheistic. That means that it is a doctrine that teaches the existence of a single being who is God and that there is only one God in all existence. This is sometimes ignored or not known when people (Muslims) criticize the Trinity by asserting that the Trinity teaches three gods. But, it does not. As is stated above, the Trinity is a monotheistic theological position. When Muslims state that the Trinity isn't logical, it is up to them to demonstrate how. If they are not able to do it, then they should stop making the claim.

1057

Jesus cannot be God's son

To some Muslims, the term Son of God brings up images of a sort of divine being with a goddess wife who together have somehow produced a child. When Christians use the term in reference to Jesus, they immediately assume that the Christians are committing blasphemy by stating that God has participated in some sort of sexual union with another god a goddess wife. They say: "the most gracious has betaken a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it in the skies are about to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, that they attributed a son to the Most Gracious, for it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that he should beget a son. (The Qur'an, 5:88-92). This is naturally a ridiculous scenario and is a false assumption. No where in the Bible does it say that God had relations with anyone to produce a literal son, nor has Christianity taught that God produced a son through any physical act whatsoever. Such a thing is heretical. Nevertheless, the Bible in numerous places calls Jesus the Son of God. But, it does not mean that Jesus is the literal offspring of God. The Muslims need to as ask what does that term mean, in its historic and biblical context. Instead of imposing upon the biblical term a meaning that is foreign to it, the Muslim should learn what the Bible means by the term and think of it in the context as revealed in the Scriptures where it is used. To not do that would be the same as me taking a term out of the Qur'an, remove it from its Qur'anic context, and applying another meaning to it and then saying what the Qur'an teaches is false. The term Son of God is used in different senses in the Bible. But, never does it mean that God has a wife and produces offspring. Old Testament usage of the term Son of God The term son of God is used in two main ways in the Old Testament. Neither way denotes any physical relation to God. Rather, the references deal with those who under divine obedience to the call of God. It is used of Israel as a nation through the Exodus. Hosea 11:1 says, When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.1 It is also used in reference to angels. Job 1:6 says, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. Also, in Job 38:7 it says, "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" These are in reference to angels who are created beings and in now way implies literal dependency from God. New Testament usage of the term Son of God The Term "Son of God" occurs 47 times in the King James New Testament. In reference to Jesus, it is a title as the heavenly, eternal Son who is equal to God the Father (John 5:18-24). It is Jesus who fully reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27). He is the exact representation of the Father (Heb. 1:1-3), He possesses all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18), and Jesus had glory with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5). The Muslim is taught from the Qur'an and therefore cannot accept the fact that Jesus is divine. To the Muslim, that is shirk, blasphemy of the worst kind. But believing it doesn't make it so. To the Christian, and according to the Bible, Jesus is the one who alone saves us from our sins. We cannot earn our way to heaven, perform enough good works to please God, or ever be "sincere enough" in repentance to somehow obtain forgiveness from God. Instead, Christianity is a faith of God's great love and sacrifice for His creation. Jesus, the Son of God, is the divine one who fulfilled prophecies, walked on water, healed the sick, and rose from the dead. Only the Son of God can do these things.

1058

If Jesus is God, then who did He pray to?

This is a very common question among critiques of Jesus' deity, Muslims included. The answer is found in understanding the Trinity and the incarnation of Jesus. The Trinity is the doctrine that there is only one God in all existence. This one God exists as three persons: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are not three gods, but one God. Each is a separate person, yet each of them is, in essence, divine in nature. A close analogy of the Trinity can be found by looking at the concept of time. Time is past, present, and future. There are three "aspects" or "parts" of time. This does not mean that there are three "times," but only one. Each is separate, in a sense, yet each shares the same nature, or essence. In a similar way, the Trinity is three separate persons who share the same nature. The Incarnation The doctrine of the incarnation in Christian teaching is that Jesus, who is the second person of the Trinity, added to himself human nature and became a man. The Bible says that Jesus is God in flesh, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.....and the word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:1, 14); and, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col. 2:9). Jesus, therefore, has two natures. He is both God and man. Jesus is completely human, but He also has a divine nature. GOD He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9) He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:2) He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8) He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1) He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15) He knew all things (John 21:17) He gives eternal life (John 20:28) The fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9) MAN He worshiped the Father (John 17) He prayed to the Father (John 17:1) He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5). He was called Son of Man (John 19:35-37) He was tempted (Matt. 4:1) He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52) He died (Rom. 5:8) He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

As a man, Jesus needed to pray. When He was praying he was not praying to Himself, but to God the Father.

1059

God cannot be tempted. Jesus was tempted. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.
In their attempt to deny the deity of Jesus, the Muslims sometimes raise the objection that Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted. Therefore Jesus cannot be God. James 1:13 says, "Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." It also says in Heb. 4:15, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." Answering this objection is a bit more difficult than answering the other objections to Christ's deity because it deals with an the area of scripture that is not explicitly clear: the relation between the divine and human natures of Jesus. We see that Jesus has two natures as is taught in the chart below, but how they related is not clarified. Jesus as one person GOD MAN He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9) He worshiped the Father (John 17) He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:1-2) He prayed to the Father (John 17:1) He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8) He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5). He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1) He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37) He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15) He was tempted (Matt. 4:1) He knew all things (John 21:17) He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52) He gives eternal life (John 20:28) He died (Rom. 5:8) The fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9) He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

We see from scripture that Jesus' human nature never existed apart from the union of his divine nature. We also see in scripture that God cannot sin and that in Christ dwelt the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9). Therefore, since we acknowledge that Jesus was divine, we could easily conclude that it was not possible for Jesus to have sinned. On the other hand, Jesus was truly man. Therefore, it is fair to say that Jesus could have been truly tempted. But, the question persists: if it was not possible for Jesus to have sinned then how could He be truly tempted? I do not know if I have a sufficient answer to this. But I will offer one anyway. In all that Jesus did, he did by looking to the Father. Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner," (John 5:19). Also, Jesus said, "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 5:30). In Matt. 12:2232, Jesus was casting out demons. The Pharisees accused Jesus of doing this by the power of the devil. Jesus replied to them that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven. Why did he say this? I believe that it is because Jesus did none of his miracles out of his own divine nature but did them as a man working through and by the Holy Spirit who indwelt Him. Therefore, Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the Holy Spirit. We see that Jesus' miracles began after his baptism and that is when the Holy Spirit descended upon him. Jesus came as a man in order to fulfill the law of God and to be the sacrifice for sin. He did this as a man. When He resisted the temptations of the devil, He quoted scripture -- as a man. He did not at that time rely on His divine nature when going about His earthly ministry in Israel. As a man, He was tempted and as a man He resistant temptation by relying on God's word. He cast out demons by the Holy Spirit and not by His own divine nature. Therefore, Jesus was tempted in His human nature, not in His divine. He did not rely on His divine "side" to help Him out. Instead, He completely relied on the Father, the Holy Spirit, and God's word to successfully resist the temptations that came to Him.

1060

God is infinite. Matter is finite. God could not become a man.

Muslims deny that Jesus could be God in flesh. They affirm that He was a great prophet, but they clearly deny His divinity. One of the reasons is Muslims are taught that God is infinite and that He could not become a finite man. In other words, the infinite God cannot become finite man. They say it doesn't make sense. One Muslim asked me how God who is dependent on nothing, can then become dependent as a man. He said that by definition God is not dependent upon anyone, therefore to become dependent is impossible. Another said that if God became a man, he could not then become a god again because a man cannot become a god. These questions reveal how Muslims think. They have such a strict idea about God, that they cannot admit the possibility of Him (or part of Him) becoming a man. Any idea of an incarnation becomes ludicrous to them. They claim that it isn't logical. Muslims are also taught that the Bible is corrupted and that only the Qur'an is perfect. So, to quote from the Bible makes little impact on them. Many Muslims have required logical proofs for the theory of the incarnation instead of biblical references. I attempt to oblige them here. The following outline is designed to answer the objections raised by Muslims. In "Premise one," the objections are in bold. The answers to them follow. Premise one: According to Islam, God can do anything. If this is so, then it necessarily follows that if God can do anything, then he can become a man since that possibility falls under the scope of "God can do anything." 1. This would mean that God stopped being God. A. Since God can do anything, according to the premise above, then God could do this without stopping being God. See part "b." in next objection. B. If God, in some way, became a man, it does not necessitate that He stop being divine. He could simple add to Himself human nature. 2. This would mean that the infinite God became finite. A. Not if a "part" of God entered into a human form. The totality of God could still exist, yet a localized "part" could take the form of a man. B. Is not the Qur'an the word of Allah? Is not His word a reflection of His character since it proceeds from Him? Is not the infinite word of Allah made to become knowable, readable in a physical form for us to understand? Since this is so, why cannot the Word of God become flesh -- as the Bible says? Why cannot a representation of God (His word) take a physical form (Qur'an) or even a human form (Jesus) -- since God can do anything? 3. This would mean that the independent became dependent. A. It would not necessitate that the totality of God became dependent, per point "b." above: a part of God could become man. B. God can choose to become in part, as a man. He can make that choice, can he not? 4. This would mean that the eternal became temporal. A. Again, by premise one, God could do it since He can do all things. B. If God, in some way, became a man by adding human nature to Himself, it would not necessitate that God stop being eternal since His divine nature would be, by nature, eternal as it is retained within the human form. 5. If God became man, then he could not become God again. A. If only a "part" of God became man, then God would never have ceased being God and the objection is moot. B. If God can do all things, then a part of Him can become a man and retain His divine nature and never have stopped being God at all. 6. Why would God need to become a man? Showing He has a need means he is dependent. A. It is not a need. It is a choice. God is not compelled to do anything -- except be Himself. If He chose to become a man, it would be by His desire, not by His need. B. If God can do anything, then He can choose to share in the dependency of a human and not deny his own nature of being God.

1061

Premise two: God cannot do anything, because He cannot do anything that conflicts with His nature. Becoming a man conflicts with His nature. 1. To say God's nature does not permit Him, in some way, to become a man requires that the Muslim establish those aspects of God's nature that negate the possibility of an incarnation, otherwise it is only the Muslim's opinion. A. God's nature has to do with essential character and essence of His being like holiness, love, compassion, goodness, patience, etc. i. There is nothing in holiness, love, compassion, goodness, patience, etc., that would mean God could not become a man. B. God's attributes are inherent characteristics like eternality, infinity, invisibility, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, speech, creativity, etc. i. None of the above attributes negate the possibility of a part of God becoming man. a. The essential nature of something is not changed if a part of it adds humanity.

There is no logical reason to declare the impossibility of God being Trinitarian or that He, in some way, could become a man. The Bible has declared that God is indeed a Trinity and that Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9; etc.).

1062

Why is it necessary for God to die for our sins?

Muslims often ask why it is necessary for God to die for man's sins. Why can't we just confess our sins and have God forgive us? Isn't that enough? Following is an attempt to logically demonstrate the necessity of God atoning for our sins. 1. 2. God A. God A. is infinite. There is no limit to Him. He is endless. is holy. Holiness is purity. God is incapable of doing anything wrong. Part of the quality of holiness is the inability to do wrong. God is just. A. He always does what is right. B. God cannot violate His own righteousness declarations, because that would mean God is contradicting Himself. C. This justice is according to His nature since it is He is who tells us what is right and wrong. Therefore, God is infinitely holy and infinitely just A. Neither His holiness nor justice can be denied since they are part of His character and God cannot be denied. We are not infinite and not holy A. We are not infinite because we are creations. B. We are not holy because we have sinned. Sin is doing anything against God's Law. A. It is God who declares what is right and wrong. He has revealed this to us in the scriptures. The Law is a reflection of God's character. A. God speaks out of what is in His mind and heart. If He says do not lie, it is because it is against God's nature to lie. B. God is not speaking without reason or purpose. If He had no reason or purpose, this would mean that God is not trustworthy. C. God is trustworthy; therefore God's Law is the standard of perfection, justice, and holiness. God's Law carries a penalty upon the sinner which is damnation. A. Damnation is the act of God where He passes righteous judgment upon a person because of the person's sin against Him. B. If breaking God's law did not carry a penalty, then there would be no damnation. But since there is damnation, we can conclude that breaking God's law carries a penalty. C. If He did not damn based upon righteousness, then God is doing wrong. Since God cannot do anything wrong, then damnation is righteous. God is affected by what we do. A. Proof of this is found in our prayers. Since God answers our prayers, our prayers have an affect upon God because God is moved to answer. B. If our prayers have no affect upon God, then prayer is useless since it accomplishes nothing. Breaking God's Law, sinning, has a negative effect upon our relationship with God. A. God is not injured in a physical way by our sins since God is spirit, perfect, and complete. B. But, since damnation exists (because of the justice of God), we can conclude that sin has a negative affect upon the relationship between the sinner and God. If this were not so, there would be no damnation. Since God is infinite, our offense against Him has an infinite effect. A. It is the infinite God we have offended, therefore, the sin results in an infinite offense against God. A finite person cannot remove an infinite offense against an infinite God. A. A finite work cannot remove an infinite offense because the effort of a finite person will always fall short of meeting the justice of an infinite God.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12.

1063

13.

14.

15.

16.

17. 18.

19. 20. 21.

God cannot arbitrarily forgive the sinner without satisfying His infinite justice. A. If damnation is righteously given because of justice, so too, forgiveness must be in accordance with justice because both are dealing with sin. B. To simply dismiss sin in order to forgive is to deny justice. C. If forgiveness is not consistent with God's justice, then God is arbitrary, inconsistent, and unjust. D. Therefore, the act of forgiveness also requires an act of justice. Since it is just that the sinner die and be damned, this justice cannot be ignored. A. If it were ignored, then God is not being consistent in His justice. B. If it were ignored, then God has no right to damn anyone. C. No one is damned who is alive. Only the dead are damned. Since man cannot earn forgiveness from God through his finite works, it must be God who makes forgiveness possible. A. This is so, because there is no one left to make things right, other than God. Since it is not just to ignore the penalty for sin, and since man cannot satisfy God, there is none left but God to pay for the just penalty of sin. A. The sin cannot be ignored because the act of forgiveness also requires and act of justice. B. This justice cannot be ignored because God would then be inconsistent. It is just that the sinner dies and suffer judgment. A. Death is a punishment of God and damnation follows death. Since it is just that sin must be dealt with, God must meet that requirement of justice. A. This is so, because a finite person cannot please and infinite God's just requirements of holiness and purity. B. God must then do what is just in forgiveness of sins or justice cannot be met. God must then take the place of the sinner and suffer the consequence of the lawful judgment of death upon the sinner. With justice met, forgiveness can then be rightly given. This forgiveness, which cannot be earned by man's effort, can only be received from God by man's faith - because there is nothing else he can do.

1064

Contradictions in the Qur'an

The Qur'an states that it is a perfect book preserved on tablets in heaven (Surah 85:21-22). If the Qur'an is a perfect book from Allah, then there shouldn't be any contradictions in it. Of course, the Muslims will deny any contradictions exist in the Qur'an, but they do. Some of the contradictions below could be debated, but some of them are clearly contradictions. A contradiction occurs when one statement on a subject excludes the possibility of another. The first one here is a good example. In Surah 19:67, it states that man was created out of nothing. In 15:26, man is created from clay. Since clay is something, we have a cont radiction since "nothing" excludes the possibility of "clay." Both cannot be true. All quotes from the Qur'an, unless otherwise specified, are from Yusuf Ali and can be found at the Qur'an online. 1. What was man created from, blood, clay, dust, or nothing? A. "Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2). B. "We created man from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape, (15:26). C. "The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59). D. "But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35). E. "He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4). Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur'an? A. "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things," (2:256). B. "And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith," (9:3). C. "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merc iful," (9:5). D. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued," (9:29). The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses? A. "And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam," (39:12). B. "When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe." (7:143). C. "And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam," (2:132).

2.

3.

1065

4.

5.

6.

7.

Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods? A. Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48). Also 4:116 B. The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153). Are Allah's decrees changed or not? A. "Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34). B. "The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115). C. None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106). D. When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not," (16:101). Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning? A. "We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam). (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" (10:90-92). B. Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!" So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him," (17:102-103). Is wine consumption good or bad? A. O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper," (5:90). B. (Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell for ever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?" (47:15). C. Truly the Righteous will be in Bliss: On Thrones (of Dignity) will they command a sight (of all things): Thou wilt recognize in their faces the beaming brightness of Bliss. Their thirst will be slaked with Pure Wine sealed," (83:22-25).

1066

Interesting quotes from the Qur'an

The Qur'an is the sacred book of Islam. It is supposed to be a perfect book, inspired, and flawless. Would you expect the following quotes from an inspired and flawless book? All quotes from the Qur'an, unless otherwise specified, are from Yusuf Ali and can be found at the Qur'an online. 1. It is not good to enter a house from the back A. "They ask thee concerning the New Moons. Say: They are but signs to mark fixed periods of time in (the affairs of) men, and for Pilgrimage. It is no virtue if ye enter your houses from the back: It is virtue if ye fear Allah. Enter houses through the proper doors: And fear Allah: That ye may prosper," (2:189). Cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) are turned upside down - literally! A. "(The Messengers) said: "O Lut! We are Messengers from thy Lord! By no means shall they reach thee! now travel with thy family while yet a part of the night remains, and let not any of you look back: but thy wife (will remain behind): To her will happen what happens to the people. Morning is their time appointed: Is not the morning nigh?...When Our Decree issued, We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay, spread, layer on layer," (11:81-82) B. "And We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay," (15:74). A boy and his dog sleep for 309 years in a cave. A. "Such (being their state), we raised them up (from sleep), that they might question each other. Said one of them, "How long have ye stayed (here)?" They said, "We have stayed (perhaps) a day, or part of a day." (At length) they (all) said, "Allah (alone) knows best how long ye have stayed here...So they stayed in their Cave three hundred years, and (some) add nine (more)," (18:19,25). The sun set in a pool of murky wa ter A. "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness." (18:86, Yusuf Ali, translation). Jesus spoke while in the cradle A. But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" 30 He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet," (19:29-30). King Solomon learned the speech of birds A. "And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)" (27:16). B. "And Solomon was David's heir. And he said: O mankind! Lo! we have been taught the language of birds, and have been given (abundance) of all things. This surely is evident favour," (27:16, Pickthall, trans.). Ants can speak A. "At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it," (27:18). B. "Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving," (27:18, Pickthal, trans.). Allah made seven heavens and seven earths A. "Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number. Through the midst of them (all) descends His Command: that ye may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah comprehends, all things in (His) Knowledge," (65:12)

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

1067

9.

10.

Shooting stars are for driving away evil spirits A. And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire, (67:5). The soul exits through the collar-bone when leaving the body. A. "Yea, when (the soul) reaches to the collar-bone (in its exit), 27 And there will be a cry, "Who is a magician (to restore him)?" 28 And he will conclude that it was (the Time) of Parting,: (75:26-28).

1068

Interesting Quotes about women from the Qur'an

It can be said that a religion is judged by what it says about its women. The Qur'an says much of them. All quotes from the Qur'an are from Yusuf Ali and can be found at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ 1. Men have more rights regarding divorce than do women A. Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise," (2:28) 2. Muslim men may marry up to four women, but no such provision is made for Muslim women. A. "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice," (4:3). 3. A man's inheritance should be a portion of two females A. Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half," (4:11). 4. It is okay to beat wives A. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)," (4:34). 5. In Paradise, voluptuous women await men for sensual gratification A. "In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched," (55:56). B. "We have created (their Companions) of special creation. And made them virgin - pure (and undefiled), - Beloved (by nature), equal in age,- For the Companions of the Right Hand," (56:35-38) C. "Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfillment of (the heart's) desires; Gardens enclosed, and grapevines, And voluptuous women of equal age," (78:31-33).

1069

The Hadith
The Hadith, in Islam, is second in authority only to the Qur'an. The Hadith is a record of the prophet Mohammed's life, actions, and deeds. A saying in the Hadith is called a sunnah. These sunnah were transmitted by word of mouth down through the centuries having been memorized first by Muhammad's companions and then later by subsequent Muslims. Therefore, the Hadith is the written record of the oral traditions passed down from the Muslim to Muslim of what Mohammed was supposed to have said and done. The Qur'an is considered to be the absolute and infallible word of Allah. The Hadith, however, though the words of the inspired prophet Muhammad, are not necessarily infallible. The oldest collection to date dates from the 9th century. The Hadith fall into two categories, "Hadith qudsi (sacred Hadith) in which God Himself is speaking in, as it were, a complementary revelation through the Prophet, and hadith sharif (noble Hadith), the Prophet's own acts and utterances."1 9 4 The most famous and universally accepted among the six collections of Hadith are those of Sahih Al-Bukhari (d. 870) -- which are used in the Interesting Quotes from the Hadith section -- and Abu alHajjaj (d. 875), which is usually called "Muslim." The Hadith of Budhari can be found at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ and are the ones quoted on CARM. The Hadith are important because they elucidate many areas not covered by or were not very clear in the Qur'an. The Hadith is appealed to in legal decisions and consulted in debate among many Muslims. There is debate among western scholars as to the historicity and accuracy of the Hadith. Some believe additions were made to it to serve political and theological purposes of various Mulsim leaders. Many Muslims will disagree and some even claim all the Hadith are inspired and accurate. This is quite debatable.

194

Glasse, Cyril, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. San Francisco, 1989, page 141.

1070

Interesting Quotes from the Hadith

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Angels stop asking Allah to forgive people when they pass wind. A. Allah's Apostle said, "The angels keep on asking Allah's forgiveness for anyone of you, as long as he is at his Mu,salla (praying place) and he does not pass wind (Hadath). They say, 'O Allah! Forgive him, O Allah! be Merciful to him." - Volume 1, Book 8, Number 436: Narrated Abu Huraira: B. When he enters the mosque he is considered in prayer as long as he is waiting for the prayer and the angels keep on asking for Allah's forgiveness for him and they keep on saying: 'O Allah! Be Merciful to him, O Allah! Forgive him, as long as he keeps on sitting at his praying place and does not pass wind. (See Hadith No. 620). - Volume 1, Book 8, Number 466: Narrated Abu Huraira: You should not pray to Allah saying "If you wish." A. Allah's Apostle said, "None of you should say: 'O Allah, forgive me if You wish; O Allah, be merciful to me if You wish,' but he should always appeal to Allah with determination, for nobody can force Allah to do something against His Will." Volume 8, Book 75, Number 351: Narrated Abu Huraira What Jesus looks like is described A. The Prophet said, "On the night of my Ascent to the Heaven, I saw Moses who was a tall brown curly-haired man as if he was one of the men of Shan'awa tribe, and I saw Jesus, a man of medium height and moderate complexion inclined to the red and white colors and of lank hair. I also saw Malik, the gate-keeper of the (Hell) Fire and Ad-Dajjal amongst the signs which Allah showed me." (The Prophet then recited the Holy Verse): "So be not you in doubt of meeting him' when you met Moses during the night of Mi'raj over the heavens" (32.23) Volume 4, Book 54, Number 462: Narrated Ibn Abbas: Satan touches people when they are born. A. The Prophet said, "When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 506: Narrated Abu Huraira: What Moses looks like is described A. The Prophet said, "One should not say that I am better than Jonah (i.e. Yunus) bin Matta." So, he mentioned his father Matta. The Prophet mentioned the night of his Ascension and said, "The prophet Moses was brown, a tall person as if from the people of the tribe of Shanu'a. Jesus was a curly-haired man of moderate height." He also mentioned Malik, the gate-keeper of the (Hell) Fire, and Ad- Dajjal. Volume 4, Book 55, Number 608: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: Jesus spoke while still in the cradle. A. The Prophet said, "None spoke in cradle but three: (The first was) Jesus, (the second was), there a man from Bani Israel called Juraij. . . " Volume 4, Book 55, Number 645: Narrated Abu Huraira Upon dying, two angels come and ask you about Muhammad A. The Prophet said, "When a human being is laid in his grave and his companions return and he even hears their foot steps, two angels come to him and make him sit and ask him: What did you use to say about this man, Muhammad? He will say: I testify that he is Allah's slave and His Apostle. Then it will be said to him, 'Look at your place in the Hell-Fire. Allah has given you a place in Paradise instead of it.' " The Prophet added, "The dead person will see both his places. But a non-believer or a hypocrite will say to the angels, 'I do not know, but I used to say what the people used to say! It will be said to him, 'Neither did you know nor did you take the guidance (by reciting the Quran).' Then he will be hit with an iron hammer between his two ears, and he will cry and that cry will be heard by whatever approaches him except human beings and jinns." Volume 2, Book 23, Number 422: Narrated Anas.

1071

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

A man slept through prayer time and the devil peed in his ear. A. It was mentioned before the Prophet that there was a man who slept the night till morning (after sunrise). The Prophet said, "He is a man in whose ears (or ear) Satan had urinated." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 492: Narrated 'Abdullah: B. A person was mentioned before the Prophet (p.b.u.h) and he was told that he had kept on sleeping till morning and had not got up for the prayer. The Prophet said, "Satan urinated in his ears." Volume 2, Book 21, Number 245: Narrated 'Abdullah. Satan puts three knots in the back of the head of people who sleep. A. Allah's Apostle said, "Satan puts three knots at the back of the head of any of you if he is asleep. On every knot he reads and exhales the following words, 'The night is long, so stay asleep.' When one wakes up and remembers Allah, one knot is undone; and when one performs ablution, the second knot is undone, and when one prays the third knot is undone and one gets up energetic with a good heart in the morning; otherwise one gets up lazy and with a mischievous heart." Volume 2, Book 21, Number 243: Narrated Abu Huraira Magic worked on Muhammad A. Magic was worked on the Prophet so that he began to fancy that he was doing a thing which he was not actually doing. One day he invoked (Allah) for a long period and then said, "I feel that Allah has inspired me as how to cure myself. Two persons came to me (in my dream) and sat, one by my head and the other by my feet. One of them asked the other, "What is the ailment of this man?" The other replied, 'He has been bewitched" The first asked, 'Who has bewitched him?' The other replied, 'Lubaid bin Al-A'sam.' The first one asked, 'What material has he used?' The other replied, 'A comb, the hair gathered on it, and the outer skin of the pollen of the male date-palm.' The first asked, 'Where is that?' The other replied, 'It is in the well of Dharwan.' " So, the Prophet went out towards the well and then returned and said to me on his return, "Its date-palms (the date-palms near the well) are like the heads of the devils." I asked, "Did you take out those things with which the magic was worked?" He said, "No, for I have been cured by Allah and I am afraid that this action may spread evil amongst the people." Later on the well was filled up with earth. Volume 4, Book 54, Number 490: Narrated 'Aisha: Magic doesn't affect you if you eat seven Ajwa dates every morning. A. Allah's Apostle said, "He who eats seven 'Ajwa dates every morning, will not be affected by poison or magic on the day he eats them." Volume 7, Book 65, Number 356: Narrated Sad: Also, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 663: Narrated Saud: Muhammad ordered a man who drank wine to be beaten. A. Abu Huraira said, "A man who drank wine was brought to the Prophet. The Prophet said, 'Beat him!" Abu Huraira added, "So some of us beat him with our hands, and some with their shoes, and some with their garments (by twisting it) like a lash, and then when we finished, someone said to him, 'May Allah disgrace you!' On that the Prophet said, 'Do not say so, for you are helping Satan to overpower him.' " Volume 8, Book 81, Number 768: Narrated Abu Salama, Also, Volume 8, Book 81, Number 772: Narrated Abu Huraira: You should not point towards a Muslim brother lest Satan tempt you to hit him. A. The Prophet said, "None of you should point out towards his Muslim brother with a weapon, for he does not know, Satan may tempt him to hit him and thus he would fall into a pit of fire (Hell)" Volume 9, Book 88, Number 193, Narrated Ab u Huraira: Muhammad Spit into a dry well which filled and watered 1400 men. A. We were one-thousand-and-four-hundred persons on the day of Al-Hudaibiya (Treaty), and (at) Al-Hudaibiya (there) was a well. We drew out its water not leaving even a single drop. The Prophet sat at the edge of the well and asked for some water with which he rinsed his mouth and then he threw it out into the well. We stayed for a short while and then drew water from the well and quenched our thirst, and even our riding animals drank water to their satisfaction. Narrated Al-Bara: Volume 4, Book 56, Number 777.

The preceding Hadith are translated by Sahih Bukhari and are quoted from and online source found at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/.

1072

Interesting Quotes from the Hadith, Part two.

1. Allah made Adam 60 cubits high (generally a cubit was 18 inches. Therefore, Adam was 90 feet tall) A. The Prophet said, "Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits tall. When He created him, He said to him, "Go and greet that group of angels, and listen to their reply, for it will be your greeting (salutation) and the greeting (salutations of your offspring." So, Adam said (to the angels), As-Salamu Alaikum (i.e. Peace be upon you). The angels said, "As-salamu Alaika wa Rahmatu-l-lahi" (i.e. Peace and Allah's Mercy be upon you). Thus the angels added to Adam's salutation the expression, 'Wa Rahmatu-l-lahi,' Any person who will enter Paradise will resemble Adam (in appearance and figure). People have been decreasing in stature since Adam's creation." Volume 4, Book 55, Number 543, Narrated Abu Huraira. Water flowed out from under the fingernails of Muhammad A. We used to consider miracles as Allah's Blessings, but you people consider them to be a warning. Once we were with Allah's Apostle on a journey, and we ran short of water. He said, "Bring the water remaining with you." The people brought a utensil containing a little water. He placed his hand in it and said, "Come to the blessed water, and the Blessing is from Allah." I saw the water flowing from among the fingers of Allah's Apostle , and no doubt, we heard the meal glorifying Allah, when it was being eaten (by him). Volume 4, Book 56, Number 779, Narrated 'Abdullah: A man was blown by a wind to a distant mountain A. We took part in the holy battle of Tabuk in the company of the Prophet and when we arrived at the Wadi-al-Qura, there was a woman in her garden. The Prophet asked his companions to estimate the amount of the fruits in the garden, and Alla h's Apostle estimated it at ten Awsuq (One Wasaq = 60 Sa's) and 1 Sa'= 3 kg. approximately). The Prophet said to that lady, "Check what your garden will yield." When we reached Tabuk, the Prophet said, "There will be a strong wind to-night and so no one should stand and whoever has a camel, should fasten it." So we fastened our camels. A strong wind blew at night and a man stood up and he was blown away to a mountain called Taiy, The King of Aila sent a white mule and a sheet for wearing to the Prophet as a present, and wrote to the Prophet that his people would stay in their place (and will pay Jizya taxation.) Volume 2, Book 24, Number 559, Narrated Abu Humaid As-Sa'idi Muhammad is ordered by Allah to fight all people until they worship Allah A. Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24, Narrated Ibn 'Umar. The Qur'an was revealed in the dialect of the Quraish A. "(The Caliph 'Uthman ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Said bin Al-As, 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair and 'Abdur- Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham to write the Quran in the form of a book (Mushafs) and said to them. "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit (Al-Ansari) regarding any dialectic Arabic utterance of the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, for the Quran was revealed in this dialect." So they did it." Volume 6, Book 61, Number 507, Narrated Anas bin Malik. The Qur'an was not collected together by Muhammad A. Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the! Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project. "Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

1073

7.

8.

till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book)." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is: 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa' (AtTauba) (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar." Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509, Narrated Zaid bin Thabit. The Qur'an was compiled because of differences among various manuscripts A. Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Amo ng the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23) Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510, Narrated Anas bin Malik. A Qur'anic verse is cancelled A. The Prophet sent seventy men from the tribe of Bani Salim to the tribe of Bani Amir. When they reached there, my maternal uncle said to them, "I will go ahead of you, and if they allow me to convey the message of Allah's Apostle (it will be all right); otherwise you will remain close to me." So he went ahead of them and the pagans granted him security But while he was reporting the message of the Prophet , they beckoned to one of their men who stabbed him to death. My maternal uncle said, "Allah is Greater! By the Lord of the Kaba, I am successful." After that they attached the rest of the party and killed them all except a lame man who went up to the top of the mountain. (Hammam, a sub-narrator said, "I think another man was saved along with him)." Gabriel informed the Prophet that they (i.e the martyrs) met their Lord, and He was pleased with them and made them pleased. We used to recite, "Inform our people that we have met our Lord, He is pleased with us and He has made us pleased " Later on this Quranic Verse was cancelled. The Prophet invoked Allah for forty days to curse the murderers from the tribe of Ral, Dhakwan, Bani Lihyan and Bam Usaiya who disobeyed Allah and his Apostle." Volume 4, Book 52, Number 57, Narrated Anas. See also Volume 4, Book 52, See also, 69, and 299.

1074

9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Various Qur'an manuscripts had missing verses A. Zaid bin Thabit said, "When the Quran was compiled from various written manuscripts, one of the Verses of Surat Al-Ahzab was missing which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting. I could not find it except with Khuzaima bin Thabjt Al-Ansari, whose witness Allah's Apostle regarded as equal to the witness of two men. And the Verse was:-- "Among the believers are men who have been true to what they covenanted with Allah." (33.23) Volume 4, Book 52, Number 62, Narrated Kharija bin Zaid. Muhammad was once bewitched A. "Once the Prophet was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact he had not done." Volume 4, Book 53, Number 400, Narrated Aisha. Muhammad said that one wing of a house fly has a disease and the other wing has the cure A. The Prophet said "If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 537, Narrated Abu Huraira. Allah forgave a prostitute of her sins because she gave water to a dying dog A. Allah's Apostle said, "A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 538, Narrated Abu Huraira. Angels don't enter houses with dogs in them A. The Prophet said, "Angels do not enter a house witch has either a dog or a picture in it." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 539, Narrated Abu Talha. Jinn eat dung and animal bones A. That once he was in the, company of the Prophet carrying a water pot for his ablution and for cleaning his private parts. While he was following him carrying it(i.e. the pot), the Prophet said, "Who is this?" He said, "I am Abu Huraira." The Prophet said, "Bring me stones in order to c lean my private parts, and do not bring any bones or animal dung." Abu Huraira went on narrating: So I brought some stones, carrying them in the corner of my robe till I put them by his side and went away. When he finished, I walked with him and asked, "What about the bone and the animal dung?" He said, "They are of the food of Jinns. The delegate of Jinns of (the city of) Nasibin came to me --and how nice those Jinns were--and asked me for the remains of the human food. I invoked Allah for them that they would never pass by a bone or animal dung but find food on them." Volume 5, Book 58, Number 200, Narrated Abu Huraira. Women and sons can be mortgaged A. ". . . Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, "Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me." Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, "What do you want?" Ka'b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?" Ka'b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you." Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369, Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah. The Angel Gabriel had 600 wings. A. I asked Sir about the Statement of Allah: 'And was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer. So did Allah convey the Inspiration to His slave (Gabriel) and then he (Gabriel) conveyed that to Muhammad.' (53.10) He said, "Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) informed us that Muhammad had seen Gabriel with six hundred wings." Volume 6, Book 60, Number 380, Narrated assailant.

1075

17.

18.

The moon was cut into two pieces A. During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle the moon was split into two parts; one part remained over the mountain, and the other part went beyond the mountain. On that, Allah's Apostle said, "Witness this miracle." 388The moon was cleft asunder while we were in the company of the Prophet, and it became two parts. The Prophet said, Witness, witness (this miracle)." Volume 6, Book 60, Number 387-388, Narrated Ibn Masud and Abdullah. See also 389-391. A fever is from the heat of hell fire A. I used to sit with Ibn 'Abbas in Mecca. Once I had a fever and he said (to me), "Cool your fever with Zam -zam water, for Allah's Apostle said: 'It, (the Fever) is from the heat of the (Hell) Fire; so, cool it with water (or Zam -zam water)." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 483, Narrated Abu Jamra Ad-Dabi.

The preceding Hadith are translated by Sahih Bukhari and are quoted from and online sourc e found at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/.

1076

Interesting Quotes from the Hadith about Forgiveness

Salvation in Islam is by grace and works. I have been told by Muslims that there are requirements for forgiveness of sins: faith in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet; submission to Allah and his commandments; and sincere repentance from sin. Allah is not obligated to forgive anyone of his sins. But, Allah is gracious to those who have been faithful and sincere. The Muslim can then have a hope of surviving the Day of Judgment and going to Paradise -- if his good deeds outweigh his bad ones. In these Hadith quotes, notice how forgiveness is so often dependent upon the attitude and actions of the person. This is different than in Christianity where forgiveness of sins is received by faith, not by deed (Eph. 2:8-9). We confess our sins (1 John 1:7-9) and repent (Matt. 4:17), and of course we are to be sincere. But forgiveness of sins has nothing to do with our deeds. We repent because we are forgiven, not to get forgiven. 1. Punishment expiates sins A. The Prophet added: "Whoever among you fulfills his pledge will be rewarded by Allah. And whoever indulges in any one of them (except the ascription of partners to Allah) and gets the punishment in this world, that punishment will be an expiation for that sin. And if one indulges in any of them, and Allah conceals his sin, it is up to Him to forgive or punish him (in the Hereafter)." - Volume 1, Book 2, Number 17: Narrated 'Ubada bin As-Samit: Sincere prayers result in forgiveness of sins A. Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever establishes the prayers on the night of Qadr out of sincere faith and hoping to attain Allah's rewards (not to show off) then all his past sins will be forgiven." , Volume 1, Book 2, Number 34, Narrated Abu Huraira B. Allah's Apostle said: "Whoever establishes prayers during the nights of Ramadan faithfully out of sincere faith and hoping to attain Allah's rewards (not for showing off), all his past sins will be forgiven." - , Volume 1, Book 2, Number 36, Narrated Abu Huraira Fasting and sincere prayer result in forgiveness A. Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever observes fasts during the month of Ramadan out of sincere faith, and hoping to attain Allah's rewards, then all his past sins will be forgiven." - Volume 1, Book 2, Number 37, Narrated Abu Huraira. Ablutions and pure thoughts during prayer result in forgivness. A. (the slave of 'Uthman) I saw 'Uthman bin 'Affan asking for a tumbler of water (and when it was brought) he poured water over his hands and washed them thrice and then put his right hand in the water container and rinsed his mouth, washed his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out. then he washed his face and forearrlns [sic] up to the elbows thrice, passed his wet hands over his head and washed his feet up to the ankles thrice. Then he said, "Allah's Apostle said 'If anyone Performs ablution [washing] like that of mine and offers a two-rak'at prayer [spiritual communication with Allah] during which he does not think of anything else (not related to the present prayer) then his past sins will be forgiven.' " After performing the ablution 'Uthman said, "I am going to tell you a Hadith which I would not have told you, had I not been compelled by a certain Holy Verse (the sub narrator 'Urwa said: This verse is: "Verily, those who conceal the clear signs and the guidance which we have sent down...)" (2:159). I heard the Prophet saying, 'If a man performs ablution perfectly and then offers the compulsory congregational prayer, Allah will forgive his sins committed between that (prayer) and the (next) prayer till he offers it. Volume 1, Book 4, Number 161, Narrated Humran, See also 165

2.

3.

4.

1077

5.

6.

7.

8.

Prayer offered in a congregation is 25 times better than prayer offered alone and each step towards a mosque results in forgiveness of a sin. A. The Prophet said, "The prayer offered in congregation is twenty five times more superior (in reward) to the prayer offered alone in one's house or in a business center, because if one performs ablution and does it perfectly, and then proceeds to the mosque with the sole intention of praying, then for each step which he takes towards the mosque, Allah upgrades him a degree in reward and (forgives) crosses out one sin till he enters the mosque. When he enters the mosque he is considered in prayer as long as he is waiting for the prayer and the angels keep on asking for Allah's forgiveness for him and they keep on saying: 'O Allah! Be Merciful to him, O Allah! Forgive him, as long as he keeps on sitting at his praying place and does not pass wind. (See Hadith No. 620). Volume 1, Book 8, Number 466, Narrated Abu Huraira, Prayers coinciding with that of angels results in forgiveness of sins. A. The Prophet said, "Say Amin" when the Imam says it and if the Amin of any one of you coincides with that of the angels then all his past sins will be forgiven." Ibn Shihab said, "Allah's Apostle used to Say "Amin." Volume 1, Book 12, Number 747, Narrated Abu Huraira, See also 748 If you recite a certain prayer and die that day, your sins will all be forgiven. A. The Prophet said "The most superior way of asking for forgiveness from Allah is: 'Allahumma anta Rabbi la ilaha illa anta, Anta Khalaqtani wa ana abduka, wa ana 'ala ahdika wa wa'dika mastata'tu, A'udhu bika min Sharri ma sana'tu, abu'u Laka bini'matika 'alaiya, wa Abu Laka bidhanbi faghfirli innahu la yaghfiru adhdhunuba illa anta." The Prophet added. "If somebody recites it during the day with firm faith in it, and dies on the same day before the evening, he will be from the people of Paradise; and if somebody recites it at night with firm faith in it, and dies before the morning, he will be from the people of Paradise." Volume 8, Book 75, Number 318, Narrated Shaddad bin Aus, See also 335: Saying a certain prayer 100 times gets the same reward as freeing 10 slaves, and forgives sins. A. Allah's Apostle said,"Whoever says: "La ilaha illal-lah wahdahu la sharika lahu, lahu-l- mulk wa lahu-l-hamd wa huwa 'ala kulli shai'in qadir," one hundred times will get the same reward as given for manumitting ten slaves; and one hundred good deeds will be written in his accounts, and one hundred sins will be deducted from his accounts, and it (his saying) will be a shield for him from Satan on that day till night, and nobody will be able to do a better deed except the one who does more than he." Narrated Abu Huraira: Volume 8, Book 75, Number 412. B. Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever says, 'Subhan Allah wa bihamdihi,' one hundred times a day, will be forgiven all his sins even if they were as much as the foam of the sea," Volume 8, Book 75, Number 414, Narrated Abu Huraira,

The preceding Hadith are translated by Sahih Bukhari and are quoted from and online source found at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/.

1078

Interesting Quotes from the Hadith on Jesus

1. Muhammad said Jesus was of red complexion. A. The Prophet said, "I saw Moses, Jesus and Abraham (on the night of my Ascension to the heavens). Jesus was of red complexion, curly hair and a broad chest. Moses was of brown complexion, straight hair and tall stature as if he was from the people of Az-Zutt." Volume 4, Book 55, Number 648, Narrated Ibn Umar. Muhammad said Jesus said he can't intercede for people. A. The Prophet said, "Allah will gather the believers on the Day of Resurrection in the same way (as they are gathered in this life), and they will say, 'Let us ask someone to intercede for us with our Lord that He may relieve us from this place of ours.' ...They will go to Abraham who will reply, 'I am not fit for this undertaking,' and mention to them the mistakes he made, and add, 'But you'd better go to Moses, a slave whom Allah gave the Torah and to whom He spoke directly' They will go to Moses who will reply, 'I am not fit for this undertaking,' and mention to them the mistakes he made, and add, 'You'd better go to Jesus, Allah's slave and His Apostle and His Word (Be: And it was) and a soul created by Him.' They will go to Jesus who will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking, but you'd better go to Muhammad whose sins of the past and the future had been forgiven (by Allah).' So they will come to me and I will ask the permission of my Lord, and I will be permitted (to present myself) before Him." Volume 9, Book 93, Number 507. Narrated Anas. Also, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 236. i. This is contrary to the Bible which states that Jesus is our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and always lives to intercede for us: Heb. 7:25, says, "Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. Muhammad implies that the Christian doctrine of Jesus as the son of God means God had a wife, demonstrating his lack of understanding of the issue. A. On the Day of Resurrection, a call-maker will announce, "Let every nation follow that which they used to worship." Then none of those who used to worship anything other than Allah like idols and other deities but will fall in Hell (Fire), till there will remain none but those who used to worship Allah, both those who were obedient (i.e. good) and those who were disobedient (i.e. bad) and the remaining party of the people of the Scripture. . . Afterwards the Christians will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Jesus, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son,' . . . Allah will say, 'I am your Lord.' They will say twice or thrice, 'We do not worship any besides Allah.' " Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105. Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri, i. Christian theology has never taught that Jesus was literally the offspring of God the Father. Neither has Christianity ever taught that God has a wife. (The cult of Mormonism has stated such erring doctrines, but it is not considered Christian.) The term Son of God signified Jesus' special and unique relationship with the Father as the Father's representative (Heb. 1:1-3). Muhammad said that Jesus worshiped Allah. A. Regarding the explanation of the Verse: 'Those whom they call upon (worship) (like Jesus the Son of Mary, angels etc.) desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allah) as to which of them should be the nearer and they hope for His Mercy and fear His torment.' (17.57) They themselves (e.g. Angels, saints, Apostles, Jesus, etc.,) worshipped Allah, Those Jinns who were worshipped by some Arabs became Muslims (embraced Islam), but those human beings stuck to their (old) religion. Al-Amash said extra: 'Say, (O Muhammad): Call unto those besides Him whom you assume (to be gods).' (17.56) Volume 6, Book 60, Number 238. Narrated Abdullah. i. Such a statement is only a conjecture. Jesus worshiped YHWH (Yahweh). See John 17.

2.

3.

4.

1079

5.

6.

Muhammad says to say "Jesus is Lord," is a great sin. A. Whenever Ibn 'Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess, he would say: "Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners in worship, etc. to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although he is just one of Allah's slaves." Volume 7, Book 63, Number 209. Narrated Nafi'. i. It is not a great sin and it is taught in the Bible that such a confession is necessary a sign of salvation (Rom. 10:9-10). Muhammad said Jesus spoke while in the cradle A. The Prophet said, "None spoke in cradle but three: (The first was) Jesus, (the second was), there a man from Bani Israel called Juraij. Volume 4, Book 55, Number 645, Narrated Abu Huraira.

The preceding Hadith are translated by Sahih Bukhari and are quoted from and online source found at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/.

1080

Interesting Quotes from the Hadith on Jihad

Jihad means striving. It is used to describe the inner struggle against sin as well as the outer struggle against those who would oppose Islam. Did Muhammad teach Holy War upon those who reject Islam? Yes he did. Following are various quotes from the Hadith dealing with killing people. 1. The second best deed is to participate in Jihad A. Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet)." Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25, Narrated Abu Huraira: Muhammad said if someone leaves Islam, to kill him A. Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'" Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260, Narrated Ikrima. Also, see Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64, Narrated 'Ali. Muhammad approves of killing someone who hurt him and having the killer lie A. "Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Kab said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. .." Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369, Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah. Paradise was guaranteed to the first to take part in a naval battle A. That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Him with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the , negative." Volume 4, Book 52, Number 175 Narrated Khalid bin Madan: Those who fight in Jihad have the right to the spoils of the conquered or Paradise if he dies A. The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause." Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35, Narrated Abu Huraira.

2.

3.

4.

5.

1081

B.

C.

D.

". . . "This is the Will of Allah, "After the people returned, the Prophet sat and said, "Anyone who has killed an enemy and has a proof of that, will posses his spoils." I got up and said, "Who will be a witness for me?" and then sat down. The Prophet again said, "Anyone who has killed an enemy and has proof of that, will possess his spoils." I (again) got up and said, "Who will be a witness for me?" and sat down. Then the Prophet said the same for the third time. I again got up, and Allah's Apostle said, "O Abu Qatada! What is your story?" Then I narrated the whole story to him. A man (got up and) said, "O Allah's Apostle! He is speaking the truth, and the spoils of the killed man are with me. So please compensate him on my behalf." On that Abu Bakr As-Siddiq said, "No, by Allah, he (i.e. Allah's Apostle ) will not agree to give you the spoils gained by one of Allah's Lions who fights on the behalf of Allah and His Apostle." The Prophet said, "Abu Bakr has spoken the truth." So, Allah's Apostle gave the spoils to me. I sold that armor (i.e. the spoils) and with its price I bought a garden at Bani Salima, and this was my first property which I gained after my conversion to Islam." Volume 4, Book 53, Number 370, Narrated Abu Qatada. ". . . . While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, "If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday)." Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386, Narrated Jubair bin Haiya. Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out." Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555, Narrated Abu Huraira:

The preceding Hadith are translated by Sahih Bukhari and are quoted from and online source found at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/.

1082

Interesting quotes from the Hadith about Muhammad

1. Muhammad was a white man A. While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said: "Who amongst you is Muhammad?" At that time the Prophet was sitting amongst us (his companions) leaning on his arm. We replied, "This white man reclining on his arm." The an then addressed him, "O Son of 'Abdul Muttalib." Volume 1, Book 3, Number 63. Narrated Anas bin Malik: Muhammad owned a black slave A. I came and behold, Allah's Apostle was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah's Apostle was at the top if its stairs. I said to him, "(Tell the Prophet) that here is 'Umar bin Al-Khattab (asking for permission to enter)." Then he admitted me. Volume 9, Book 91, Number 368. Narrated 'Umar: Muhammad had people killed A. Allah's Apostle entered Mecca in the year of its Conquest wearing an Arabian helmet on his head and when the Prophet took it off, a person came and said, "Ibn Khatal is holding the covering of the Ka'ba (taking refuge in the Ka'ba)." The Prophet said, "Kill him." Volume 3, Book 29, Number 72. Narrated Anas bin Malik: Muhammad said to die in battle for Allah grants you Paradise A. The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35. Narrated Abu Huraira: Muhammad was a sinner A. Allah's Apostle used to keep silent between the Takbir and the recitation of Qur'an and that interval of silence used to be a short one. I said to the Prophet "May my parents be sacrificed for you! What do you say in the pause between Takbir and recitation?" The Prophet said, "I say, 'Allahumma, ba'id baini wa baina khatayaya kama ba'adta baina-lmashriqi wa-l-maghrib. Allahumma, naqqim min khatayaya kama yunaqqa-ththawbu-labyadu mina-ddanas. Allahumma, ighsil khatayaya bil- ma'i wa-th-thalji wal-barad (O Allah! Set me apart from my sins (faults) as the East and West are set apart from each other and clean me from sins as a white garment is cleaned of dirt (after thorough washing). O Allah! Wash off my sins with water, snow and hail.)" Volume 1, Book 12, Number 711. Narrated Abu Huraira: B. I heard Allah's Apostle saying." By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day." Volume 8, Book 75, Number 319, Narrated Abu Huraira: Muhammad said more women were in hell than men and that women lacked intelligence. A. Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woma n can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301, Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

1083

7.

8.

Muhammad had some people drink camel urine as medicine. A. Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die. Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794, Narrated Anas. Muhammad has his chest opened and washed by the angel Gabriel A. Allah's Apostle said, "While I was at Mecca the roof of my house was opened and Gabriel descended, opened my chest, and washed it with Zam-zam water. Then he brought a golden tray full of wisdom and faith and having poured its contents into my chest, he closed it. Then he took my hand and ascended with me to the nearest heaven, when I reached the nearest heaven, Gabriel said to the gatekeeper of the heaven, 'Open (the gate).' The gatekeeper asked, 'Who is it?' Gabriel answered: 'Gabriel.' He asked, 'Is there anyone with you?' Gabriel replied, 'Yes, Muhammad is with me.' He asked, 'Has he been called?' Gabriel said, 'Yes.' So the gate was opened and we went over the nearest heaven and there we saw a man sitting with some people on his right and some on his left. When he looked towards his right, he laughed and when he looked toward his left he wept. Then he said, 'Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious son.' I asked Gabriel, 'Who is he?' He replied, 'He is Adam and the people on his right and left are the souls of his offspring. Those on his right are the people of Paradise and those on his left are the people of Hell and when he looks towards his right he laughs and when he looks towards his left he weeps.' Volume 1, Book 8, Number 345, Narrated Abu Dhar:

The preceding Hadith are translated by Sahih Bukhari and are quoted from and online source found at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/. _______________ Note: I am indebted to Morey, Robert, The Islamic Invasion, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene Oregon, 1992, pages 177-208, for many references in the Hadith concerning Muhammad.

1084

Interesting Quotes from the Hadith on Satan

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Muhammad said that yawning is from Satan. A. The Prophet said, "Yawning is from Satan and if anyone of you yawns, he should check his yawning as much as possible, for if anyone of you (during the act of yawning) should say: 'Ha', Satan will laugh at him." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 509: Narrated Abu Huraira: Muhammad said that yawning is from Satan and that Allah likes sneezing and dislikes yawning. A. The Prophet said, "Allah likes sneezing and dislikes yawning, so if someone sneezes and then praises Allah, then it is obligatory on every Muslim who heard him, to say: May Allah be merciful to you (Yar-hamuka-l-lah). But as regards yawning, it is from Satan, so one must try one's best to stop it, if one says 'Ha' when yawning, Satan will laugh at him." Volume 8, Book 73, Number 242: Narrated Abu Huraira: See also Volume 8, Book 73, Number 245:, Narrated Abu Huraira: Muhammad said a good dream is from Allah and a bad dream is from Satan. A. The Prophet said, "A good dream is from Allah, and a bad or evil dream is from Satan; so if anyone of you has a bad dream of which he gets afraid, he should spit on his left side and should seek Refuge with Allah from its evil, for then it will not harm him." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 513: Narrated Abu Qatada: B. I heard the Prophet saying, "A good dream is from Allah, and a bad dream is from Satan. So if anyone of you sees (in a dream) something he dislikes, when he gets up he should blow thrice (on his left side) and seek refuge with Allah from its evil for then it will not harm him." Volume 7, Book 71, Number 643: Narrated Abu Qatada: C. The Prophet said, "A good dream is from Allah, and a bad dream is from Satan. So whoever has seen (in a dream) something he dislike, then he should spit without saliva, thrice on his left and seek refuge with Allah from Satan, for it will not harm him, and Satan cannot appear in my shape." Volume 9, Book 87, Number 124: Narrated Abu Qatada: Muhammad said that Satan stayed in the upper part of a nose all night. A. The Prophet said, "If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 516: Narrated Abu Huraira: Muhammad said a cock crows because it has seen an angel and donkeys bray because they have seen Satan. A. The Prophet said, "When you hear the crowing of cocks, ask for Allah's Blessings for (their crowing indicates that) they have seen an angel. And when you hear the braying of donkeys, seek Refuge with Allah from Satan for (their braying indicates) that they have seen a Satan." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 522: Narrated Abu Huraira: Muhammad said that Satan touches all human offspring making them cry. A. Abu Huraira said, "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child." Then Abu Huraira recited: "And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan" (3.36) Volume 4, Book 55, Number 641:Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab:Also, same thing at Volume 6, Book 60, Number 71:, Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab: Muhammad said that devils spread out at night time and that Satan does not open a closed door. A. Allah's Apostle said, "When night falls (or when it is evening), stop your children from going out, for the devils spread out at that time. But when an hour of the night has passed, release them and close the doors and mention Allah's Name, for Satan does not open a closed door. Tie the mouth of your water-skin and mention Allah's Name; cover your containers and utensils and mention Allah's Name. Cover them even by placing something across it, and extinguish your lamps." Volume 7, Book 69, Number 527: Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah

1085

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Muhammad said a child born from a union where a parent said a "phrase," Satan cannot harm the child. A. The Prophet said, "If anyone of you, when intending to have a sexual intercourse with his wife, says: 'Bismillah, Allahumma jannibna-sh-shaitan, wa jannibi-sh-shaitan ma razaqtana,' and if the couple are destined to have a child (out of that very sexual relation), then Satan will never be able to harm that child." Volume 8, Book 75, Number 397: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: Muhammad said that during sleep Satan ties knots at the back of the head. A. Allah's Apostle said, "During your sleep, Satan knots three knots at the back of the head of each of you, and he breathes the following words at each knot, 'The night is, long, so keep on sleeping,' If that person wakes up and celebrates the praises of Allah, then one knot is undone, and when he performs ablution the second knot is undone, and when he prays, all the knots are undone, and he gets up in the morning lively and gay, otherwise he gets up dull and gloomy." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 491: Narrated Abu Huraira: Muhammad said that Satan peed in the ear of a man. A. It was mentioned before the Prophet that there was a man who slept the night till morning (after sunrise). The Prophet said, "He is a man in whose ears (or ear) Satan had urinated." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 492: Narrated 'Abdullah: Muhammad said Satan can not impersonate him in a dream. A. The Prophet said, "Name yourselves with my name (use my name) but do not name yourselves with my Kunya name (i.e. Abu-l Qasim). And whoever sees me in a dream then surely he has seen me for Satan cannot impersonate me. And whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally), then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire." Volume 1, Book 3, Number 110: Narrated Abu Huraira: Also at Volume 8, Book 73, Number 217: Narrated Abu Huraira: Muhammad said earthquakes and afflictions come out of the side of the head of Satan. A. (The Prophet) said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and our Yemen." People said, "Our Najd as well." The Prophet again said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and Yemen." They said again, "Our Najd as well." On that the Prophet said, "There will appear earthquakes and afflictions, and from there will come out the side of the head of Satan." Volume 2, Book 17, Number 147: Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Muhammad choked Satan A. The Prophet once offered the prayer and said, "Satan came in front of me and tried to interrupt my prayer, but Allah gave me an upper hand on him and I choked him. No doubt, I thought of tying him to one of the pillars of the mosque till you get up in the morning and see him. Then I remembered the statement of Prophet Solomon, 'My Lord ! Bestow on me a kingdom such as shall not belong to any other after me.' Then Allah made him (Satan) return with his head down (humiliated)." Volume 2, Book 22, Number 301, Narrated Abu Huraira Muhammad said Satan passes wind and runs so he may not hear the Adhan (call to prayer). A. Allah's Apostle said, "When the Adhan for the prayer is pronounced, then Satan takes to his heels passing wind so that he may not hear the Adhan and when the Muadh-dhin finishes, he comes back; Volume 2, Book 22, Number 313: Narrated Abu Huraira, B. Allah's Apostle said, "When the call for prayer is made, Satan takes to his heels passing wind so that he may not hear the Adhan and when the call is finished he comes back, and when the Iqama is pronounced, Satan again takes to his heels, Volume 2, Book 22, Number 323, Narrated Abu Huraira: Muhammad said that when praying while standing, Satan puts doubts into the person. A. Allah's Apostle said, "When anyone of you stands for the prayers, Satan comes and puts him in doubts till he forgets how many Rakat he has prayed. So if this happens to anyone of you, he should perform two prostrations of Sahu while sitting. Volume 2, Book 22, Number 324: Narrated Abu Huraira:

1086

16.

17.

Muhammad said that Satan can reach into a person's body the same as blood reaches it. A. Safiya, the wife of the Prophet told me that she went to Allah's Apostle to visit him in the mosque while he was in Itikaf in the last ten days of Ramadan. She had a talk with him for a while, then she got up in order to return home. The Prophet accompanied her. When they reached the gate of the mosque, opposite the door of Um-Salama, two Ansari men were passing by and they greeted Allah's Apostle . He told them: Do not run away! And said, "She is (my wife) Safiya bint Huyai." Both of them said, "Subhan Allah, (How dare we think of any evil) O Allah's Apostle!" And they felt it. The Prophet said (to them), "Satan reaches everywhere in the human body as blood reaches in it, (everywhere in one's body). I was afraid lest Satan might insert an evil thought in your minds." Volume 3, Book 33, Number 251: Narrated Ali bin Al-Husain: Also, see 254 Muhammad said affliction comes out of the side of Satan's head. A. The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointing to 'Aisha's house (i.e. eastwards), he said thrice, "Affliction (will appear from) here," and, "from where the side of the Satan's head comes out (i.e. from the East)." Volume 4, Book 53, Number 336: Narrated 'Abdullah: B. I saw Allah's Apostle pointing towards the east saying, "Lo! Afflictions will verily emerge hence; afflictions will verily emerge hence where the (side of the head of) Satan appears." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 499: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

The preceding Hadith are translated by Sahih Bukhari and are quoted from and online source found at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/.

1087

Bibliography
_____, The Holy Qur'an, Mushaf Al-Madinah An-Nabawiyah, Revised and Edited by THE PRESIDENCY OF ISLAMIC RESEARCH, IFTA, Call and Guidance, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd Complex, for the Printing of the Holy Qur-an. (The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd Ibn Abdul Aziz Al- Saud, King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Has the Honour to Order the Printing of This Holy Qur-An And the Translation of Its Meanings and Commentary.) _____, The Koran, translated by M.H. Shakir, Online searchable Koran found at Humanities Text Initiative. Published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., in 1983. _____, The Quran, translated by Abdullah Yusufali. Online searchable Koran found at the Scholarly Technology Group, The Islamic Computing Centre, London, distributed by Mohammad Jamil Sawar, CBLU, sawar@cbl.leeds.ac.uk, Leeds University, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK, per Web page. _____, The Qur'an, online version, an Authorized English Version, Translated from the original by Dr. Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D Ali, Maulana Muhammad, M.A., LL.B., A Manual of Hadith, The Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam, Lahore. Grisell, Dr. Ronald, Sufism, Ross Books, Berkely, CA., 1983.Mushaf Miller, William M., A Christian's Response to Islam, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1976. Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Books, 1999. Glasse, Cyril, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. San Francisco, 1989. Hahn, Ernest, How To Respond to Muslims, CPH Publishers, St. Louis, 1984. Ismaeel, Saeed, Al-Harmain Islamic Foundation, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, 1995. Morey, Robert, The Islamic Invasion, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene Oregon, 1992. Naipaul, V. S., Beyond Belief, Vintage Books, New York, 1998. Peters, Rudolph, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, Markus Wiener Publishers, Princeton, NJ, 1996. Watt, W. Montgomery, Islamic Surveys: Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, 1970.

1088

Heresies
Introduction
Heresies abound throughout church history. The ancient errors are alive and well today as well? Do you know which present day groups are represented by the following heresies?

1. 2. 3. 4.

What What What What

is is is is

arianism? p. 1091 gnosticism? p. 1093 modalism? p. 1094 pelagianism? p. 1096

1089

Adoptionism
Adoptionism is an error concerning Christ that first appeared in the second century. Those who held it denied the preexistence of Christ and, therefore, His deity. Adoptionists taught that Jesus was tested by God and after passing this test and upon His baptism, He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son. As a reward for His great accomplishments and perfect character Jesus was raised from the dead and adopted into the Godhead. This error arose out of an attempt by people to understand the two natures of Jesus. The scriptures tell us that Jesus is both God and man: "for Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form," (Col. 2:9). This is known as the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union where in the one person of Christ, there are two natures: God and man. Theodotus of Byzantium was the most prominent adherent to this error. Adoptionism was condemned as a heresy by Pope Victor (A.D. 190-198). 8th Century revision Adoptionism was later revived in the 8th Century in Spain by Elipandus, archbishop of Toledo, and Felix, bishop of Urgel. This was a variation of the first error but it held that Christ was the Son of God in respect to his divine nature, but that as a man, he was only adopted as the first born of God. In 798 Pope Leo III held a council at Rome that condemned adoptionism as a heresy.

Albigenses
A heresy during the middle ages that developed in the town Albi in Southern France. This error taught that there were two gods: the good god of light usually referred to as Jesus in the New Test ament and the god of darkness and evil usually associated with Satan and the "God of the Old Testament." Anything material was considered evil including the body which was created by Satan. The soul, created by the good god, was imprisoned in the evil flesh and salvation was possible only through holy living and doing good works. At death, if the person has been spiritual enough, salvation comes to the believer. But, if the person has not been good enough, he is reincarnated as an animal or another human. The Albigenses denied the resurrection of the body since it was considered evil. The Albigenses taught that Jesus was God but that He only appeared as a man while on earth. It also taught that the Catholic church of the time was corrupted by its power and wealth. Their asceticism and humility compared to the great affluence of the clergy helped to bring many converts to this evangelistic movement. There were two types of Albigenses: believers and Perfects. Believers were Albigenses who had not taken the initiation rite of being a Perfect. Perfects denounced all material possession. They abstained from meat, milk, cheese, eggs, and sexual relations. To become a Perfect a believer had to go through consolamentum, an initiation rite involving the laying on of hands that was supposed to bring the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Infrequently, suicide was practiced as a way to rid oneself of the evil human body. In 1208, Peter de Castelnau, an official representative of the Pope, was murdered by an Albigenses. Since they had been growing in number, becoming a threat, and would not convert to Christianity, Pope Innocent III ordered them to be wiped out. The persecution was fierce and the movement was stopped.

1090

Apollinarianism
Apollinarianism was the heresy taught by Apollinaris the Younger, bishop of Laodicea in Syria about 361. He taught that the Logos of God, which became the divine nature of Christ, took the place of the rational human soul of Jesus and that the body of Christ was a glorified form of human nature. In other words, though Jesus was a man, He did not have a human mind but that the mind of Christ was solely divine. Apollinaris taught that the two natures of Christ could not coexist within one person. His solution was to lessen the human nature of Christ. Apollinarianism was condemned by the Second General Council at Constantinople in 381. This heresy denies the true and complete humanity in the person of Jesus which in turn, can jeopardize the value of the atonement since Jesus is declared to be both God and man to atone. He needed to be God to offer a pure and holy sacrifice of sufficient value and He needed to be a man in order to die for men. Jesus is completely both God and man. This is known as the Hypostatic Union. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1,14). "for Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form," (Col. 2:9).

Arianism
Arianism developed around 320, in Alexandria Egypt concerning the person of Christ and is named after Arius of Alexandar. For his doctrinal teaching he was exiled to Illyria in 325 after the first ecumenical council at Nicaea condemned his teaching as heresy. It was the greatest of heresies within the early church that developed a significant following. Some say, it almost took over the church. Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation. The Son is then the one who created the universe. Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son. Though Christ was a creation, because of his great position and authority, he was to be worshipped and even looked upon as God. Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son. At Jesus' incarnation, the Arians asserted that the divine quality of the Son, the Logos, took the place of the human and spiritual aspect of Jesus, thereby denying the full and complete incarnation of God the Son, second person of the Trinity. In asserting that Christ the Son, as a created thing, was to be worshipped, the Arians were advocating idolatry.

1091

Docetism
Docetism was an error with several variations concerning the nature of Christ. Generally, it taught that Jesus only appeared to have a body, that he was not really incarnate, (Greek, "dokeo" = "to seem"). This error developed out of the dualistic philosophy which viewed matter as inherently evil, that God could not be associated with matter, and that God, being perfect and infinite, could not suffer. Therefore, God as the word, could not have become flesh per John 1:1,14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.. " This denial of a true incarnation meant that Jesus did not truly suffer on the cross and that He did not rise from the dead. The basic principle of Docetism was refuted by the Apostle John in 1 John 4:2-3. "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." Also, 2 John 7, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117) and Irenaeus (115-190), and Hippolatus (170-235) wrote against the error in the early part of the second century. Docetism was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Donatism
Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid. Donatism developed as a result of the persecution of Christians ordered by Diocletian in 303 in which all churches and sacred scriptures of the Christians were to be destroyed. In 304 another edict was issued ordering the burning of incense to the idol gods of the Roman Empire. Of course, Christians refused, but it did not curtail the increased persecution. Many Christians gave up the sacred texts to the persecutors and even betrayed other Christians to the Romans. These people became known as "traditors," Christians who betrayed other Christians. (Note: traditor, not traitor) At the consecration of bishop Caecilian of Carthage in 311, one of the three bishops, Felix, bishop of Aptunga, who consecrated Caecilian, had given copies of the Bible to the Roman persecutors. A group of about 70 bishops formed a synod and declared the consecration of the bishop to be invalid. Great debate arose concerning the validity of the sacraments (baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc.) by one who had sinned so greatly against other Christians. Ater the death of Caecilian, Aelius Donatus the Great became bishop of Carthage and it is from his name that the movement is called. The Donatists were gaining "converts" to their cause and a division was arising in the Catholic Church. They began to practice rebaptism which was particularly troublesome to the church at the time and was condemned at the Synod of Arles in 314 since it basically said the authority in the Catholic Church was lost. The Donatist issue was raised at several ecumenical councils and finally submitted to Emporer Constantine in 316. In each case the consecration of bishop Caecilian was upheld. However, persecution fuels emotions and by 350 the Donatists had gained many converts and outnumbered the Orthodox in Africa. But it was the apologetic by Augustine that turned the tide against the Donatist movement which eventually died out in the next century. The problem with Donatism is that no person is morally pure. The effectiveness of the baptism or administration of the Lord's Supper does not cease to be effective if the moral character of the minister is in question or even demonstrated to be faulty. Rather, the sacraments are powerful because of what they are, visible representations of spiritual realities. God is the one who works in and through them and He is not restricted by the moral state of the administrant.

1092

Gnosticism
Gnosticism traces its roots back just after the beginning of the Christian Church. Some researchers state that evidence of its existence even predates Christianity. Whichever the case, the error of gnosticism had affected the culture and church of the time and possibly even a earned a mention in 1 John 4. The word "gnosticism" comes from the Greek word "gnosis" which means "knowledge." There were many groups that were Gnostic and it isn't possible to easily describe the nuances of each variant of Gnostic doctrines. However, generally speaking, Gnosticism taught that salvation is achieved through special knowledge (gnosis). This knowledge usually dealt with the individual's relationship to the transcendent Being. A more detailed Gnostic theology is as follows. The unknowable God was far too pure and perfect to have anything to do with the material universe which was considered evil. Therefore, God generated lesser divinities, or emenations. One of these emanations, Wisdom desired to know the unknowable God. Out of this erring desire the demiurge an evil god was formed and it was this evil god that created the universe. He along with archons kept the mortals in bondage in material matter and tried to prevent the pure spirit souls from ascending back to god after the death of the physical bodies. Since, according to the Gnostics, matter is evil, deliverance from material form was attainable only through special knowledge revealed by special Gnostic teachers. Christ was the divine redeemer who descended from the spiritual realm to reveal the knowledge necessary for this redemption. In conclusion, Gnosticism is dualistic. That is, it teaches there is a good and evil, spirit and matter, light and dark, etc. dualism in the universe. What we know about Gnosticism is gained from the writings of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and some later manuscripts discovered in the eighteenth century such as the "Codex Askew, Codex Bruce, the Berlin Gnostic Codes and, most recently, the Nag Hammadi collection."1 9 5 Nag Hammadi is a town in Upper Egypt near ancient Chenoboskion and 13 codices discovered were discovered about 1945. The danger of gnosticism is easily apparent. It denies the incarnation of God as the Son. In so doing, it denies the true efficacy of the atonement since, if Jesus is not God, He could not atone for all of mankind and we would still be lost in our sins. There is debate whether or not this is a Christian heresy or simply an independent development. The evidence seems to point to the later. Nevertheless, the Gnostics laid claim to Jesus as a great teacher of theirs and as such requires some attention. It is possible that 1 John was written against some of the errors that Gnosticism promoted.

195

Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.

1093

Kenosis
"Kenosis" is derived from the Greek word "kenoo" which means "to empty." It is used in Phil. 2:7. The text of Phil. 2:5-8 is worth recording here. "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross," (Phil. 2:5-8). The kenosis theory states that Jesus gave up some of His divine attributes while He was a man here on earth. These attributes were omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Christ did this voluntarily so that He could function as a man in order to fulfill the work of redemption. This view was first introduced in the late 1800s in Germany with Gottfried Thomasius (1802-75), a Lutheran theologian. Phil. 2:5-8 does not teach that Jesus gave up any of His divine attributes since it says nothing of those attributes. Instead, it is speaking of His humility that moved him, according to the will of the Father, to leave His majestic state in heaven and enter into the humble position of human nature. There is, however, a problem the orthodox must deal with that the Kenosis theory seems to more adequately address. Take Mark 13:32 for example. In it, Jesus said, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." If Jesus knew all things, as is implied in His divine nature, then why did He not know the day or hour of His own return. The answer is that Jesus cooperated with the limitations of humanity and voluntarily did not exercise His attribute of omniscience. He still was divine but was moving and living completely as a man. The Kenosis theory is a dangerous doctrine because if it were true then it would mean that Jesus was not fully divine. If Jesus was not fully divine, then His atoning work would not be sufficient to atone for the sins of the world. The correct doctrine is the Hypostatic Union, that Jesus is both fully God and fully man (Col. 2:9) and did not give up any divine attributes while as a man on earth.

Modalism
Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three consecutive modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Ho ly Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ. Present day groups that hold to this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation. These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

1094

Monarchianism
Monarchianism (mono - "one"; arche - "rule") was an error concerning the nature of God that developed in the second century A.D. It arose as an attempt to maintain Monotheism and refute tritheism. Unfortunately, it also contradicts the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Monarchianism teaches that there is one God as one person: the Father. The Trinity is that there is one God in three persons: Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is monotheistic, not polytheistic as some of its critics like to assert. Monarchians were divided into two main groups, the dynamic monarchians and the modal monarchians. Dynamic Monarchianism teaches that God is the Father and that Jesus is only a man, denied the personal subsistence of the Logos and taught that the Holy Spirit was a force or presence of God the Father. Present day groups in this category are the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, and Unitarians. Additionally, some ancient dynamic monarchianists were also known as Adoptionists who taught that Jesus was tested by God and after passing this test and upon His baptism, He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son. Ancient teachers of dynamic monarchianism were Theodotians, a Tanner in Byzantium around 190 A.D., and Paul of Samosata a bishop of Antioch in Syria around 260 AD. Modal monarchianism teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are just modes of the single person who is God. In other words, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not simultaneous and separate persons, but consecutive modes of one person. Praxeas, a priest from Asia Minor, taught this in Rome around 200 AD. Modern groups in this general category are the Oneness Pentecostal groups known as the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. However, the present day modalists maintain that God's name is Jesus. They also require baptism "in Jesus' name" not "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" for salvation.

Monophysitism
Monophysitism is an error concerning the nature of Christ that asserts Jesus had only one nature, not two as is taught in the correct doctrine of the hypostatic union: Jesus is both God and man in one person. In monophysitism, the single nature was divine, not human. It is sometimes referred to as Eutychianism, after Eutyches 378-452, but there are slight differences. Monophysitism arose out of a reaction against Nestorianism which taught Jesus was two distinct persons instead of one. Its roots can even be traced back to Apollinarianism which taught that the divine nature of Christ overtook and replaced the human one. Monophysitism was confined mainly to the Eastern Church and had little influence in the West. In 451, the Council of Chalcedon attempted to establish a common ground between the monophysitists and the orthodox, but it did not work and divisions arose in the Eastern church which eventually excommunicated the monophysitists in the 6th century. The denial of the human nature of Christ is a denial of the true incarnation of the Word as a man. Without a true incarnation there can be no atonement of sin for mankind since it was not then a true man who died for our sins. It was condemned as heresy at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680-681.

1095

Nestorianism
Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine. Nestorius was a monk who became the Patriarch of Constantinople and he repudiated the Marian title "Mother of God." He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to address the issue and pronounced that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human. Nestorius was deposed as Patriarch and sent to Antioch, then Arabia, and then Egypt. Nestorianism survived until around 1300. The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person" then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.

Pelagianism
Pelagianism derives its name from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome, though he was British by birth. It is a heresy dealing with the nature of man. Pelagius, whose family name was Morgan, taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God. He denied original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him. Pelagianism fails to understand man's nature and weakness. We are by nature sinners (Eph. 2:3; Psalm 51:5). We all have sinned because sin entered the world through Adam: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12, NIV). Therefore, we are unable to do God's will (Rom. 6:16; 7:14). We were affected by the fall of Adam, contrary to what Pelagius taught. Pelagius was condemned by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus and excommunicated in 417 A.D. by Pope Innocent I.

1096

Socinianism.
This is a heresy concerning the nature of God. It is derived from two brothers of the surname Sozinni who lived in the 1500's in Poland. Socinianism denies the doctrine of the Trinity claiming it denies the simplicity of God's unity. Instead, God is a single person with the Holy Spirit as the power of God. Since it emphasizes the unity of God, there could be no divine and human union in a single person as Christ. Therefore, Socinianism denies the incarnation and deity of Christ as well as Christ's pre-existence. It teaches that Jesus was only a man. However, as is separate from the unitarians, it taught that Jesus was a deified man and was to be adored as such. Nevertheless, since Jesus is not divine by nature, His sacrifice was not efficacious; that is, it did not result in the redemption of people who would trust in it. Instead it was an example of self sacrifice. The followers of Socinianism also rejected infant baptism, hell, and taught the annihilation of the wicked. The Bible was authoritative but was only properly understood through rationalism. Of course, this system of belief is wrong since it denies the doctrine of the Trinity and deity of Christ.

Tritheism
Tritheism is the teaching that the Godhead is really three separate beings forming three separate gods. This erring view is often misplaced by the cults for the doctrine of the Trinity which states that there is but one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the trinity is, by definition, monothestic. That is, it is a doctrine that affirms that there is only one God in all the universe. Tritheism has taken different forms throughout the centuries. In the early church the Christians were accused of being tritheists by those who either refused to understand or could not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. In the late 11th century a Catholic monk of Compigne in France, Roscelin considered the three Divine Persons as three independent beings and that it could be said they were three gods. He maintained that God the Father and God the Holy Ghost would have become incarnate with God the Son unless there were three gods. Present day Mormonism is tritheistic -- but with a twist. Mormonism teaches that there are many God's in the universe but they serve and worship only one of them. The godhead for earth is to them really three separate gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Father used to be a man on another world who brought one of his wives with him to this world - they both have bodies of flesh and bones. The son is a second god who was literally begotten between god the father and his goddess wife. The Holy Ghost is a third god. Therefore, in reality, Mormonism is polytheistic with a tritheistic emphasis. Of course, tritheism clearly contradicts the teaching of the Bible regarding monotheism. You are My witnesses, declares the Lord, And My servant whom I have chosen, In order that you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me," (Isaiah 43:10). Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me," (Isaiah 44:6). Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none, (Isaiah 44:8).

1097

1098

New Age Movement

Introduction
The New Age movement is a false movement that denies the essentials of Christianity. It also exalts mankind to godhood. It is self-centered and occultic.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What is the New Age Movement? p. 1100 What are the basic beliefs of the New Age movement? p. 1100 What is the New Age view of man? p. 1101 Generically, what is the New Age view of salvation? p. 1103 What are some verses that demonstrate that man is not divine? p. 1105

1099

What is the New Age Movement

1. What is the New Age Movement? A. The New Age movement has many sub-divisions, but it is generally a collection of Easterninfluenced metaphysical thought systems, a conglomeration of theologies, hopes, and expectations held together with an eclectic teaching of salvation, of "correct thinking," and "correct knowledge." It is a theology of "feel-goodism," "universal tolerance," and "moral relativism." B. In the NAM. Man is central. He is viewed as divine, as co-creator, as the hope for future peace and harmony. A representative quote might be: "I am affected only by my thoughts. It needs but this to let salvation come to all the world. For in this single thought is everyone released at last from fear." (A course in Miracles, The Foundation for Inner Peace, Huntington Station, N.Y. Lesson 228, p. 461.) C. Unfortunately for the NAM. the fear they want to be released from might very well be the fear of damnation, of conviction of sin, and it is even, sometimes, fear of Christianity and Christians. Though the NAM. is tolerant of almost any theological position, it is opposed to the "narrow- mindedness" of Christianity that teaches Jesus is the only way and that there are moral absolutes. D. The NAM. is difficult to define because "there is no hierarchy, dogma, doctrine, collection plate, or membership." It is a collection, an assortment of different theologies with the common threads of toleration and divergence weaving through its tapestry of "universal truth." C. - The term "New Age" refers to the "Aquarian Age" which, according to New Age followers, is dawning. It is supposed to bring in peace and enlightenment and reunite man with God. Man is presently considered separated from God not because of sin (Isaiah 59:2), but because of lack of understanding and knowledge concerning the true nature of God and reality. The New Age Movement is a religious system with two basic beliefs: Evolutionary Godhood and Global Unity. A. What is Evolutionary Godhood? i. It is the next step in evolution. It will not be physical, but spiritual: a. For the most part, the NAM espouses evolution, both of body and spirit. Man is developing and will soon leap forward into new spiritual horizons. Many New Age practices are designed to push one ahead into that horizon. Some of them are astral projection which is training your soul to leave your body and travel around; contacting spirits so they may speak through you or guide you; using crystals to purify your body's and mind's energy systems; visualization where you use mental imagery to imagine yourself as an animal, in the presence of a divine being, or being healed of sickness, etc. ii. Evolutionary Godhood also means that mankind will soon see itself as god, as the "Christ principle." a. The NAM teaches that Man's basic nature is good and divine. This opposes God's Word which says... i. that we are sinners: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12, NIV). ii. and that our nature is corrupt: "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath" (Eph. 2:3, NIV). b. It teaches that since man is divine by nature, he then has divine qualities. i. This is an important part of NAM thinking. Because the average New Ager believes himself to be divine, he can then create his own reality. If, for example, a person believes that reincarnation is true, that's fine because that is his reality. If someone he knows doesn't believe in it, that is alright too because that is someone else's reality. They can each have a reality for themselves that "follows a different path."

2.

1100

B.

In contrast to this, the Bible says that God alone is the creator: "This is what the LORD says -- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself" (Isa. 44:24, NIV). d. The New Ager who believes in his own divinity and ability to create usurps the authority and position of God. He also is still listening to the lie of the devil who spoke to Eve and said she would be like God (Gen. 3:5). iii. Reincarnation a. Though not all New Agers adhere to reincarnation, most believe in some form or another. And, many believe the Bible was changed to remove any verses that might have taught reincarnation. But this accusation only shows the limitation of their knowledge. The Bible never had any references to reincarnation. b. Reincarnation opposes the Word of God which says that it is appointed for man to die once, and after this comes judgment (Heb. 9:27). The second major element of the New Age Movement is Global Unity which consists of three major divisions: Man with Man; Man with Nature; and Man with God. i. Man with man. a. The NAM teaches that we will all learn our proper divine relationship with one another and achieve harmony and mutual love and acceptance through the realization and acceptance of this divine proper knowledge. i. Within this hoped harmony is economic unity. The average New Ager is looking for a single world leader who, with New Age principles, will guide the world into a single harmonious economic whole. ii. It is also hoped that this leader will unite the world into a spiritual unity; that is, a one world religion. b. The New Age hope is reminiscent of the Scriptures that speak of the coming Antichrist: i. 2 Thess. 2:3-4, "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God." See also Rev. 13:17,14:9,11; 16:2; 19:20. ii. Man with nature a. Since the NAM. says that God is all, and all is God, then nature is also part of God. Man must then get in tune with nature and learn to nurture it and be nurtured by it. In this, all people can unite. b. American Indian philosophies are popular among New Agers because they focus on the earth, on nature, and man's relationship to them. c. New Age philosophy generally seeks to merge with those philosophies that put man and nature on an equal level. We are no more or less imp ortant or different than our cousin the animal, bird, or fish. We must live in harmony with them, understand them, and learn from them, is the general philosophy of the New Age. i. This is opposed to the Scriptural teaching of man's superiority over animals (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:19). This does not mean that Man must abuse what he is over, but Man is given the responsibility of caring for and being stewards of God's creation (Gen. 2:15). God will hold Christians responsible for the stewardship that has been entrusted to them. d. The New Agers have a name for the earth. It is Gaia. Gaia is to be revered and respected. Some New Agers even worship the earth and nature. i. This opposes the Scripture that says we are not to have any other Gods before God (Ex. 20:3).

c.

1101

iii.

C.

Man with God a. Since the NAM. teaches that man is divine by nature, all people, once they see themselves as such, will be helped in their unity of purpose, love, and development. The goal is to fully realize our own goodness. It is obvious that this contradicts Scriptures, c.f., Rom. 3:10-12: "As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." Additional beliefs of the NAM. view of God are: i. He (it) is impersonal, omnipresent, and benevolent -- therefore he (it) won't condemn anyone. a. The New Age god is impersonal. An impersonal God will not reveal himself nor will he have specific requirements as to morality, belief, and behavior. This is why reincarnation appeals so much to them. With it, there is no judgment, there is a second chance, a third chance, and fourth, etc. b. It should be noted that because the New Ager seeks to elevate himself to godhood, he must lower the majesty and personhood of the true God. In other words, the universe isn't big enough for one true God, but it is big enough for a bunch of little ones. ii. There are no moral absolutes in the New Age. Therefore, they claim to have a spiritual tolerance for all "truth systems." They call this "harmonization." a. There is an obvious problem here. To say that there are no moral absolutes is an absolute in itself which is self contradictory. Also, if morality is relative, then stealing may be right sometimes, along with lying, adultery, cheating, etc. Living in a world of moral relativism would not bring a promising future. b. It would follow that if reality is relative and truth is too, then driving a car would be difficult. After all, if one New Ager thinks the light is red and another thinks its green, when they collide, their different realities will come crashing down on them. That is something most interesting about New Agers, they don't live what they believe. That is because in reality, New Age thinking doesn't work. c. The New Age movement does espouse honesty, integrity, love, peace, etc. It just wants to do it without the true God. It wants to do it not on His terms, but on its own.

1102

More on the New Age Movement

1. What the New Age Movement does. A. It is a sponge that attempts to absorb all religions, cultures, and governments. B. It seeks to unify all systems into one spiritual, socio-economic unity. C. It uses various means to have mystical experiences with God and/or nature and/or self. Some of the methods were described in Omni Magazine (How to Have a Mystical Experience. Dec. 1988, p. 137-145) as imagining, where you are told to imagine your own reality; transcendence, going beyond the limits of time; sleep deprivation, with the purpose of inducing a mystical experience; focusing, "to experience all of reality as unified and not as a collection of disparate objects"; avoidance, where communication with the outside world is stopped in order to reinterpret the world without its influence on you; identification, "To trade places mentally with a dog or a cat, canary, or animal in the zoo"; reflection, an exercise designed to help you to view the year to come, differently; and star-gazing, "to induce a sense of objectivity about your life and a feeling of connectedness to the rest of cosmos." What the New Age Movement does not do. A. It does not teach that man is a sinner - Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:3. B. It does not teach that man is dependent upon God for all things - Isaiah 43:7; James 1:17. C. It does not teach that punishment is eternal - Rev. 14:11. D. It does not teach that the wages of sin is eternal separation from God - Rom. 6:23; Isaiah 59:2. E. It does not teach that Jesus is the only way to God - Matt. 11:27; John 14:6. F. It does not accept Christianity as the truth - 2 Tim. 3:16. New Age Terminology A. According to the Bible, Man is the image bearer of God (Gen. 1:26), and as such, is a creature of speech. Remember, God said, "...Let there be light" (Gen. 1:3). B. In the New Age, words are very important. In fact, the New Age has some of its own special words. Some of them are: Holistic, holographic, synergistic, unity, oneness, harmony, atone- ment, transformation, personal growth, human potential, awakening, networking, energy, and consciousness. These words are prevalent in New Age conversations and writings. C. In fact, if you were to go to a New Age Bookstore and read the titles or their books, you would see a disproportionate amount of them containing the word "self." The New Age Interpretation of Christianity A. God is not a personal heavenly Father but an impersonal force. B. God is all and all is God. God is not the "wholly other" creator of all, but part of all that exists. C. There is nothing that is not God. (This is pantheism.) D. There is no sin, only incorrect understanding of truth. Knowledge is what saves, not Jesus. E. Hell is not a place but an experience here on Earth; it is a state of mind. F. Jesus was just one of many way showers of divine truth. He exemplified the Christ consciousness probably better than anyone else. G. Christ is a consciousness, a form of the higher self. It is possessed by all because everyone is divine. "It is not Christ that can be crucified" (Miracles, Lesson 303, p. 441). H. "A miracle is a correction...It merely looks on devastation, and reminds the mind that what it sees is false. It undoes error" (Miracles, p. 164). A miracle to a New Ager is not God's intervention into this world to perform His will but the realization of the true reality that God is all and that you are God.

2.

3.

4.

1103

5.

6.

The New Age View of Man A. Since all is God, and man is part of all, then man is God. This is pantheism. i. This is an eastern mystical belief system that has crept into mainstream America. ii. God is not part of creation. He is separate from it and made it (Isaiah 44:24). iii. Man is not God, he is a creation (Gen. 1:26). B. Therefore, man is good by nature. i. Man is not good by nature (Eph. 2:3). C. Man has infinite potential. i. This arrogant conclusion based upon false concepts of grandiose self worth, is a deceptive, self-satisfying indulgence into pride. As Satan wanted to be like God (Isaiah 14:12-17) and encouraged Adam and Eve to be like God also (Gen. 3:1-5), the New Ager listens to the echo of that Edenic lie and yields to it willingly. D. Man is one with the universe. i. Again the difference between man and creation is blurred. Man is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). The universe is not. Man is different than creation. The New Age View of Salvation A. Salvation in the NAM means to be in tune with the divine consciousness. i. In tune means to be in harmony with reality and whatever is perceived to be true. B. Since the NAM doesn't acknowledge sin or sinfulness, there is no need for a redeemer like Jesus. Salvation, to them, is simply the realization of our divine nature. "I am not a body. I am free. For I am still as God created me. Salvation of the world depends on me" (Miracles, Lesson 206, p. 380). Such arrogance is mind-boggling. C. It is a form of knowledge, of achieving correct thought. Therefore we need to be saved from ignorance, not sin. D. Salvation, in the New Age sense, is self achieved through understanding your natural godlikeness and goodness, combined with proper knowledge.

As you can see, the New Age Movement is not a biblical teaching by any means. It is a false religious system authored by the evil one. It contradicts Christianity in almost all of its main tenets. It is to be avoided, to be guarded against, and to be destroyed. And so it will on that glorious day when the Lord Jesus returns.

1104

A Biblical Responses to the New Age Movement

1. God is personal. If God were impersonal, then the following qualities could not be His. A. God speaks and has a self given name: "I AM" (Exodus 3:14). B. God is long suffering, (Psalm 86:15; 2 Peter 3:15). C. God is forgiving (Daniel 9:9; Ephesians 1:7; Psalm 86:5). D. God hates sin (Psalm 5:5-6; Habakkuk 1:13). Man is not divine, but a sinner (Romans 3:23). A. He is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9). B. He is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23). C. He loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19). D. He is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). E. He is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6). F. He is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). G. He is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). H. He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). Salvation is not correct thought, but deliverance from the consequence of our sin (Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8-9). A. Salvation is God's deliverance from damnation (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 1:18; 2:5; 5:9). B. This salvation is found in no one but Jesus alone (Acts 4:12). Miracles are from God not from the mind of man (Matthew 8:1-4; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 17:12-19; John 2:1-11). A. Miracles imply an action by someone that is greater than ourselves. If God is impersonal, miracles cannot occur. But they do occur today as well as in Bible times and are not simply proper thoughts or understanding. Christ means "anointed. Jesus was the Christ, the anointed one." A. It does not mean a consciousness or quality of people. Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, the Deliverer from sin. Jesus is the Christ (Matt. 16:16,20; Luke 9:20). B. "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory" (Luke 24:26). C. "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day" (Luke 24:46 ). D. "...we have found the Messiah (which translated means Christ)" (John 1:41). E. "He [David] looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ..." (Acts 2:31). F. "...God has made Him both Lord and Christ this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36). G. "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6). H. "Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4). I. Christ is crucified (1 Cor. 1:23). You sin against Christ (1 Cor. 8:12). The blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). Only the Bible has the message of Grace. Grace is the unmerited favor of God upon His people. A. Grace is the undeserved kindness of God. Grace is getting the blessings we do not deserve. At the death of Christ we are blessed; we are given grace; we are given eternal life and forgiveness of sins. Only Christianity has the message of free forgiveness given. Every other religious system on earth has some form of salvation dependent totally or in part on what the adherents do. Not so with Christianity. Humanity is not unlimited, but just the opposite: it is under bondage (Romans 5:12). A. Sin is its master and a deadly and deceitful one at that. True morality is that which is revealed by God in the Bible (Exodus 20). Anything else is only an imitation, a set of ideas laid down by man that originate from the mind of sinful man. The Bible opposes almost all the tenets of the New Age Movement. A. As Christians, we should be watchful to recognize what is false and teach what is true. We should be wary because the Edenic lie still rings strong in the hearts of the deceived -- and they want us to believe as they.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8. 9.

1105

Witnessing to New Agers

1. Ask questions A. If we are all God, then why do we act so badly? i. They might say it is because we all have not come to a full realization of our true divine potentials. It is ignorance that leads to bad deeds. ii. Then ask them how, if we are divine, our mere ignorant self could so easily override our divine goodness. B. Why do our "realities" contradict each other? i. They might say that they don't contradict each other. They are simply different shades of light on the same picture (or something vague like that). ii. Then ask if truth contradicts itself. It does not. The logic is that if we are all in different forms of truth, then these different truths can't ultimately contradict each other--or they wouldn't be true. However,... a. The NAM says that Jesus is only one of many ways to God. But Jesus said He was the only way to God (John 14:6). They can't both be right; therefore, the NAM teaching that we can create our own truths can't be true. Don't let them take Christian words and use them out of the context of biblical meaning. A. New Agers recognize the tremendous influence and spotless reputation of Jesus. They want Him to be associated with their beliefs. As a result, you might find yourself facing a New Ager who uses Christian words--but with non-Christian definitions. Listen carefully, and don't let them steal what is Christian and transplant it into their system. B. You must question the terms they use. You need to make sure that what they mean by Christian terms is the same thing that you mean by them. Listen for internal contradictions. A. As mentioned above, truth does not contradict itself. You must listen to what they are saying and ask questions. Sooner or later you catch on to inconsistencies. B. Inconsistencies usually arise when discussing the relationship between reality and belief. i. For example, a New Ager might say that you can create your own reality. I might reply, "Good. Then if I believe red lights are really green, would you want to go driving with me?" Tell them that God is personal, that he loves them, and that Jesus died for sin. A. The Word of God will not come back empty without accomplishing what God wishes it to (Isaiah 55:11). If you focus on Jesus, tell them the truth about sin and salvation, and use Scripture, then, at least, they will have heard the truth. Praise be to Jesus the Christ. B. Remember, God's word is powerful. Whether or not they accept it isn't the issue. You simply need to present the truth in an accurate and loving manner (Col. 4:5-6; 1 Tim. 1:5).

2.

3.

4.

1106

Interesting Quotes from New Age Sources

(The following quotes are from various newspapers as well as New Age Sources.) "I am an entity much like you, Barbara. I simply don't have a body at this time." It was Dr. Carstairs talking. Dr. Carstairs is an English physician from the 1860's. His spirit generally spends its time floating around the astral plane, I am told, but at this particular moment it had taken up residence in the Body of Bonney Meyer, a registered nurse from San Diego. [The San Diego Union, Their spirits are willing, Section C. pg. 1 Nov. 12, 1987.] There are many entities about such as myself. Man is not the only living, thinking, breathing creature in the galaxy. Entities that come from other planets right now are about your planet waiting for the time to introduce themselves. [The San Diego Union, Their spirits are willing, Section C. pg. 1 Nov. 12, 1987.] Jach Pursel, a former Florida insurance agent living in Los Angeles, squints his eyes and speaks with the voice of Lazaris, a spiritual entity of uncertain origins. "How old are you?" he asked. "In our reality, we have no time," says Lazaris. "Why are you making your presence known to man?" "Because you are ready now..." "Is the world about to end?" "No. In a word, no. This is not the ending. This is the beginning." [Time, New Age Harmonies, page 66, Dec. 7, 1987.] "Jo Ann Karl is a tall blond who...gets $15 a customer for channeling the archangel Gabriel and a spirit named Ashtar. [Time, New Age Harmonies, page 66, Dec. 7, 1987.] Shirley Maclaine said, "We are at any given moment living the totality of everything....The vibrational oscillation of nature is quickening....Just remember that you are God, and act accordingly." "In Egypt, a few bemused camel drivers and tourist guides looked on as a lone young man in white shorts and a glittering shawl danced near the pyramids at Giza. I am God, I am God,' he shouted." [Paul Nussbaum and Rick Lyman, The San Diego Union, "5,000 greet new age at Mt. Shasta." Aug. 17, 1987, A-2.] "War is not man's great and terrible disease; war is a symptom, a result. The real disease is the virus of national sovereignty." [The Urantia Book, 1491.1] "The goal of eternity is ahead! The adventure of divinity attainment lies before you! The race for perfection is on! Whosoever will may enter, and certain victory will crown the efforts of every human being who will run the race of faith and trust, depending every step of the way on the leading of the indwelling Adjuster and on the guidance of the good spirit of the Universal Son, which so freely has been poured out upon all flesh." [The Urantia Book, 365.4] "T.I.C.'s (The Inner Christ) purpose is to assist every individual to know themselves as a Christ, to clearly and safely channel guidance and prophecy for themselves from their own Inner Christ and to gain dominion over their life circumstances through prayer and self-revelation. T.I.C. makes the intellectual concept that we are God a reality." [From a tract from the Teaching of the Inner Christ, What is T.I.C.?] "The Pleiadians are a collective of extraterrestrials from the star system the Pleiades. The Pleiadian culture is ancient and was seeded' from another universe of love long before earth was created. They have formed a tremendous society which operates with love, with ideas and ideals with which we are yet unfamiliar. Although the Pleiadians exist in what we would call our future, they call themselves our ancient family because many of us came here from the Pleiades to participate in the experiment of

1107

earth. As they once promised us, the Pleiadians have returned to earth and are now here to help guide us during this time of planetary awakening as earth moves through her transition from the third to the fourth dimension and to assist each of us in our personal journeys of remembering, deepening awareness and knowing." [From a handout at the San Diego Convention Center, The Pleiadians, Channeled by Barbara J. Marciniak] "Representatives of some of the nation's largest corporations, including I.B.M., A.T.&T, and General Motors, met in New Mexico in July [1986] to discuss how metaphysics, the occult and Hindu mysticism might help executives compete in the world marketplace." [The New York Times, Spiritual Concepts Drawing a Different Breed of Adherent. Section Y page 8. Sept. 29, 1986.] At Stanford University's well-regarded Graduate School of Business, the syllabus for a seminar on "Creativity in Business" includes meditation, chanting, "dream work," the use of tarot cards and discussion of the "New Age Capitalist." [The New York Times, Spiritual Concepts Drawing a Different Breed of Adherent. Section Y page 8. Sept. 29, 1986.] One concept commonly transmitted in these sessions [seminars and workshops on human potential]...is that because man is a deity equal to God he can do no wrong; thus, there is no sin, no reason for guilt in life. [The New York Times, Spiritual Concepts Drawing a Different Breed of Adherent. Section Y page 8. Sept. 29, 1986.] The following excerpt is from a handout at a New Age Convention: "Awareness. . . Building a Better World. In Seven Days of Self-Transformation, You Will: reclaim your infinite potential; Learn how to resolve any emotional issue which limits the quality of YOUR life, in any way; Discover what Higher Consciousness is all about; Re-establish an intimate, knowledgeable relationship with YOUR HIGHER SELF. Restore all the Peace, Love, & Joy YOUR LIFE DESERVES." Learn the Ancient secrets of Creating Perfect Health within Your Being. The Essenes were the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their ability as Natural Physicians and Healers, their Psychic expertise, their knowledge of Nature, and their Mastery of the Order of the Universe is legendary. Among their adepts are Pythagoras and Jesus. The Essenes knew the secrets of healing utilizing all the elements of nature; including sun, air, water, touch, breath and centeredness. [From a handout for a seminar by David Carmos, Lecture 5/58/95, San Diego Convention Center] "The ancient prophecies of Mesoamerica pinpoint the return of Quetzalcoatl, Lord of the Dawn to the time that correlates with August 16/17, 1987 in the Gregorian Calendar. Quetzalcoatl represents the force of cosmic intelligence, the spiraling, serpentine pattern that governs the movement of all things in this universe. Quetzalcoatl is the enlightened state, the kundalini energy soaring to the crown chakra. Quetzalcoatl lives as potentiality, a seed within each one of us. 144,000 Human Beings will emerge to be the sprouting of that seed on the day of Harmonic Convergence, and will grow to flower and seed again towards the awakening of all humanity in the years that follow." [Handout from the International Sacred Sites Festival - 3/15/87] "The Key to Visualization Course teaches: The Most Powerful and Correct use of visualization The strongest and most effective visualization techniques How to easily apply the meditative technique How to remove blockages successfully How to stay focused without using mind control The process of falling apart/falling together How to release with confidence and feel light Relationships - blending of male/female energy systems The power exercise and being a transparency.

[Handout on Inner Vision Dynamics, 3419 Via Lido, Suite 346, Newport Beach, CA 92663]

1108

"The following is a guideline for interpreting the meaning of the colors in your energy field: Red - Red is the color for vitality and physical health. Red also can represent anger or the use of anger to create change. Orange: Orange is a healing color, if you have a lot of orange in your energy fie ld then you are a natural healer or you are doing some healing work on yourself. Yellow: Yellow represents personal power and/or a highly developed intellect. Green: Green represents high affinity between the body and soul. Or green could represent growth and/or changes ahead of in present time. Blue: Blue in your energy field indicates high certainty or a lot of creativity. In most cases, this represents that the individuals creative channels are clear. Violet: very psychic, much spiritual information and/or in the process of spiritual transmutation. White: This individual is a highly evolved being who has the ability to focus or concentrate his/her energy in or around the body. The following is the description for a New Age workshop. Fee $5. "FULL MOON MEDITATION. This Full Moon is called the Moon of Humanity, and the Festival of Goodwill. This time is a gateway to higher worlds, through acts of service. The Moon is in Sagittarius, sign of higher mind, philosophy, the traveler, and teacher. The Sun is in the opposite sign of Gemini, mental sign of communication and the exchange of ideas. This combination creates a time where the mind is stimulated and there is an understood duality, balance, change, resolve opposition, and seek inspiration especially outdoors in nature. The symbol is the winged Caduceus the magic wand where positive and negative energies are beautifully balanced producing light."

1109

Index

1 1 Cor. 15:3-4......................................... 416 144,000......................................... 770, 782 4 40 Objections......................................... 367 7 70AD.................................................... 392 A A priori ................................................. 154 A.D. ..................................................... 154 Aaronic Priesthood .................................. 860 Abaddon ............................................... 154 Absolution ...................................... 154, 650 Abu-Bakr ............................................ 1024 Abyss ................................................... 154 Active Obedience.................................... 154 Adam was God according to Brigham Young ..... 895 Adiaphora ............................................. 154 Adoptionism ................................. 154, 1090 Adrammelech......................................... 468 Advent.................................................. 154 age end of this age.................................... 616 age to come, the .................................... 614 Agnosticism........................................... 154 Ahaziah ................................................ 482 aionion ................................................. 607 In the NT ........................................... 607 What do Greek dictionaries say? ............ 609 Albigenses .................................... 154, 1090 Allah .................................................. 1033 Amillennialism................................. 132, 155 An open letter to Arnold Murray of Shepherd's Chapel and pre-existence................................ 709 Open Letter to .................................... 715 Anabaptists ........................................... 155 Anammelech.......................................... 468 Angel.................................................... 155 Angels .................................................. 122 fallen angels ....................................... 123 Animals Why were they sacrificed?..................... 462 Animism ............................................... 155 Annas ................................................... 525

Annihilationism...................................... 155 Anthropic Principle .................................. 155 Anthropomorphic ................................... 155 Antichrist .............................................. 155 Antinomianism....................................... 156 Antipas................................................. 390 Apocalypse............................................ 156 Apocrypha ............................................ 156 Apollinarianism ..............................156, 1091 Apollonius ............................................. 450 Apollyon ............................................... 156 Apologetics ........................................... 156 Are you an apologist? .......................... 268 Bibliography ....................................... 279 Classical............................................ 273 Cosmological argument ........................ 277 Evidential .......................................... 276 Guidelines of ...................................... 272 introduction to.................................... 266 paryer in ........................................... 271 Presuppositional ................................. 275 Teleological Argument.......................... 278 Apologetics Dialogues A satanist judges God .......................... 329 Agnostic questions the Trinity................ 297 and Jesus' resurrection ........................ 293 Atheist knows there is no God ............... 331 Can God be one person as flesh and spirit 326 Christian doubts due to school............... 288 Claims to be a god .............................. 298 claims to be one of two witnesses of Revelation ...................................... 305 Condeming words ............................... 313 Did Joseph Smith see God the Father? .... 359 Does God have a body?........................ 286 evolutionist says evolution is fact........... 318 Feelings, gods, and Joseph Smith .......... 361 Is Baptism nec. for salvation? ............... 289 Jesus' Res. Body, atonement, islam........ 282 logical absolutes as proof for God .......... 338 Mormon and Salvation and works .......... 364 Pain can make us doubt God ................. 295 reg. possibility of Jesus' resurrection ...... 310 right to say others believe falsely? ......... 302 sickness argued against God's existence . 333 What is salvation? ............................... 356 with a JW about relationship with Jesus .. 321 With a Mormon on God's nature ............. 352 with an obnoxious atheist ..................... 336 With Catholic on interpreting the Bible .... 343 with gnostic on Jesus' Res. ................... 284 with Muslim on good works ................... 323

1110

Apostasy............................................... 157 and Mormonism .................................. 877 Examples of in the church..................... 247 in the Christian Church......................... 244 Apostle ................................................. 157 Apparition ............................................. 156 Arad ..................................................... 387 Aramaic ................................................ 517 Archaeology........................................... 387 Archangel.............................................. 157 Argumentum ad hominem........................ 157 Argumentum ad judicium ......................... 157 Argumentum ad populum......................... 157 Argumentum ad verecundiam................... 157 Arianism ...................................... 157, 1091 Aristophanes.......................................... 398 Aristotle ......................................... 398, 467 Ark of the Covenant ......................... 157, 474 Armageddon .......................................... 158 Arminianism .......................................... 158 Arnold Murray Who is Arnold Murray ........................... 707 Articles, Various Angels ............................................... 122 God .................................................. 121 Is Baptism necessary for salvation? ...98, 727 Let us make man in our image............... 120 Man .................................................. 118 Moloch............................................... 126 Non-biblical records of NT events .............79 Pharisee ............................................ 125 Plurality study of Godhead .................... 130 The Elder in the Church ........................ 127 What does it mean to be a Christian?........22 Ascended Master .................................... 158 Ascension.............................................. 158 Assumption .................................... 158, 650 Assurance ............................................. 158 Astral Projection ..................................... 158 Astrology .............................................. 158 Atheism ......................................... 158, 918 "I don't see any convincing evidence for God." ............................................. 971 Additional response to criticism of .......... 952 and a predictable universe .................... 977 and ethics.......................................... 922 and Evolution...................................... 991 and logic ............................................ 993 and purpose ....................................... 991 and Santa Claus .................................. 986 and the transcendental argument ........... 995 Another response to............................. 931 Another response to criticism of ............. 949 Answer to Response to Transcendental Argument ....................................... 997 Answers to positions held by atheists...... 965 Basic Tenets of ................................... 919

Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up? ............................................... 972 Comments from atheists ...................... 967 Concerning atheist attacks on theism ..... 969 Entropy, Causality as a proof for God...... 990 If God is unchanging, why does the world change if it reveals God? .................. 976 is it viable? ........................................ 926 lack belief in a god .............................. 944 Lack of belief...................................... 963 Mistakes Atheists make ........................ 925 mistakes Christians make ..................... 923 No proof that God exists....................... 975 Objections to God's existence................ 980 Reality and God's existence .................. 979 Response to criticism of ................ 927, 946 Terms and Definitions .......................... 920 Who created God ................................ 984 worldview .......................................... 993 Atonement ............................................ 159 Atonement, the........................................ 15 Aura .................................................... 159 Autograph............................................. 159 Autonomy ............................................. 159 B Baal..................................................... 159 Babel ................................................... 159 Tower of............................................ 464 Babel, Tower of...................................... 159 Babies Massacre of........................................ 409 Where do they go when they die? .......... 464 Baptism......................................... 159, 650 1 Pet. 3:21 .......................... 108, 565, 737 Acts 2:38............................. 112, 569, 741 Does it save us? ................................. 527 for the dead ....................................... 529 for the dead in Mormonism................... 881 Gal. 3:27 ............................. 107, 564, 736 in Jesus name? ................................... 573 Is it necessary for salvation? ............ 98, 727 John 3:5.............................. 110, 567, 739 Mark 16:16 .......................... 102, 559, 731 Necessary for salvation? ....................... 289 Rom. 6:3-5 .......................... 104, 561, 733 Baptism necessary? ................................ 368 Baptismal Regeneration........................... 159 Bartimaeus ........................................... 512 Basics of Christianity..................................... 257 baths ................................................... 482 Bethel .................................................. 387 Bible .................................................... 160 and Science ....................................... 229 Answering JEDP .................................... 84 as history .......................................... 399

1111

Been rewritten too many times?............. 404 Bible, the .............................................62 Biblical Interpretation.............................87 Can it be trusted?......................... 404, 406 Copying error types ............................. 378 Day of Darkness.................................. 413 Documentary Hypothesis ........................82 evidence for Jesus' resurrection ............. 421 Evidence of inspiration ......................... 395 Evidence Supporting ............................ 381 Greek and Hebrew Alphabet ....................63 Inerrancy and Inspiration of .................. 378 Is the NT reliable? ............................... 398 JEDP Theory .........................................82 Lost books of ...................................... 412 Manuscript evidence for NT ................... 381 manuscript tree................................... 383 Miniscules 404 - 999 ..............................67 New Testament books ............................70 non biblical accounts of biblical events ......79 NT Chronology ......................................77 Old Testament books .............................68 OT Chronology ......................................75 other books mentioned in .......................74 Papyri, Miniscules 2 - 399 .......................66 Papyri, p1-p76 ......................................65 Prophecy and Jesus ...............................92 Scientific Accuracies in ...........................91 The Bible ................................................ Was NT written long after Christ? ........... 401 What is Redaction Criticism? ....................96 When written, who wrote it?....................72 Writers were biased. ............................ 406 Bible Difficulties 1 Cor 1, Pro 4, Will wisdom stand or not? 529 1 Ki 5, 2 Chr 2, how many supervisors?... 481 1 Ki 7, 2 Chr 4, How many baths? .......... 482 1 Sam 16 & 17, Did Saul know who David was? .............................................. 476 1 Sam 17 & 2 Sam 21, Who killed Golaith? ..................................................... 477 1 Sam 31 & 2 Sam 1, Who killed Saul?.... 477 2 Chr 36, 2 Ki 24, Age of Jehoiachin when he became king.................................... 483 2 Chr. 11 & 13, Who was King Abijah's mother ........................................... 483 2 Ki 24, 2 Chr 36, How long did Jehoiachin rule? .............................................. 483 2 Ki 8, 2 Chr 22, How old was Ahaiah? .... 482 2 Sam 10, 1 Chr 19, How many charioteers killed? ............................................ 478 2 Sam 23, 1 Chr 21, How many fighting men? ............................................. 479 2 Sam 24, 1 Chr 21, Did God or Satan move David to count................................. 479 2 Sam 24, 1 Chr. 21, How many years of famine? .......................................... 480

2 Sam 6 & 21, Did Michal have children or not? .............................................. 478 Act 9 & 26, After seeing the light, did Paul fall to ground or not?........................ 525 Acts 5, Rm 13, 1 Pt 2, Obey God's Law or man's? ........................................... 525 Acts 9 & 22, Men with Paul hear voice or not? .................................................... 526 Col 1, Is. 44, Is Jesus or God the creator of all things?....................................... 532 Dt. 6, Is. 43, no. of gods ...................... 468 Eph 2, Rm 3, Jm 2, Saved by grace or works? ........................................... 531 Ex 20, 23, & 31, Keep the sabbath or not? .................................................... 474 Ex 20, Dt. 5 & 24, Ez 18, Do sons bear father's sins? .................................. 475 Ex 20, Lev. 26, Dt. 5 & 27, Graven images or not? .............................................. 473 Ex. 6 & 24 & 33 & John 1, Seen God or not? .................................................... 472 Ezra 2, Neh 7, Why are statistics different? .................................................... 484 Gen 22, Jm 1, Does God tempt or not? ... 533 Gen 47, Heb 11, Did Joseph worship at bed or on a staff.................................... 532 Gen 5, 2 Ki 2, Jn 3, Did anyone ascend into heaven? ......................................... 523 Gen. 1 & 2, creation accounts ............... 467 Gen. 3, Adam where are you? ............... 469 Gen. 37 & 39, Who purchased Joseph? ... 471 Gen. 4, Where did Cain get his wife? ...... 469 Gen. 5, Did they live that long? ............. 470 Gen. 6 & 7, How many kinds in ark? ....... 471 Is 7, maiden or virgin?......................... 486 Jd 14, Is Enoch scripture?..................... 534 Jer 22, Mt 1, Did Coniah have children or not? .............................................. 488 Jer 32, Jud 1, Is the Lord omnipotent or not? .................................................... 488 Jn 5 & 8, Was Jesus a witness of Himself or not? .............................................. 524 Job 1, Why did God allow Satan to afflict Job? .................................................... 485 Jonah 3, Did God destroy Nineveh or not?489 Jonah 3:10, Does God change? ............. 470 Lk 14, 1 Jn 3, Are we to hate or not?...... 523 Mal 3, Gen 6, John 3, Does the Lord change or not?........................................... 489 Mal. 3:6, Does God change? ................. 470 Mk 1, Jn 1, What did Jesus do after meeting John the Baptist?............................. 509 Mk 16, Is the ending of Mark really scripture? .................................................... 522 Mk 6, Mt 10, Lk 9, Take a staff or not?.... 511 Mt 1, Lk 3, Why different genealogies for Jesus? ........................................... 490 Mt 11, Jn 1, Was John the Baptist Elijah? 502

1112

Mt 11, Lk 7, Jn 1, When did John find out Jesuswas the Messiah? ...................... 500 Mt 12 & 28, Mk 16, Lk 24, Jn 20, How long was Jesus in the tomb? ..................... 503 Mt 12, Mk 3, Act 13, Forgiven of all sins or not?............................................... 511 Mt 17, Mk 9, Lk 9, After how many days did Jesus take the men up the moutain?.... 505 Mt 20, Mk 10, Lk 18, How many blind men did Jesus meet? ............................... 512 Mt 20, Mk 10, Who requested to sit beside Jesus? ............................................ 505 Mt 21, Mk 11, Did the tree wither immediately or not?.......................... 513 Mt 21, Mk 11, Lk 19, One or two animals brought to Jesus?............................. 512 Mt 21, Mk 11, Lk 19, When did Jesus cleanse the Temple? .................................... 506 Mt 26, Jn 18, Who did Jesus see first after his arrest? ........................................... 525 Mt 26, Lk 22, Jn 12, Mk 14, Did the cock crow once or twice?.......................... 506 Mt 26, Mk 14, Lk 22, Jn 18, Who arrested Jesus? ............................................ 515 Mt 27, Act 1, How did Judas die? ............ 508 Mt 27, Mk 14, Lk 23, Jn 19, were the women close or far from thecross?................. 518 Mt 27, Mk 15, Lk 23, Jn 19, Last words of Jesus? ............................................ 518 Mt 27, Mk 15, Lk 23, Jn 19, What written on the sign on the cross? ....................... 517 Mt 27, Mk 15, Lk 23, Jn 19, Who carried Jesus' cross? ................................... 516 Mt 27, Mk 15, vinegar, gall, or myrrh given to Jesus? ........................................ 508 Mt 28, Mk 16, Lk 24, Jn 20, 1 Cor 15, Who saw Jesus first?................................ 521 Mt 28, Mk 16, Lk 24, Jn 20, Did the women tell what happened or not?................. 521 Mt 28, Mk 16, Lk 24, Jn 20, How many angels appeared at the tomb? ............ 519 Mt 28, Mk 16, Lk 24, Jn 20, What did the angels tell Mary? .............................. 519 Mt 4, Jn 1, Where did Jesus first meet Simon and Andrew? ................................... 494 Mt 4, Lk 4, Where did the Devil first take Jesus? ............................................ 492 Mt 5 & 23, Ps 14, Call someone a fool or not? ..................................................... 497 Mt 5 & 6 & 23, 1 Pt. 2, Should we let our good works be seen? ........................ 496 Mt 5, Lk 11, Who did Jesus tell the Lord's prayer to?....................................... 495 Mt 8, Lk 7, Who brougt Centurion's request to Jesus? ........................................ 497 Mt 9, Mk 2, Lk 5, Was the taxman named Matthew or Levi?.............................. 499

Mt 9, Mk 5, Was Jairus' daughter alive or dead? ............................................ 499 Ps 104, Ecc 1, Is 65, 2 Pt 3, Earth abide forever or not? ................................ 533 Ps 145, Lam 3, Is God good or bad to people?.......................................... 487 Ps 5, Prv 6, Hos 9, Does God hate or love people?.......................................... 485 Rm 15, Is 2, Ex 14, Jel, 3, Is the Lord of Peace or War? ................................. 528 Rm 3, Ps 14, Job 1, Have allpeople sinned or not? .............................................. 527 Rm 5, Eph 2, Act 2, 1 Pt 3, Saved by faith or baptism? ........................................ 527 Rm 9, Did God harden Pharaoh's heart?.. 528 What hour was Jesus crucified? ............. 517 Bible Difficulties1 Cor 15 Baptism for the dead ........................... 529 Bible Knowledge Commentary on 1 Cor. 15 29. Dallas Seminary Faculty. Gal 6, Do we bear one another's burderns or not? ....................................... 531 Gen 22, Heb 11, Gal 4, How many children did Abraham have? ....................... 530 Bible Verses 1 Chron. 29:20................................... 811 Col. 1:15 ........................................... 831 Col. 1:16 ........................................... 832 Heb. 1:6..................................... 834, 836 John 1:1............................................ 814 John 17:3 .......................................... 823 John 20:28 ........................................ 815 John 5:30-32 ..................................... 816 John 8:58 .......................................... 817 John 8:58 & 10:30-33.......................... 821 Matt. 3:3 ........................................... 813 Biblical Concepts NT concepts found in OT ...................... 448 Bibliography .......................................... 547 Blasphemy ............................................ 160 Book of Abraham ................................... 852 Book of Life ........................................... 160 Book of Mormon..................................... 859 12 Essential LDS doctrines not found in... 849 a quick look at .................................... 848 errors in ............................................ 878 many changes in................................. 850 more correct than the Bible .................. 893 praying about ..................................... 885 praying about it .................................. 848 Praying about it .................................. 876 verses Mormon doctrine ....................... 848 Born Again............................................ 160 Brigham Young ........................ 858, 887, 894 damned if you deny polygamy ............... 894 shed your own blood to atone for some sins .................................................... 894 the Father and Mary "do it' ................... 895

1113

Bruce McConkie ........................ 859, 887, 898 C Caesar.................................................. 398 Caiaphas ............................................... 525 Caliph ................................................. 1034 Calvinism .............................................. 160 Canon................................................... 160 Canopy theory ....................................... 470 Capernaum............................................ 387 Capital sins............................................ 160 Catholic ................................................ 160 Causality............................................... 160 Ceasar.................................................. 467 Ceasar, Tiberius ..................................... 391 CELESTIAL ............................................ 860 Centurion .............................................. 497 Chakra .................................................. 160 Channeling ............................................ 161 charioteers ............................................ 478 Charismatic Gifts.................................... 161 Chemosh............................................... 468 Chiliasm................................................ 161 Chorazin ............................................... 387 Christ ................................................... 161 Deity of ...............................................11 is Jesus ............................................. 701 Christadelphianism ................................. 669 and God's greatest act of love................ 692 and John 1:1. Word became flesh........... 677 Did Jesus have a sin nature ................... 682 history of ........................................... 671 interesting quotes from ........................ 681 Is God ever seen?................................ 679 is it Christian?..................................... 672 Jesus and the CD fallen nature view of .... 689 Jesus sacrifice blemished according to..... 686 Questions for members ........................ 692 view of the Holy Spirit .......................... 691 What does it teach? ............................. 670 Christian ............................................... 161 What does it mean to be a Christian?........22 What kind are you?.............................. 255 Christian Church Answers to questions on basics.............. 259 Apostasy in ........................................ 244 Are you comfortable? ........................... 262 Do you know the basics? ...................... 257 Examples of apostasy in ....................... 247 Need for unity in ................................. 240 Should unbelievers lead worship? ........... 253 Signs it is become secular..................... 249 the elder in the church ......................... 251 There is pride in .................................. 242 to the... ............................................. 234 What is it supposed to be? .................... 238 What is it?.......................................... 236

What kind of a Christian are you? .......... 255 Christian Doctrine.......................................1 Christian Issues Christian Family .................................. 227 Education .......................................... 223 Elements of........................................ 222 Failure of the Christian Church .............. 231 Homosexuality.................................... 225 Science ............................................. 229 What is a Christian World View .............. 220 Christian Science.................................... 695 History of .......................................... 697 Interesting quotes from Mary Baker Eddy 703 is it Christian? .................................... 698 Jesus is the Christ ............................... 701 Questions to ask Christian scientists....... 704 Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures....................................... 698 Terms and Definitions of....................... 699 What does it teach?............................. 696 Christianity Is it the only true religion?.................... 461 Why believe in it above all others? ......... 453 Why believe over other religions ............ 987 Christology............................................ 161 Church ................................................. 161 Church, the............................................8 Failure of ........................................... 231 Unity needed in .................................. 240 Circumcision.......................................... 161 Codex .................................................. 162 Cognitive relativism...............................1006 colt...................................................... 513 Common Grace...................................... 162 Communion........................................... 162 Condemnation ....................................... 162 Conditional immortality ........................... 162 Confession ..................................... 162, 650 Confessional.......................................... 162 Confirmation ......................................... 162 Confusion God the author of or not? ..................... 464 Coniah ................................................. 488 Consecration ......................................... 650 Conspiracy concerning the NT writers ..................... 425 Consubstantiation .................................. 162 Contradictions in Watchtower literature ....................... 805 More, of Watchtower literature .............. 806 Contrition ...................................... 163, 650 Conversion............................................ 163 Conviction............................................. 163 Coptic .................................................. 163 Copyist Errors Dittography ........................................ 466 Fission .............................................. 466 Fusion ............................................... 466

1114

Haplography ....................................... 466 Homophony ........................................ 466 Metathesis ......................................... 466 Cornuke ................................................ 411 Cosmological argument ........................... 163 Cosmological Argument ........................... 277 Cosmology ............................................ 163 Covenant ..................................24, 163, 570 Divisions in the cov. of grace...................29 Eternal ................................................24 of Grace...............................................25 Two Main Covenants ..............................28 Covenant Theology ................................. 163 Creation ................................................ 163 Cross Did Jesus die on a cross? ...................... 440 Crucifixion Chronology of, table............................. 537 of Jesus ............................................. 128 Crucifixion, of Jesus ................................ 128 Cult ...................................................... 164 Cults An easy way to witness to LDS and JW's .. 760 and non-verifiability............................. 746 Can we make these judgments?............. 754 Comparison Chart................................ 751 general analysis of............................... 746 How do you get people out of?............... 748 How people are kept in ......................... 747 Justification and Sanctification ............... 753 Recruitment techniques ........................ 747 The True Jesus.................................... 764 What about testimonies of cultists?......... 758 What is a cult?.................................... 746 What is the truth? ............................... 755 What makes a group a cult?.................. 749 Who is vulnerable to?........................... 747 D Dagon .................................................. 468 Damnation ............................................ 164 Dan...................................................... 387 Dawah................................................ 1034 Death ................................................... 164 of Jesus, why necessary? ...................... 463 Decalogue ............................................. 164 Decrees, of God...................................... 164 Deduction.............................................. 164 Deism................................................... 164 Demon ................................................. 165 Demosthenes ......................................... 398 Deontology ............................................ 165 Depravity.............................................. 164 Determinism.......................................... 165 Deuterocanonical.................................... 412 Devil .................................................... 165 Dialectic ................................................ 165

Dichotomy ..................................... 118, 165 Didactics............................................... 165 Digs and archaeology ................................. 387 Diocese ................................................ 165 Disciple ................................................ 165 Dispensation, dispensationalism................ 165 Dittography ........................................... 378 Divination ............................................. 165 Divininity Jesus is God ......................................... 50 Divinity ................................................ 165 Docetism ......................................166, 1092 Doctrine ............................................... 166 3 essential doctrines .............................. 11 Atonement, the .................................... 15 Basic Doctrine ...................................... 10 Christian............................................ 1, 2 Covenant ............................................. 24 Early Trinitarian quotes .......................... 58 Elder, the .......................................... 127 of JW's .............................................. 770 Plurality of Godhead ............................ 130 The Trinity, what is it? ........................... 53 Trinity...................................................4 Trinity Chart, the .................................. 55 Trinity, another look at .......................... 56 Doctrine and Covenants .......................... 859 Documentary Hypothesis ........................... 82 Answering the ...................................... 84 Dogma ................................................. 166 Donatism......................................166, 1092 donkey ................................................. 513 Dowsing ............................................... 166 Dualism................................................ 166 E Early Creed ........................................... Ecclesiology .......................................... Edify .................................................... Efficacy ................................................ Eisegesis .............................................. Elder in the church...................................... in the Church ..................................... office of............................................. Qualifications for................................. Responsibilities of ............................... Elect, Election........................................ election ................................................ and universalism................................. Elijah ................................................... Empiricism............................................ Enoch................................................... Entropy and God's existence............................. Ephesus................................................ 416 166 166 166 166 251 127 127 127 127 167 631 631 502 167 534 990 388

1115

Epimenides............................................ 534 Epistemology ......................................... 167 Eschatology ........................................... 167 Amill and Premil Chart .......................... 132 Final Judgment ...................................... 9 Millennium ............................................ 8 New Heaveans & Earth ............................ 9 Rapture, the .......................................... 9 Essentials of the faith.............................. 244 Eternal life............................................. 167 Eternal punishment ................................. 626 Eternal Security...................................... 167 Ethics ................................................... 167 Eucharist........................................ 167, 650 Euripedes .............................................. 467 Euripides............................................... 398 Eutychianism ......................................... 167 Evangelism............................................ 199 3 important verses in ........................... 203 and prayer .................................. 205, 209 and salvation ...................................... 205 and the Holy Spirit............................... 205 C.P.R. ................................................ 215 Do's and Don'ts................................... 211 Foundations........................................ 201 Four Spiritual Laws .............................. 214 Go witness ......................................... 218 Isaiah 55:11 ....................................... 203 John 12:32......................................... 204 Lamp Analogy ..................................... 206 Law and Gospel................................... 212 Leading someone to the Lord................. 217 Romans 1:16...................................... 204 Scripture memorization ........................ 207 The Roman Road ................................. 214 Why witness? ..................................... 200 Evidence and Answers Inerrancy and Inspiration...................... 378 Evil ...................................................... 168 Evolution............................................... 168 Evolutionary Godood ............................. 1100 Exaltation....................................... 860, 890 Excommunication ................................... 168 Existentialism ........................................ 168 Expiation............................................... 168 Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary evidence .............. 418 F Faith .................................................... 168 Faithful and Discreet Slave ................ 782, 784 Fall, The................................................ 168 False Prophet ......................................... 168 Falsifiability ........................................... 169 Family .................................................. 227 Fast, Fasting .......................................... 169 Fatalism................................................ 169

Federal Headship ................................... 475 Fellowship ............................................. 169 Fideism ................................................ 169 fig tree ................................................. 513 Filioque ................................................ 169 Final Judgment ..........................................9 Firstborn............................................... 169 Fission.................................................. 378 Flesh and Blood ..................................... 442 Fool .............................................. 170, 497 Foreknow, Foreknowledge........................ 170 Forgiveness........................................... 169 Free Knowledge ..................................... 170 Free will ............................................... 170 Freethinker ........................................... 170 Fusion .................................................. 378 G gall...................................................... 508 Gaza .................................................... 388 Gehenna............................................... 170 Genealogy ............................................ 490 Gentile ................................................. 170 Gifts, Spiritual Gifts ................................ 170 Global unity..........................................1100 Gnosticism....................................171, 1093 God .............................................. 121, 171 does He hate anyone?.......................... 618 God ......................................................3 Holy Spirit, the ................................. 7, 14 Jesus is God ......................................... 50 Jesus is God verses ............................... 31 Plurality of ......................................... 130 Seen in the OT ................................... 577 Who is God?......................................... 13 Would he send people to hell? ............... 459 Gods, False ........................................... 171 Goliath ................................................. 477 Gospel.................................................. 171 According to Mormonism ...................... 861 for Muslims .......................................1018 Law and gospel..................................... 19 What is it? ......................................... 579 What is the Gospel?........................ 99, 728 Gospels and Q ............................................... 407 When written, by whom? ...................... 392 Grace................................................... 172 Graven Images ...................................... 473 Great White Brotherhood ......................... 172 Guilt .................................................... 172 H Hades .................................................. 172 Hadith..............1034, 1070, 1071, 1077, 1079 and forgiveness .................................1077 and Jihad..........................................1053

1116

Interesting quotes from...................... 1073 Interesting Quotes from ..................... 1079 Interesting quotes on Jihad ................. 1081 Quotes about Muhammad ................... 1083 quotes about Satan............................ 1085 Hagar ................................................... 471 Hajj.................................................... 1032 Halbrook ............................................... 411 Hallucination .......................................... 428 Hamartiology ......................................... 172 Haplography .......................................... 378 Hazor ................................................... 388 Heaven ................................................. 172 According to Mormonism....................... 861 the three heavens ............................... 524 Heber C. Kimball ............................. 887, 898 Hedonism.............................................. 172 Hegira ........................................1023, 1034 Hell ...................................................... 172 According to Mormonism....................... 861 Is hell eternal? .................................... 620 Loving God would never send people to... 459 unquenchable fire ................................ 621 Henotheism ........................................... 173 Heresies Adoptionism ..................................... 1090 Albigenses........................................ 1090 Apollinarianism ................................. 1091 Arianism .......................................... 1091 Docetism ......................................... 1092 Donatism ......................................... 1092 Gnosticism ....................................... 1093 Kenosis ............................................ 1094 Modalism ......................................... 1094 Monarchianism.................................. 1095 Monophysitism.................................. 1095 Nestorianism .................................... 1096 Pelagianism...................................... 1096 Socinianism...................................... 1097 Tritheism ......................................... 1097 Heresy.................................................. 173 Herod ................................................... 390 Herodotus ...................................... 398, 467 Hesbon ................................................. 388 Heterodoxy ............................................ 173 High Priest ............................................ 525 Annas and Caiaphas............................. 525 Higher Self ............................................ 173 Historians Josephus, Flavius ................................ 384 Lucian ..........................................81, 386 Pliny the Younger ...........................80, 385 Tacitus .........................................79, 385 Thallus .........................................80, 385 History of Jehovah's Witnesses ......................... 771 Holy Orders .................................... 173, 650 Holy Spirit

Holy Spirit .............................................7 view of Christadelphians....................... 691 Holy Spirit, the ........................................ 14 Holy Spirit, The...................................... 173 Holy Water..................................... 173, 650 Holy, Holiness........................................ 173 Homer........................................... 398, 467 Homiletics............................................. 173 Homophony ........................................... 378 Homosexuality................................ 225, 226 What does the Bible say about it? .......... 225 Humanism ............................................ 173 Humility ............................................... 174 Hypostatic Union............................... 30, 174 I Idol, Idolatry ......................................... 174 Iliad .............................................. 398, 467 Image of God ........................................ 174 Immaculate Conception........................... 174 Immortality........................................... 175 Immutability ......................................... 174 Impute, Imputation ................................ 175 In facto ................................................ 175 In fieri .................................................. 175 Incarnation ........................................... 175 Induction .............................................. 175 Indulgence..................................... 175, 650 Inerrancy.............................................. 175 Infant baptism....................................... 176 Infidel .................................................. 176 Infinity ................................................. 176 Infralapsarianism ................................... 176 Injil ....................................................1034 Inspiration ............................................ 176 of the Bible ........................................ 395 Intermediate state.................................. 176 International Church of Christ Authority and Submission..................... 723 Baptism............................................. 724 Church Structure ................................ 722 Discipleship........................................ 723 Doctrines of ....................................... 722 History of .......................................... 722 Is it Christian or cult? .......................... 719 The ICC, an outline ............................. 722 What does it teach?............................. 719 Interpretation of the Bible .......................................... 87 Irenaeus ............................................... 393 ISAAC .................................................. 530 Isalm and the Hadith on Jihad ......................1081 Salat................................................1032 Ishmaelites ........................................... 471 Islam ...........................................667, 1017 Abu-Bakr..........................................1024

1117

Adam was 90 feet tall......................... 1073 Allah ............................................... 1033 and angels ....................................... 1075 and Paul the Apostle .......................... 1037 and the Bible .................................... 1036 and the greatest act of love................. 1050 and the Quran .................................. 1074 and women ...................................... 1069 Angels ............................................. 1040 bibliography ..................................... 1088 Chronology of early Islam ................... 1026 Comparison grid with Christianity......... 1040 Contradictions in Quran ...................... 1065 Crucifixion........................................ 1040 Differences between the Bible and the Quran ................................................... 1048 Divisions within................................. 1029 Doctrines of...................................... 1031 Does Islam teach salvation by works ..... 1042 fight all people until they worship Allah . 1073 Five pillars of .................................... 1031 God ................................................ 1040 God can't be tempted, yet Jesus was tempted ....................................... 1060 God could not become man ................. 1061 Hadith quotes about Muhammad .......... 1083 Hadith quotes about Satan.................. 1085 Hajj ................................................ 1032 Hegira ............................................. 1023 If Jesus is God, who'd He pray to? ........ 1059 Interesting quotes about women .......... 1069 Interesting Quotes from ..................... 1073 Interesting quotes from Hadith ....1077, 1079 Is the Trinity possible? ....................... 1055 Jesus............................................... 1041 Jesus cannot be God's son .................. 1058 Jihad ............................................... 1052 Ka'aba ............................................. 1023 Khadijah .......................................... 1026 Madina ............................................ 1023 Mecca.............................................. 1024 Methods used to attack Christianity ...... 1036 Muhammad ...................................... 1022 Questions for Muslims ................1045, 1047 Quraish ........................................... 1023 Quran.............................................. 1025 Quran quotes.................................... 1067 Salvation ......................................... 1041 Saum .............................................. 1032 Shahada .......................................... 1032 Shiites............................................. 1020 Sufi................................................. 1030 Sunnites .......................................... 1020 Surah.............................................. 1025 terms used in ................................... 1034 The gospel for Muslims ....................... 1018 the Hadith........................................ 1070 The Trinity makes no sense ................. 1056

True faith in ......................................1033 What is Islam? ...................................1020 Why must God die for our sins? ............1063 Women can be mortgaged ...................1075 Zakat ...............................................1032 J Jairus ................................................... 499 James Talmage ........................ 859, 896, 899 Jeconiah ............................................... 488 JEDP Answering JEDP .................................... 84 JEDP theory ............................................ 82 Jehoiachin............................................. 483 Jehovah................................................ 176 Performed greatest act of love? ............. 775 Jehovah's Witnesses 1914, 607 BC, & 586BC ....................... 802 and 1 Cor. 1:2 .................................... 825 and Col. 1:15 ..................................... 831 and Col. 1:16 ..................................... 832 and Heb. 1:6 ...................................... 834 and Heb. 1:8 & Psalm 45:6 ................... 836 and John 1:1 ...................................... 814 and John 17:3 .................................... 823 and John 8:58 .................................... 817 and John 8:58 & 10:30-33.................... 821 and Matt. 3:3 ..................................... 813 and mental health ............................... 792 and NWT translation ............................ 791 and resurrection of Jesus...................... 808 and the 144,000 ................................. 782 and the Trinity.................................... 780 Annihilation........................................ 779 Anointed Class.................................... 782 are they Christian? .............................. 772 biblical response to.............................. 793 Controlled by the Watchtower? .............. 777 deny Trinity ....................................... 780 doctrine not from Bible alone ................ 804 Doctrine of......................................... 770 Faithful and Discreet Slave ................... 782 Faithful and Discreet Slave? .................. 784 false prophecies of .............................. 800 Follow the Watchtower......................... 773 History of .......................................... 771 in a nutshell ....................................... 768 Jesus died on stake or cross? ................ 810 Questions for...................................... 781 Russell, Charles Taze........................... 785 soul, immortality................................. 799 Jeric ho .......................................... 388, 390 Jesus ............................................ 176, 756 100 truths about ................................... 36 According to Mormonism ...................... 861 as firstborn ........................................ 831

1118

Christians mistaken about His resurrection ............................... 424 Crucifixion of ...................................... 128 Deity of ............................................. 133 Did He inherit original sin? .................... 443 Did He really die on a cross? ................. 440 Did Jesus rise fro m the dead? ................ 441 die on stake or cross ............................ 810 Disciples faked His resurrection.............. 431 fallen nature according to Christadelphians .............................. 689 God can't be tempted, yet Jesus was tempted ....................................... 1060 God could not become man ................. 1061 had a sin nature to Christadelphians ....... 682 His miracles explained naturally?............ 444 His resurrection improbable ................... 423 If Jesus is not God, then... ......................52 is a man now ........................................47 is God now ...........................................50 Is he the everlasting Father? ................. 578 is the Christ........................................ 701 Jehovah is Jesus....................................33 Jesus.................................................... 6 Jesus is God verses................................31 Miracles of ......................................... 380 only appeared to die ............................ 429 Resurrection and Ascension ................... 576 Resurrection literal? ............................. 293 Resurrection of ..............................41, 421 Resurrection, objections to......................43 The True Jesus......................................34 to John the Apostle ................................38 Two Natures of .....................................30 Was He a magician?............................. 428 Was He just a myth? ............................ 437 Was He raised as a spirit? ..................... 442 What did He come to do? ........................46 Who did He pray to? ............................ 575 Who'd He pray to? ............................. 1059 Why must God die for our sins? ........... 1063 Why was His death necessary? .............. 463 Jesus Only Movement .............................. 177 Jesus Resurrection dialogue on ........................................ 310 Jews..................................................... 177 Jihad .................................1034, 1052, 1081 and the Hadith..........................1053, 1081 and the Quran .................................. 1052 Jinn............................................1034, 1075 Joab ..................................................... 480 Job....................................................... 485 John Taylor............................................ 858 John the Baptist ................ 391, 500, 502, 509 Joppa ................................................... 389 Joseph Fielding Smith....................... 859, 887 Joseph Smith ......................................... 858 Interested quotes from......................... 893

need consent of to enter heaven............ 894 Josephus, Flavius ....................... 79, 384, 390 mentions biblical cities and people ......... 390 Regarding quotes about Jesus. .............. 414 Testimonium Flavianum ....................... 414 Judas ................................................... 508 die by hanging or falling? ..................... 508 Judgment ............................................. 177 Just, Justice .......................................... 177 Justification........................................8, 753 Council of Trent .................................. 660 Verses showing j. by faith..................... 725 Justify, Justification ................................ 177 K Ka'aba........................................ 1023, 1034 Karma .................................................. 178 Kenites................................................. 711 Kenosis ........................................178, 1094 Khadijah..............................................1026 Kingdom of God ..................................... 178 Koran ......................................... 1025, 1041 see Quran.........................................1065 L Lack of belief ......................................... 963 Laity .................................................... 178 Lake of fire ............................................ 624 Lamanites............................................. 845 Latin .................................................... 517 Law ..................................................... 178 different from the gospel...................... 212 Law and gospel..................................... 19 Law and Gospel ..................................... 212 Law of non-contradiction ......................... 178 Laying on of hands ................................. 179 Lent ..................................................... 650 Liberalism............................................. 179 Limited atonement ................................. 179 Livy ..................................................... 398 Logic .................................................... 179 Common ground with unbelievers?......... 270 Is it enough? ...................................... 270 Logos ................................................... 179 Lord's Supper........................................ 179 Lost books of the Bible ........................................ 412 Lucian ............................................. 81, 386 Lucretius .............................................. 398 M Maacah ................................................ 483 Madina ................................................1023 Man .............................................. 118, 179 Dichotomy or Trichotomy ..................... 118 Made in image of God .......................... 120

1119

Manuscript ............................................ 179 Manuscripts of the Bible ........................................ 383 Martyr .................................................. 179 Mary .................................................... 652 Catholic titles for................................. 652 Did she have other children? ................. 653 Mary Baker Eddy Interesting quotes from........................ 703 Mass ............................................. 180, 650 Materialism............................................ 180 Means of Grace ...................................... 180 Mecca.........................................1024, 1025 Mediation, Mediator................................. See Medina .......................................1025, 1034 Melchizedek Priesthood According to Mormonism....................... 862 Memorization of scripture ......................................... 207 Mental Health and Jehovah's Witnesses ...................... 792 Mercy ................................................... 180 Messiah ................................................ 180 Metaphysics........................................... 180 Metathesis............................................. 378 Methuselah ............................................ 470 Micaiah ................................................. 483 Michal................................................... 478 Middle Knowledge ................................... 181 Midianites.............................................. 471 Millennium......................................... 8, 181 Minuscule .............................................. 181 Miracle.................................................. 181 Miracles Cannot happen ................................... 436 of Jesus ............................................. 380 of Jesus explained naturally? ................. 444 Mithra ................................................... 451 Modalism ..................................... 181, 1094 Molech.................................................. 468 Moloch.................................................. 126 Monarchianism.............................. 181, 1095 Monergism ............................................ 181 Monism................................................. 181 Monolatry .............................................. 181 Monophycitism....................................... 181 Monophysitism..................................... 1095 Monotheism........................................... 182 Moral government theology ...................... 182 Moral/ethical relativism.......................... 1006 Mormonism ........................................... 182 a look at the Book of Mormon ................ 848 Aaronic Priesthood ............................... 860 and Baptism for the dead...................... 881 and Preexistence................................. 862 and terminology .................................. 875 and the Bible ...................................... 860 and the gospel .................................... 876

and the negro ..................................... 891 and the priesthood .............................. 877 and the true Jesus............................... 882 Baptism............................................. 860 Biblical Response to............................. 875 Book of Abraham ................................ 852 Brigham Young said...................... 858, 887 Bruce McConkie said ..................... 859, 887 Celestial Heaven ................................. 860 Church statistics................................. 856 Church structure ................................. 857 Doctrine and Covenants ....................... 859 doctrine of compared to Christianity....... 879 Does it attack other religions? ............... 858 Elohim .............................................. 873 Exa ltation .......................................... 860 God once a man ................................. 893 Godhead............................................ 861 Gospel .............................................. 861 has a different Jesus............................ 889 Heaven ............................................. 861 Heber C. Kimball said .......................... 887 Hell .................................................. 861 Hinkley says....................................... 889 History of .......................................... 845 Holy Ghost ......................................... 861 Holy Spirit ......................................... 861 in a nutshell ....................................... 844 Is it Christian?.................................... 846 James Talmage................................... 896 James Talmage said ............................ 859 Jehovah ............................................ 873 Jesus born of a virgin? ......................... 887 John Taylor said.................................. 858 Joseph Fielding Smith said ............. 859, 887 Joseph Smith said ........................ 858, 893 Lamanites.......................................... 845 Many changes in ................................. 850 many gods according to ....................... 893 Mormon objections answered ................ 884 Mormon plan of exaltation .................... 890 Mormon words done mean the same thing as Christain ones ................................. 860 Mormonism Unvailed ........................... 901 Nephites............................................ 845 praying about the BOM ........................ 885 Quotes from Brigham Young ................. 894 Quotes from various Mormons ............... 898 S.H.I.E.L.D.S...................................... 863 their testimony ................................... 875 thinking of joining?.............................. 840 Trinity is three gods............................. 893 verses the Book of Mormon................... 849 What does it teach?............................. 842 Mormonism Unvailed Abigail Harris...................................... 910 Cunningham, Artemas ......................... 912 defended ........................................... 902

1120

Harris, Lucy........................................ 910 Howard, Nahum .................................. 914 Miller, John N. ..................................... 915 Mr. Howe ........................................... 905 Nichols, Roswell .................................. 916 Philastus Hurlbut ................................. 901 Smith, Oliver ...................................... 914 Stafford, Joshua .................................. 916 Stafford,Barton ................................... 908 Mortal Sin ...................................... 182, 650 Mosque ............................................... 1034 Muhammad ...... 1022, 1034, 1041, 1065, 1083 first muslim was who?........................ 1065 Quotes about in Hadith....................... 1083 said more women in hell than men ....... 1083 was a sinner, Hadith .......................... 1083 Murray, Arnold Open letter to..................................... 715 Muslim the gospel for them ........................... 1018 Muslims Methods used to attack Christianity ...... 1036 Questions for .................................... 1045 Shi'ite ............................................. 1029 Sunni .............................................. 1029 Myrrh ................................................... 508 Myth Was Jesus a mythical figure? ................. 437 N Natural knowledge .................................. 182 Naturalism ............................................ 182 Neo-orthodoxy ....................................... 182 Nephites ............................................... 845 Nestorianism ................................ 182, 1096 New Age Movement Biblical response to............................ 1105 More on the NAB ............................... 1103 Quotes from New Age sources ............. 1107 Terminology ..................................... 1103 Two basic beliefs ............................... 1100 view of man ..................................... 1104 View of salvation ............................... 1104 What is it?........................................ 1100 Witnessing to those in ........................ 1106 New Testament ...................................... 398 Can we trust it?................................... 398 NT writers conspired together................ 425 Written long after Christ?...................... 401 New World Translation............................. 775 and "proskuneo" (worship) .................... 788 Bias Translation of ............................... 791 Nineveh ......................................... 389, 489 Non biblical accounts of Bible events.......... 384 Non-essentials ....................................... 244 Nun...................................................... 182

O Objectivism........................................... 182 Occam's Razor....................................... 183 Occult .................................................. 183 Omnipotence......................................... 183 Omnipresence ....................................... 183 Omniscience.......................................... 183 Onan.................................................... 472 Oneness Pentecostal........................ 549, 554 and the word 'person' .......................... 552 Answers to questions ........................... 582 Baptism necessary for salvation? ........... 555 Questions for...................................... 581 What does it teach?............................. 551 What is oneness? ................................ 550 Witnessing to them ............................. 580 Ontological Argument ............................. 183 Ontology............................................... 183 Oracles................................................. 183 Ordination............................................. 183 Ordo salutis ........................................... 183 Original Sin .................................... 184, 651 Did Jesus inherit it?............................. 443 Orson Pratt ........................................... 899 Orthodoxy ............................................. 184 P Panentheism ......................................... 184 Pantheism............................................. 184 Papias .................................................. 393 Papyri Miniscules 2 - 399 ................................. 66 Miniscules 404 - 999.............................. 67 p1-p76, 200-700 A.D. ............................ 65 Papyrus ................................................ 184 Parable ................................................. 184 Parables ............................................... 135 Fig Tree, Luke 13:1-9 .......................... 139 Good Samaritan, Luke 10:25-37 ............ 145 Great Banquet, Luke 14:15-24 .............. 136 Prodigal Son, Luke 15:1-32 .................. 142 Unjust Steward, Luke 16:1-8 ................ 148 Paradise ............................................... 184 Parapsychology ...................................... 184 Parousia ............................................... 184 Paul Fall to ground after seeing Jesus or not? . 525 Pedobaptism ......................................... 184 Pelagianism...................................184, 1096 Penance ........................................ 185, 651 Pentateuch............................................ 185 Pentecost.............................................. 185 Permissive decree .................................. 185 Perseverance......................................... 185 Person.................................................. 185 personhood ........................................... 552 Pharaoh................................................ 528

1121

Pharisee......................................... 125, 185 Philosophy ............................................. 185 Plato ............................................. 398, 467 Pliny ................................................80, 398 Pliny the Younger ................................... 385 Pluralism............................................... 186 Pneumatology ........................................ 186 Polygam in Mormonism..................................... 894 Polytheism ............................................ 186 Pontius Pilate......................................... 391 Pope.............................................. 186, 651 Postmillennialism.................................... 186 Postmodernism ...................................... 186 Pragmatism ........................................... 186 Prayer ........................................... 186, 205 and apologetics................................... 271 and evangelism................................... 209 Hindrances to ..................................... 210 Pre-Adamites ......................................... 186 Predestination........................................ 187 Pre-existence......................................... 187 and Shepherd's Chapel......................... 709 Premillennialism .............................. 132, 187 Presuppositions ...................................... 418 Preterition ............................................. 187 Priest ............................................ 187, 651 Proofs for God Transcendental Argument ..................... 995 Prophecy............................................... 395 concerning Jesus ...................................92 false prophecies of Watchtower.............. 800 Prophet................................................. 187 Propitiation ............................................ 187 Pseudepigraphal..................................... 412 Punishment Eternal .............................................. 626 Purgatory ......................... 187, 651, 655, 658 and justification by faith ....................... 656 Does it deny sufficiency of Christ's Sacrifice? ..................................................... 656 Problems with the doctrine .................... 655 Q Q 407 Quelle ................................................... 407 Quotes from Brigham Young ............................ 894 from Brigham Young, LDS ..................... 894 from James Talmage, LDS ..................... 896 from Joseph Smith, LDS ....................... 893 From Mormons.................................... 893 From New Age sources ....................... 1107 from various Mormons.......................... 898 from Watchtower................................. 797 Quraish.......................................1023, 1035 Quran ................................1025, 1048, 1074

Compared to the Bible ........................1048 Contradictions in ................................1065 Interesting quotes in ..........................1067 is the Bible corrupt? ...........................1049 Surah ..............................................1025 verses in cancelled?............................1074 R Ramadhan ...........................................1035 Rapture ................................................ 188 and Shepherd's Chapel ........................ 713 Rapture, the...........................................9 Rationalism........................................... 188 Reconcile, Reconciliation.......................... 188 Redaction Criticism................................... 96 Redemption........................................... 188 Regeneration ......................................... 188 Reincarnation ........................................ 188 Relativism............................................. 189 An illustration ....................................1013 Cognitive ................................. 1006, 1010 Ethical..................................... 1006, 1008 Refuting relativsm..............................1011 Situational........................................1006 What is it? ........................................1006 What is truth? ...................................1015 Religion ................................................ 189 Repentance........................................... 189 Resurrection..............................................8 Christians mistaken about Jesus' ........... 424 Did Jesus rise from the dead?................ 441 Didn't Jesus rise as a spirit?.................. 442 No non-biblical accounts of Jesus' .......... 434 Objections to Jesus'............................... 43 of Jesus............................................. 421 of Jesus faked by disciples .................... 431 Of Jesus improbable ............................ 423 of Jesus, physical.................................. 41 Watchtower view of Jesus'.................... 808 Resurrection of Christ Christ, resurrection of ............................ 12 Resurrection, resurrection bodies .............. 189 Revelation............................................. 189 Righteousness ....................................... 189 Roman Catholicis m ................................. 643 2nd Vatican Council............................. 646 and Islam .......................................... 667 Comparison Grid with cults................... 666 Council of Trent on justification ............. 660 Does Purgatory deny sufficiency of Christ's Sacrifice? ....................................... 656 Is the Bible alone sufficient? ................. 648 Mary ................................................. 652 Purgatory .......................................... 655 Purgatory and 1 Cor 3:15 ..................... 658 Sacred Tradition .......................... 646, 648 Terminology ....................................... 650

1122

Tradition ..................................... 644, 645 view on justification ............................. 662 Why necessary to write about? .............. 644 Rosary ........................................... 189, 651 Russell, Charles Taze............................... 785 S Sabbath......................................... 474, 503 Sacerdotalism........................................ 190 Sacrament...................................... 190, 651 Sacrifice Why animal sacrifices? ......................... 462 Sadducee .............................................. 190 Salat .................................................. 1032 Salvation................................. 190, 205, 756 according to Mormonism....................... 862 according to Watchtower ...................... 786 by grace or works? .............................. 531 in Islam...................................1041, 1042 Is baptism necessary for? ................98, 727 is of God............................................ 213 Is speaking in tongues necessary for? ..... 574 Salvation .............................................. 7 Salvation by Grace....................................12 Sanctification ..................................... 8, 753 Sanctify, Sanctification ............................ 190 Sanhedrin ............................................. 190 Santa Claus ........................................... 986 Satan ................................................... 485 According to Mormonism....................... 862 and Islam ........................................ 1085 and universalism................................. 635 Saum ................................................. 1032 Scholasticism......................................... 191 Science and Christianity................................... 229 and the Bible ...................................... 229 Science and Bible .....................................91 Scriptures ............................................. 191 Second Coming, The ............................... 191 Secularism in the church ...................................... 249 Septuagint, The...................................... 191 Serpent Seed ......................................... 711 Shahada ............................................. 1032 shahda ............................................... 1020 Shechem............................................... 389 Shepherd's Chapel .................................. 705 and serpent seed................................. 711 and the Kenites................................... 711 and the rapture ................................... 713 Doctrines of........................................ 708 is it Christian?..................................... 709 What is it?.......................................... 706 Who is Arnold Murray ........................... 707 Shi'ite................................................. 1029 Shiites ................................................ 1021

Shirk...................................................1035 Simon of Cyrene .................................... 516 Sin ...................................................... 191 All forgiven or not?.............................. 511 Sinaiticus.............................................. 522 Situational relativism .............................1006 Skepticism ............................................ 191 Socinianism..........................................1097 Sola Fide .............................................. 191 Sola Gratia ............................................ 191 Sola Scriptura ........................................ 191 Son of God....................................191, 1058 sons of God ........................................... 485 Sophocles ............................................. 398 Soteriology ........................................... 192 Soul JW view of ......................................... 799 Soul Sleep ............................................ 192 Sovereignty........................................... 192 Spiritual Gifts ........................................ 192 Staff .................................................... 511 Subjectivism ......................................... 192 Suetonius ............................................. 398 Suffering Why does God allow it? ........................ 456 Sufi .............................................1035, See Sunnah ...............................................1035 Sunni ..................................................1029 Sunnis .................................................1035 Sunnites ..............................................1020 Supralapsarianism.................................. 192 Surah..................................................1025 Susa .................................................... 389 Suzerain-Vassal ..................................... 475 Swoon Theory ....................................... 429 Synagogue............................................ 192 Synergism ............................................ 192 synoptic gospels..................................... 500 Synoptic Gospels .................................... 192 T Tabernacle ............................................ 193 Table Chronology of Jesus' Baptism and Temptation .................................................... 545 Crucifixion Chronology ......................... 537 of Cleansing the Temple ....................... 535 Population statistic from Ezra 2 and Neh. 7 .................................................... 540 Resurrection Chronology ...................... 542 Tacitus ..................................... 79, 385, 398 Taqwah ...............................................1035 Teleological argument ............................. 193 Teleological Argument ............................. 278 Teleology .............................................. 193 Temple Cleansing of ....................................... 535

1123

cleansing of by Jesus ........................... 506 Destruction in 70AD. ............................ 392 Temptation ............................................ 193 Testament ............................................. 193 Testimonium Flavianum ........................... 414 Testimony in Mormonism..................................... 875 Tetragrammaton (YHWH) ......................... 193 Thallus.............................................80, 385 The Gallic Wars ...................................... 467 The Roman Road .................................... 214 Theism attacks on by atheists .......................... 969 Themes NT themes found in OT? ....................... 448 Theodicy ............................................... 193 Theology ............................................... 194 Theophany ............................................ 194 Three heavens ....................................... 524 Thucydides ............................................ 398 Tithe .................................................... 194 Total Depravity ...................................... 194 Tradition ............................................... 651 Bible verses........................................ 645 Transcendence....................................... 194 Transcendental Argument ........................ 995 Transfiguration....................................... 194 Transubstantiation ........................... 194, 651 Tree of Zaqqum.................................... 1031 Trent Council of, on justification ..................... 660 Tribulation, The ...................................... 194 Trichotomy ..................................... 118, 195 Trinity ............... 4, 195, 532, 755, 1055, 1056 According to Mormonism....................... 862 and Islam ........................................ 1055 Another look at... ..................................56 denied by the Watchtower..................... 780 Early Trinitarian Quotes ..........................58 Holy Spirit, the......................................14 subordination in? ...................................53 The Trinity, what is it?............................53 Trinity Chart, the...................................55 Tritheism ..................................... 196, 1097 Truth known only thru the Watchtower............ 778 Type, Typology....................................... 196 U Ummah............................................... 1035 Unbelievers leading worship? ................................. 253 Uncial ................................................... 196 Unitarianism ................................... 196, 638 Unity in the church ................................. 240 Universalism................................... 196, 586 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 3:9, all saved? ...... 599

1 Tim. 4:10 and Universalism................ 597 a challenge to..................................... 637 a look at the word 'aionion'................... 607 and election ....................................... 631 and Satan.......................................... 635 and the cults...................................... 591 Can a Christian be a universalist? .......... 590 Christian Universalism ......................... 588 Concluding throughts on....................... 640 danger of........................................... 627 danger of illustrated ............................ 629 demonic forces not saved ..................... 623 Does God hate anyone? ....................... 618 eternal punishment and God's justice ..... 626 Fallen angels go to lake of fire ............... 624 Forever and ever ................................ 611 Is hell eternal? ................................... 620 Is it God's will that all be saved? Objections answered ....................................... 602 Mark 3 28:29 Translations ........................... 595 Mark 3:28-29 and Universalism............. 594 Matt. 25:46 and Universalism................ 592 More objections answered .................... 606 Scritpures that say not all are saved....... 613 the age to come .................................. 614 the unfogiveable sin ............................ 614 what does Satan want?........................ 627 What is unitarianism? .......................... 638 Uz ....................................................... 485 V Vatican 2nd Council ........................................ 646 Vaticanus.............................................. 522 Vellum ................................................. 196 Venial Sin ...................................... 197, 651 Verses 1 Cor. 1:2.......................................... 825 Isa. 43 10 ................................................. 468 Vicar of Christ........................................ 651 Vicarious Atonement ............................... 197 vinegar................................................. 509 W Watchtower contradictions in its literature ................ contradictions in literature .................... Controls JW's thinking? ........................ false prophecies of .............................. only the org. has the truth.................... points to itself .................................... Quotes from....................................... Salvation requirements ........................ Truth only known thru ......................... Watchtowerites...................................... 806 805 777 800 777 776 797 786 778 773

1124

What is salvation?................................... 368 What is sin? ........................................... 368 What is truth? ...................................... 1015 Wisdom ................................................ 529 Word, The ............................................. 197 World View ............................................ 220 Worship ................................................ 197 Wrath................................................... 197

Y Yin and Yang ......................................... 197 Yoga .................................................... 198 Z Zakat ......................................... 1032, 1035 Zaqqum...............................................1031 Zebedee ............................................... 505 Zerubbabel ........................................... 488 Zodiac .................................................. 198

1125